Three-year-old girl who fell into an icy fishpond in a small Austrian town in the Alps. She was lost beneath the surface for thirty minutes before her parents found her on the pond bottom and pulled her up. Following instructions from an emergency physician on the phone, they began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A rescue team arrived eight minutes later. The girl had a body temperature of sixty-six degrees, and no pulse. Her pupils were dilated and did not react to light, indicating that her brain was no longer working.

After six hours, her core temperature reached 98.6 degrees. The team tried to put her on a breathing machine, but the pond water had damaged her lungs too severely for oxygen to reach her blood. The surgeons opened her chest down the middle with a power saw and sewed lines to and from the ECMO unit into her aorta and her beating heart. The team moved the girl into intensive care, with her chest still open and covered with plastic foil. Over the next two days, all her organs recovered except her brain. A CT scan showed global brain swelling, which is a sign of diffuse damage, but no actual dead zones. So the team drilled a hole into the girl’s skull, threaded in a probe to monitor her cerebral pressure, For more than a week, she lay comatose. Then, slowly, she came back to life. Two weeks after her accident, she went home. She was like any little girl again.

What makes her recovery astounding isn’t just the idea that someone could come back from two hours in a state that would once have been considered death. It’s also the idea that a group of people in an ordinary hospital could do something so enormously complex. To save this one child, scores of people had to carry out thousands of steps correctly: placing the heart-pump tubing into her without letting in air bubbles; maintaining the sterility of her lines, her open chest, the burr hole in her skull; keeping a temperamental battery of machines up and running. The degree of difficulty in any one of these steps is substantial. Then you must add the difficulties of orchestrating them in the right sequence, with nothing dropped, leaving some room for improvisation, but not too much.

A decade ago, Israeli scientists published a study in which engineers observed patient care in I.C.U.s for twenty-four-hour stretches. They found that the average patient required a hundred and seventy-eight individual actions per day, ranging from administering a drug to suctioning the lungs, and every one of them posed risks. Remarkably, the nurses and doctors were observed to make an error in just one per cent of these actions—but that still amounted to an average of two errors a day with every patient. Intensive care succeeds only when we hold the odds of doing harm low enough for the odds of doing good to prevail. This is hard.

In 2001, though, a critical-care specialist at Johns Hopkins Hospital named Peter Pronovost decided to give it a try. He didn’t attempt to make the checklist cover everything; he designed it to tackle just one problem, the one that nearly killed Anthony DeFilippo: line infections. On a sheet of plain paper, he plotted out the steps to take in order to avoid infections when putting a line in. Doctors are supposed to (1) wash their hands with soap, (2) clean the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine antiseptic, (3) put sterile drapes over the entire patient, (4) wear a sterile mask, hat, gown, and gloves, and (5) put a sterile dressing over the catheter site once the line is in. Check, check, check, check, check. These steps are no-brainers; they have been known and taught for years. So it seemed silly to make a checklist just for them. Still, Pronovost asked the nurses in his I.C.U. to observe the doctors for a month as they put lines into patients, and record how often they completed each step. In more than a third of patients, they skipped at least one.

Pronovost and his colleagues monitored what happened for a year afterward. The results were so dramatic that they weren’t sure whether to believe them: the ten-day line-infection rate went from eleven per cent to zero.

The checklists provided two main benefits, Pronovost observed. First, they helped with memory recall, especially with mundane matters that are easily overlooked in patients undergoing more drastic events.

A second effect was to make explicit the minimum, expected steps in complex processes.

Checklists established a higher standard of baseline performance.

These are, of course, ridiculously primitive insights. Pronovost is routinely described by colleagues as “brilliant,” “inspiring,” a “genius.” He has an M.D. and a Ph.D. in public health from Johns Hopkins, and is trained in emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and critical-care medicine. But, really, does it take all that to figure out what house movers, wedding planners, and tax accountants figured out ages ago?

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande#ixzz1isarHafg

Are You Up For a Challenge?

 I was referred to this Site by one my Mentors and I am totally blown away by this program. This is used by Top Fortune Corporations, Top Athletes, Business people and by anyone who wants to Improve and Change for the better and to Achieve various levels of Success. This is a breakthrough System, which will help us Focus and Work towards our Goals using Various Proven principles and several Sub Conscious Principles.

As it mentions throughout the Program SUCCESS LOVES SPEED and Time is the Most Valuable Commodity. Let us Not Waste One more Minute. Check it out and use the program , it is very powerful.

We are overwhelmed everyday with the number of decisions we need to make, the number of choices we have, the amount of Information we need to process, so it makes it difficult to find a solution to the problems we are facing.

As Albert Einstein said, “WE CANNOT SOLVE PROBLEMS AT THE SAME LEVEL AT
WHICH WE CREATED THEM.”

Problems are created when there is a mismatch between what you have and what
you want. Problem solving is what we do to reduce the gap between these two
factors. However, some problems can seem overwhelming or particularly difficult,
challenging your problem-solving skills. Using a step-by-step process in these
situations can enhance your ability to identify effective solutions.

The solution basically lies in breaking down the problem into smaller manageable Chunks of information. Ken Watanabe, International bestseller author of Problem Solving 101, in his book shows us a simple way to find solutions to complex problems.

These are the high level steps you can take to analyze any problem and find solutions to it.

Step 1:

Understand the current situation.

Step 2:

Identify the root cause of the problem:

Step 3:

Develop an effective action plan; and

Step 4:

Execute until the problem is solved, making modifications as necessary.

It sounds so simple and Intuitive yet we don’t follow these simple techniques when our mind is cluttered with all the different thoughts at once.

It’s a very simple book to learn and simplify the approach we can take to solve our complex problems. He recommends the tool Logic tree to represent the root cause(s) and to find solutions.

Photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/29233640@N07/