Posts Tagged ‘research’

Living the Dream – Southwest Florida Global Research Institute

January 30th, 2012

Greetings From Florida - Southwest Florida Research Institute - Nick Jacobs, FACHEI’ve been on a blog hiatus — the longest since I began writing this back in 2005, but for good reason. Another former trumpet player, Kevin Taylor and I have been working on the creation of a research institute in Southwest Florida.  It will embrace an ambitious research mission, academic excellence and become the biotech engine of what could become the future of Southwest Florida’s clinical research, environmental, aging research, behavioral health and translational medicine efforts for the region.

The structure of the not-for-profit arm of this project and the strategic direction of this new 501(c)3 corporation will be the Southwest Florida Global Research Institute.

The initial primary services outlined in this plan are to outfit and set up a tissue repository. From this hub, numerous spokes will emanate that will include opportunities for faculty-student involvement from the Florida Gulf Coast University and other Florida universities, as well as research opportunities for organizations that will eventually feed other related organizations such as an incubator and an accelerator.

It is our intent to focus on the various ideas, concepts, and programs that have been embraced by the leadership of all of the local organizations with whom we have interacted during this effort to include health systems, universities, the private and public pharmaceutical and research communities, environmental science, public health officials and political leaders.

In the financial summary of a business plan, it is evident that the revenue from programs, grants contributions, sponsorships and subsidies must initially be the fiscal drivers behind all of the suggested work at SFGRI with a clear goal of having financial streams in place by year four of the operation to allow the organization to not only survive but also to thrive. With all relevant guidelines, requirements, restrictions, and recommendations in mind, let us begin with an analysis of each suggested area of concentration.

Southwest Florida Regional map - Nick Jacobs FACHE - HealingHospitals.comThe Southwest Florida Global Research Institute tissue repository is a key to growth for both research and biotech efforts in the region. Physician, faculty, staff and community involvement will all determine the degree of success that will ultimately emanate from this key research component, but the ultimate determinant for the success of this repository will come from professional guidance and initial oversight provided through the Clinical Breast Care Project’s Windber Research Institute Tissue Repository.

It is imperative that this program carries the most immediate gain for the overall success and future of the institute. The very essence of this initiative revolves around not only equipment and space, but also quality tissue derived through comprehensive protocols. In time, this effort could lead to an ongoing stream of funding that will help to meet the myriad fiscal needs of the other aspects of this project.

Equipment for setting up this program is relatively inexpensive, but expertise and recommendations for the actual business model are not and it is our recommendation that these efforts should be led through a consulting assignment with the Clinical Breast Care Project’s Windber Research Institute. In order to activate a comprehensive program such as this, highly skilled PhD’s and techs will be needed. Having contributed to the design of the numerous other programs and centers, we would recommend the researchers and employees at the Windber Research Institute as consultants to assist in this effort.  Under their direction, they have successfully put together and managed a similar program that has been identified by the National Cancer Institute as the only platinum quality tissue repository in the United States. They also have world-class experience in data management for the control of the tissue, as well as expertise in accounting, staffing, billing, and management systems that allow for the comprehensive management of the collected tissue.

Windber Research Institute - Image by PlanetRussell.netThe timeline for this program can be relatively immediate, but the overall effort must be seen as neutral and independent from all of the participating organizations. This tissue repository will contribute to biotech research which will enrich physician recruitment opportunities, for profit biotech spin-offs and training experiences for students in the schools of arts and science, business and public health at the local universities.`

In summary, the Southwest Florida Global Research Institute will be the centerpiece for what will become the vision of this region; care for aging, preventative medicine, auto-immune and diseases of the brain while spinning off companies to address all of these maladies and meeting these challenges. It will become part of a world-wide effort based in Southwest Florida with a singular goal —  to improve the health of humanity on many different levels.  That will be the mission of the Southwest Florida Global Research Institute.

Learn more:

Chico's in Lee County, near Ft. Myers, FL

Share

42 comments »

Posted in Future, Healthcare, Science

Tags:

On Cancer Research, Incentives and Cures

September 18th, 2011

From a blog entitled TTAG, The Truth About Genetics, comes a scathing indictment of the American Cancer Society. Truthfully, some of the contents are infuriating, but especially so, because as a co-founder of a research institute, I’ve lived them. First hand. When I saw that  the American Cancer Society’s two CEOs make a combined $1.6 million dollars in salary, I wasn’t shocked. Heck, the president of a 120 bed hospital who retired recently made almost that much. ACS is a big organization with lots of moving parts. It takes talented people to run big organizations, and they typically don’t work just for food.

From the TTAG  blog:

Today, ACS’s revenue is $1 billion, and the amount that goes to research is a measly 16%. Research is not the primary goal of ACS, and one of the great things they do is help patients undergoing chemotherapy by buying them plane tickets and paying for their costs. But, even when you consider other program costs like cancer treatment for patients, ACS has the lowest score for charities in terms of efficiency: 1-2 stars out of 4. (24.78%, according to CharityNavigator.org)

See also:

Once again, no surprise. The main issue that I had with the ACS was that their research funding, as meager as it is, goes to the “Good Ole Boys,” the group that is already part of the NIH/NCI club. Okay, you say, they have to have some standards. The Komen people don’t follow that same “Good Ole Boy” path, and thank goodness. They look for good science wherever they can find it.

So, what’s the real reason that I get upset? I sometimes think I’ve written too many posts about this already, but let me say it one more time: Unless and until we realign the system that currently is used to fund basic science in this country, we will never find true cures for cancer. There is very little to no incentive to cooperate, to work together, to encourage scientists to share and to reward them with grants for cooperating.  In fact, the entire system actively discourages it. It is a “Diva”-based system, that encourages silos of power around individuals.

