Clinical Judgment

In the beginning of medical school, we learned the scientific and humanistic foundations of medical practice.  It isn’t far into medical school, however, before students are introduced to “clinical judgment.”  I think of this as the decision-making process used to decide on a course of action based on the information available, which is always incomplete.  Even within well-studied conditions, it is not possible to know with certainty to which population of patients the person in front of you belongs, and even if the diagnosis is certain, the response to treatment might not be.  Add to this the necessary cost-analysis and the inherent conflicts of interest, and the practice of medicine can suddenly become quite challenging.  Usually within one’s own practice, a physician becomes accustomed to the various considerations that are required, so that only the rare patient is enough out of the ordinary to require extensive additional concern.  In the US, it is likely that your patient is actually in a population that has been studied, that any relevant guidelines apply to him or her, and that if you are wrong you will have an opportunity to follow through with another decision.

Although western physicians have contributed greatly to the care of the poor in developing countries through mission teams and individual efforts, I have always found this judgment issue to be quite challenging in a new location and culture.  It is difficult on a short-term basis to know what options the patient has available, what the risks are in that patient for the procedure or treatment that you want to give (given the differences in equipment, sterilization, and so forth), and how complications will be addressed.  Here in Shisong, we have the opportunity to provide, in many ways, “first-world” medical care to cardiac patients on a long-term basis; yet the judgment issues remain challenging and the uncertainty, while not paralyzing, is disconcerting at best.  In western countries, rheumatic heart disease is not defeated but it is rare, and to see severe rheumatic disease in a very young person is nearly unheard of.  [This is the point at which the issue of prevention is usually raised.  Everyone who treats advanced rheumatic disease in developing countries is aware that the problem should be preventable.  How to prevent it in this cultural setting is less obvious, and in the meantime it does not seem appropriate to refuse to treat the patients in whom the disease has not been prevented.]
 

Dr. Mve Mvondo and I have written an article for submission to a journal which addresses the issue of repair vs. replacement of diseased mitral valves in sub-Saharan Africa.  Although the article addresses primarily the treatment of mitral valve regurgitation, several of the concerns are general.  I outline a few of them here for your understanding (for my non-medical readers, some of these are not unique to Africa and apply to the decision-making process in our own lives in the US, especially if you have faced a rare disease or a treatment not covered by insurance).  Most of the patients who present for surgery are young (between 10 and 30).  Patients who are young who require valve replacement almost always receive a mechanical valve, because their durability is much better than current tissue valves.  There are several issues associated with living with a mechanical valve, but the most important one is the need for anticoagulation.  Lifelong anticoagulation is necessary to prevent strokes and to maintain valve function.  In the US, this is a burden because of the need for on-going monitoring as well as the risk for bleeding.  Athletes and people with high-risk jobs occasionally refuse this treatment rather than change their lifestyle.  Although there are modern valves which might require less anticoagulation, it is not yet certain that it is safe to forego anticoagulation in most circumstances.  Here in Cameroon, there are numerous additional considerations to subjecting a patient to lifelong coagulation.  First is the understanding of the patient that this is a necessary commitment.  It is not uncommon for a patient to stop their medication because they decided that it was unnecessary.  Another consideration is cost; neither the medication nor the monitoring is free, and most patients do not have insurance or much money.   The need for many patients to travel long distances to get their medication and monitoring also impedes successful therapy for many people.  Even where there are roads, most people do not own cars, and travel is also not free or easy.  Pregnancy is an important issue for many of these patients.  It is possible for many women to safely bear children, but it requires intensive prenatal care, careful drug management, and hospital delivery because of the risk of bleeding as well as the underlying poor cardiac function present in many of these young women.  This is a culture in which bearing several children is desired and expected.  Recommending against this is difficult, and in many cases impractical, so even if a patient agrees with all of the recommendations it is unwise to assume that she will follow through.

The alternative, then, in the case of mitral valve disease, is valve repair.  Although this is not meant to be an extensive discussion on mitral valve therapy, I will point out two important issues.  The best methods of valve repair in the setting of inflammatory disease, especially mitral stenosis, are controversial, and in western countries this is not routinely attempted.  Secondly, a failed valve repair here is even more of a problem than in the west.  Many patients will not return for follow-up, most patients cannot afford a second operation, and the risk of repeat chest surgery in this setting is significant given the limitations and costs of blood products, monitoring, and advanced supportive therapies.

An additional consideration here that is somewhat different than my practice in the US is the advanced stage of disease at which most patients present.  There are evidence—based guidelines in Europe and in the US recommending the stage at which the benefit of surgery will outweigh the risk.  Even if the risk of surgery is slightly higher in this setting (and I am not sure that it is), most patients present well past the recommended time of surgery.  Even if they come for consultation early in their disease, they wait a long time for surgery due to fear, lack of support, and financial considerations.  And of course, the options that Americans and Europeans have of heart transplant or artificial hearts are not available at all without travelling abroad.

One final area that looms large, that I have mentioned above, is cost.  In the US, cost is something of a general issue, and we do not often consider it as a deciding factor in the treatment of individual patients.  At the cardiac center, we can overcome the cost issue for the in-patient care of many patients.  However, this does not make the issue go away.  Some patients have co-morbidities or suspicion of co-morbidities, and additional evaluation could be beneficial.  We do not have a CT scanner in Shisong (although hopefully that is coming), so if a patient has a problem best evaluated by CT scan, they must travel several hours and pay for the CT scan, and bring the results back to us.  There is other testing and treatments for which patients must travel and pay additional fees, and we must decide whether to proceed without the tests or not.  In the US, there is always a point at which further testing is not cost-effective, but that moving target is even more difficult here.  From an anesthesia standpoint, deciding to proceed now versus advocating waiting until different drugs or supplies are available is not something that often applies in my practice in Rochester.

In the US, we often over-test, over-treat, still fail to have optimal outcomes, and assume that someone else will pay for all of it.  Here, the answer is frequently, “you can’t have that,” and we are still left to make decisions with the information that we have based on our discussions with the patients and hope to honor their trust and dignity.  I am confident that we always act with good will and that the personal conflicts of interest are minimized.  The rest remains difficult.


From today’s liturgy: “They ate and had their fill, and what they craved the Lord gave them; they were not disappointed in what they craved.” (Cf. Ps 78:29-30)