Why do good deeds sometimes fail to work?

Joan Escarrabill

Cities are looking for elegant solutions for severe and complex problems. Barcelona's Eixample can be a good example of an elegant solution. But in cities, sometimes, there are also critical points for which a good solution is never found. Glòries Square in Barcelona can be one of those critical points of bad solution: heavy traffic in all directions and subway and railway tunnels that pass very close to the water table. Many solutions have been proposed in recent years and the latest one has taken more than six years to come true. I do not know engineering or urban planning, but I am sure that the proposed design has been carried out by competent professionals who have sought the best solution or, at least, the best viable solution or the one that most minimizes the negative impact. I am also sure that the designers have thought about the needs of all the people who will be using the infrastructure. But from the very moment it opened, in early April, it hasn't worked and nobody seems to be happy about it. In real life, we have a difficult problem with the best possible solution and a bad result. How can it be that things well done sometimes don't work? I don't know, but I think the metaphor of Glòries Square in Barcelona helps me to comment on three articles I've recently read.

The individualistic short-sightedness of health care

The Global Action Plan for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases of the WHO aims to reduce by 25% the premature mortality due to these pathologies by the year 2025 (strategy 25 x 25) and, therefore, concentrates on strategies that reduce the following 7 risk factors: a) alcohol consumption, b) insufficient physical activity, c) tobacco consumption, d) high blood pressure, e) excessive salt intake, f) diabetes, and g) obesity. Confronted by this individualistic drift of public health, an international group of researchers has published in the Lancet the results of a meta-analysis with 48 cohort studies and 1.7 million individual records, where they have shown that poverty has more explanatory force by itself over the number of years of life lost that many of the factors 25 x 25, in addition to having an undeniable cross-influence by enhancing the aforementioned risk factors. It’s important to clarify that the cohorts selected by the researchers correspond to first world countries, so the analyzed groups of low socio-economic level  represent poverty pockets that are basically concentrated in deprived neighbourhoods of large cities or in certain collectives such as the destitute or the immigrants.

Cumulative complexity and minimally disruptive medicine

The clinical model based exclusively on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic diseases is precipitating medicine to fail. Addressing complex realities from partial positions is, at least, unfortunate, and despite this evidence, health care systems continue to finance the fragmented provision of services. Mary Tinetti and Terri Fried warned us in 2004, in "The end of the disease era", that it should evolve towards a bio-psycho-social model, prioritizing the integral evaluation of each person, adjusting the therapeutic plans to each reality and offering integrated services. The analysis was timely except that the authors were wrong when they predicted that, the old model would end with the advent of the new century.

Minimally Disruptive Medicine

"With regards to the chronic diseases, less can be more." The Wall Street Journal published that statement on the 8th of April last in an interview with Dr. Victor Montori, a diabetologist and Director of "Health Care Delivery Research Program" at a Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Dr. Montori told the journalist that one of the best strategies for the clinical management of patients with more than one chronic disease is to know how to slow down, namely how to give clinical practice some rest.

Reporter: What is minimally disruptive medicine?

Dr. Montori: Is the health care designed to achieve objectives of improved health for patients with various chronic conditions leaving the smallest possible footprint in their lives? To achieve this, patients and clinicians should jointly make decisions about which treatments are best suited to the patient’s lifestyle.