At a recent conference, a poster was published in abstract form showing a negative result.
This was not a ground-breaking moment which will be held up in years to come as an example of how to advance scientific progress, or, indeed as a shining example of a service re-organisation which led to widescale sustainable change across the UK.
As it turned out, when it came to the time for the authors to describe and expand on their work, they didn’t turn up. There was no representative of the team to explain what they had tried to achieve with the scheme, what factors had made it less successful than they had hoped, and how they might approach it again, if they really did feel it was still a good idea.
I think it is a real shame that, having submitted an abstract, the authors were unable to attend, or send a representative.
What was a greater shame was the way in which the paper was described by the chair of the meeting. I can’t remember the exact words, but they went along the lines of:
“Well here is another one of those pie in the sky schemes, which someone spends a whole load of money on and then it folds within a year – like so many of us have been involved in”
This was greeted by a ripple of knowing chuckles in the room.
Fair enough – the idea fell flat, it cost money, and didn’t really produce any improvments.
And that is a big but; there is in that statement, an subsequent laughter a failure more significant than that highlighted in the study.
It is the failure of the medical profession to tolerate less than perfect resuts, it is the reinforcing of a professional culture where teams are not allowed to help the world out by sharing lessons of a plan gone wrong, it is the failure of our wider culture to understand that one cannot propose the perfect answer first time, and it is the collective failure of the people in that room – me included – to say “hang on – lets look at this another way”
Instead of the statement above – why not:
“Well here is a record of an innovative scheme which sadly wasn’t successful, and highlights how even a well-resourced, committed group can discover that some ideas won’t make a huge difference – it would be great if the team could let us all know what they came up against so that we don’t all have to go through the same challenges and problems that they did.
Failure is the only option. This talk by Tim Harford highlights the importance of failing as a route to ultimate success.
or view it here
Moreover, this editorial highlights that iterative change is what is required to advance the frontiers of the practice of medicine – and advocates the use of the SQUIRE guidelines to really explore what went right and wrong in studies – particularly those looking at changes in practice, or service innovations. There are simpler versions of tools to write projects up too – like the one on The Network
So – I would encourage you when next looking at an attempt to improve a service or change practice which ‘failed’ not to dismiss it as another one to chalk up to experience, but instead as a rich opportunity to learn why the people involved came up against problems. If as a profession we will only accept the finished article, and learn nothing of how the changes occur, we are doomed to repeat the failures of the past.
I applaud the authors of the poster for having the guts to publish the news that not all ideas work, but would have been bowled over if that committment went as far as explaining it to others working in the same field.