You might remember the following from high school science class: "A body at rest tends to remain at rest; a body in motion tends to remain in motion".  This principle pretty much applies to people, too.  It seems like the hardest part of taking on a project that you know must get done soon is to start applying your efforts to it.

     There are really two issues in play.  First, there's that momentum principle you learned in high school.  But there's also another retarding force; you don't quite know what to do to get started productively even after you get your motor running.  And here's the thing: these two factors reinforce one another, often resulting in paralysis - at least until your deadline looms so large that you panic and start doing just about anything to convince yourself that at least you're doing something.

    I'm not a fan of waiting until the last minute to get started, primarily because the quality of one's output often suffers with this approach.  So why am I raising this basic characteristic of human behavior?  I'm raising it as a matter of self-interest!  In my consulting practice I very often see clients and prospective clients really struggle with getting started.  It's common for them to agonize over exactly what they want me to do - nailing down every conceivable detail before asking for my plan of attack.  At one level this is great because it results in a tightly defined engagement plan.  But consider this: The resulting engagement plan just might be wrong, or at least sub-optimal.

     I have a better idea.  Involve me sooner in the process.  Let me help define not only the plan of attack but the objectives and requirements, too.  The end result is likely to be better and arrive quicker.  And, best of all, it will help you get started.

      Last summer a series of patient injuries occurred at Sunrise Children's Hospital in Las Vegas.  As reported at that time, it was not clear whether 14 such incidents were accidental or intentional.  But the report of these incidents, characterized as "disrupted catheters", stimulated a discussion about the ease with which tubing connections that should be incompatible - like IVs and feeding tubes - can be made.  Unfortunately some such connections are possible, allowing human error to result in tragedy.

     I don't know the extent of this problem.  How many injuries and deaths occur annually as a result of such misconnections?  If this is a significant problem, we should eliminate it over time by means of designed incompatibility.   It seems to me the ideal resolution mechanism is a series of AAMI standards, or maybe an AdvaMed initiative of some kind.  A regulatory mandate is unlikely to be the best choice.  This problem is fixable.  If the problem is pervasive, let's fix it.