I have been meaning to write a post like this for some time now, but prompted to today by two things: one is an ongoing debate about non-psychologists using “CBT” with people who are experiencing pain, and the other is a conversation with Chai Chuah, Director General of the Ministry of Health in New Zealand. Let me set the scene:
We know there are a lot of people in our communities who have relatively simple pain problems – a temporarily painful knee after walking up hills for the first time in ages, a painful back that “just happened” overnight, a rotator cuff problem that makes it difficult to get dressed or hang out washing. We know that there are some pretty simple things that will help in these situations: some reassurance that the awful thing the person is worried about isn’t likely to happen (no, you won’t end up in a wheelchair because of your back pain, and no it’s not cancer); some pain relief to help with sleeping more soundly and so we can keep doing things; and gradually returning to normal occupations including work even if the pain hasn’t completely gone.
We also know that approximately 8% of people with low back pain will ultimately end up contributing to the most enormous spend in healthcare that we know about – their pain continues, their distress increases, their disability is profound.
BUT before we put all our attention on to this small group of people, I think it’s worthwhile remembering that people in this group are also more likely to have other health conditions, they’re more likely to smoke, to be overweight, to have mental health problems; they also probably come from lower socioeconomic groups, groups including people from minority ethnicities, people who find it much harder to get work, to remain in education and perhaps even people who typically use healthcare more often than the people who get back on their feet more quickly. Data for these statements comes from the 2006 Health and Disability Survey in New Zealand and numerous studies by epidemiologists around the world – back pain is only one of a number of problems people in this group have to deal with. I’m also not saying everyone who gets back pain that lingers has all of these additional concerns – but there is a greater prevalence.
What does this mean?
Well, for a while I’ve been saying that people working in this area of health (musculoskeletal pain) seem to be developed a set of common skills. That is, there is more in common between me and Jason Silvernail, Mike Stewart, Paul Lagerman, Alison Sim, Lars Avemarie, Rajam Roose and many others around the world from many different health professions, than there is between me and a good chunk of people from my own profession of occupational therapy. And I don’t think I’m alone in noticing this. (ps please don’t be offended if I’ve left your name out – you KNOW I’m including you too!)
What’s common amongst us? The ability to see and work with complex, ambiguous, messy and multifactorial situations. Recognising that along with all of our individual professional skills, we also need to have
- effective communication skills,
- critical thinking,
- generating a framework to work from,
- identifying and solving the unique goals and situations the people we work with have,
- ability to step beyond “this is my role” and into “what can be done to reduce this person’s distress and disability?”
- And possibly the most important skill is being able to tolerate not knowing without freaking out.
That ongoing cycle of assess -> hypothesise -> test -> review -> reassess -> hypothesise -> test -> reassess -> review
This is important because when people come to see us with a complex problem (and increasingly this seems to happen), the simple models break down. The tissue-based, the germ-based, the simple single-factor approaches do not fully explain what’s going on, and don’t provide adequate solutions.
What this means is we, ALL health professionals, will need to think about where our skills lie. Are we people who enjoy pumping through a big number of relatively simple problems? If so, that’s great! Your contribution is clear-cut, you know what you need to do, and you refine and practice your skill-set until you’re expert. I think this is awesome. Or, are we people who relish complex, who look at situations and see that it’s messy and complicated but don’t get put off? In this group we probably use skills for researching and planning, operationalising or getting things started, and we’re often the people who network furiously. We do this not because we’re social butterflies (me being the ultimate introvert), but because we know WE CAN’T DO THIS WORK ALONE!
What about clinical skills and scopes and boundaries?
You know, I am not entirely sure that anyone except the health professional him or herself cares who does what they do to help someone get better. It’s not whether a nurse or a speech language therapist or a podiatrist or a medical practitioner, it’s whether the person (or people) treats each person as unique, listens carefully, is honest and straightforward about what can and can’t be done, and knows when his or her skills are not sufficient so calls in the rest of a team for help. There is a time for working beyond your scope, and a time for calling in an expert – but to recognise when an expert is needed requires knowing enough about the problem to know that an expert might be helpful.
What this means in healthcare, I think, is adopting a framework that works across diagnosis and into the idea that people actively process what happens to them, they make their minds up about what’s needed, and they can learn to do things differently. I’d call this self-management, but I could equally call it a cognitive behavioural approach, or behaviour change, or motivational approaches or even patient-centred or person-centred care. The idea that people understand more than we often give credit, that they make sense from what happens to and around them, and that this knowledge influences what they do comes from a cognitive behavioural model of people, and fits beautifully within a biopsychosocial framework.
So, when I advocate getting skilled at cognitive behavioural skills, I could equally use the term “person-centred” or “self-management” – whatever the label, the contributions from each professional involved will ultimately influence the health experience and actions of the person we’re seeing.
Isn’t it time to be excited about opportunities to develop and to extend our skills? And if this doesn’t excite you, isn’t it great that there are a group of people who will respond to the simple and straightforward – but let’s not confuse the two situations.
Bronnie, your musing in relation to the treatment of those in pain has led me to tentatively expand the original question “Who does what in a brave new healthcare world?”
It then becomes: “Who does what, to whom, why, at what cost, and who pays ..?”
Exactly John. In the world that Chai Chua described, it will depend entirely on the problem/s. I see much of the problem with living with pain is associated more with poverty, lack of access to services beyond health (eg education, work, leisure), than it is with the pathology presumed to underpin the experience. This doesn’t bode well for endless sub-specialties, does it?!
Bronnie, as I see the current unsatisfactory situation, we all (and I include myself) keep bumping up against a metaphorical brick wall – the aporia of pain. We have attempted to reduce pain to an agentive “thing” that resides somewhere within our nervous system. This reductionist approach has provided us with a wealth of information, but we lack the language in which to make sense of it. Fortunately, there are other approaches to people in pain that are worth pursuing, but they have yet to be fully fleshed out before they can be applied in a clinical context. I agree about the importance of poverty, homelessness, family disruption etc. and this is why the Faculty of Pain Medicine (Australia & New Zealand) has championed a “socio-psycho-biological” approach for its trainees. However, solutions to these social problems are the primary responsibility of our politicians and lawmakers.
I think it’s part of our responsibility as health professionals to raise issues of justice and equity – and yes, politicians and lawmakers are responsible for passing laws to address these issues. That’s a problem when political ideology gets in the way of recognising the issues that underpin health inequalities and injustices.
Well said…patient centered treatment should be everyone’s professional obligation.