Bottom line? We have a healthcare system that does not support wellness and prevention, but  instead financially rewards sickness and continuous testing and care for what may have been preventable ailments, and we have a research system that discourages cooperation and collaboration. We have a pharmaceutical industry that is interested in financial blockbusters…just like the movie industry.  We have a political system that caused our country’s credit rating to be downgraded and the price of money to escalate, and finally, we have an infastructure that is crumbling.

The good news, however, is that we still are the United States of America, and if we work together T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R  this can all be fixed.  It’s time for those of us who understand this to be heard.

Health 2.0 Leadership (1 of 2) from Nick Jacobs, FACHE on Vimeo.

Sandpaper sheets, green jello and patients who leave with infections they didn’t have when they were admitted. Hospitals DON’T have to be this way. Nick Jacobs FACHE reveals how, as CEO, he transformed a rural, critical care hospital from near bankruptcy to a consistently profitable, internationally-recognized model of patient-centered care and innovation. By creating a hospital environment that embodies healing in every aspect of its operations, Nick’s hospital also achieved one of the lowest acquired (nosocomial) infection rates in the U.S. for five years running.

Share

40 comments »

Posted in Healthcare, Partnerships, Public Health

Tags:

Coffee and Cancer

May 19th, 2011

Several years ago, at the Clinical Breast Care Project’s (CBCP) offsite retreat with the physicians from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, our biomedical informatics group had prepared a demonstration for the CBCP’s Scientific Advisory Board, a group of distinguished scientists, breast cancer consultants and physicians.

Colonel Craig D. Shriver, MC Director, Clinical Breast Care Project Program Director and Chief, General Surgery Walter Reed Army Medical Center

COL Craig D. Shriver, MC Director, Clinical Breast Care Project (CBCP), Program Director & Chief of General Surgery, Walter Reed Army Medical Center

As the 7:00 PM meeting time approached, it was obvious that there was not going to be a quorum present to start the formal meeting.  The two additional members had called in and we sat waiting patiently for the remainder of this august body to join us; fifteen minutes passed, then twenty and finally at about 7:25 PM, the group burst apologetically into the conference room to begin the call.

In case you’re wondering what would have caused such a delayed response from an otherwise very prompt group of individuals, it was the introduction provided by the biomedical informatics group of how this data repository’s capabilities could be explored.  The advisory group was so captivated by the power of this tool that they literally became lost in the excitement of the demonstration.

This form of science was fascinating to me, because having trillions of pieces of data available from thousands of women allowed the queries to be guided by the data itself.  When this power was coupled with the normal questioning generated by the intellectual curiosity of the individual scientists, the outcomes were beyond fascinating.

For example, you could ask the question, “How many of you drink coffee?” The thousands of participants whose biopsies – both malignant and benign – were being stored in the tissue repository at our research institute had agreed to answer over 500 demographic questions relating to their very personal and now anonymous lives. A graph appeared showing the proportion of women who were coffee drinkers. When I then asked, “How many cups a day do you drink?”a new graph appeared with that information as well. My final question was, “How many of you were diagnosed with breast cancer?” This resulted in an interesting fusion of information. The women who consumed the most coffee had the least amount of breast cancer. Of course, that general assumption needed to be researched, confirmed and proven in numerous ways, but there it was, way back in about 2005.

A report that touched on this topic was released during the second week of May, and it was fascinating. It was a Harvard study that followed almost 50,000 male health professionals for more than two decades.  Over 5,000 of the participants got prostate cancer – 642 of them the most lethal form. “For the men who drank the most coffee, their risk of getting this bad form of prostate cancer was about 60 percent lower compared to the men who drank almost no coffee at all,” says Lorelei Mucci, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and an author of the study. The same group reported about a 50 percent reduced risk of dying from prostate cancer among men who took two or three brisk walks a week. As a part of our funding, similar studies performed by the Preventative Medicine Research Institute under the direction of Dr. Dean Ornish also confirmed this exercise theory of risk reduction for prostate cancer.

The new study shows that a 60 percent reduction in risk of aggressive prostate cancer requires at least six cups a day. However, men who drank only three cups a day still had a 30 percent lower chance of getting a lethal prostate cancer, and that’s not bad. Earlier research also suggests coffee reduces the risk of diabetes, liver disease and Parkinson’s.

But here is best part of this story. Just last week, Swedish researchers reported that women who drink at least five cups of coffee a day have nearly a 60 percent lower risk of a particularly aggressive breast cancer that doesn’t respond to estrogen.

Epidemiologist Mucci says more research is needed before officially urging people to drink coffee for its health benefits. Meanwhile, she says, “there’s no reason not to start drinking coffee.

So, all of these years later, the National Cancer Institute is using about 200 of these CBCP biopsies from that same tissue repository to map the Human Breast Cancer Genome, and everyday new reports are emerging that confirm the value of this research. All of this from a little coal mining town in Western Pennsylvania – the location of the research institute and hospital where I served as President and CEO – just three seconds in air miles from where Flight 93 went down.

Now that’s a story.

Share

19 comments »

Posted in Diet, Healthcare, Public Health, Science

Tags:

Along the Way…Things Became Very Interesting

January 31st, 2011

Two years ago I began this new journey, but not until a few months ago did my work in consulting really begin to take shape in a way that could never have been predicted.

As the challenges of our present economic times have become increasingly daunting, my personal and professional journey has become even more dedicated to innovation and creativity. One goal has been to provide new alternatives to past practices that will create value for patients. This means making a contribution to saving and transforming lives, while producing cost savings and financial stability, and developing new markets to enable provider growth in their missions.

Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA - Nick Jacobs, FACHE - Healing Hospitals - SunStone Consulting

The driving force behind my exploration began with asking how we can begin to control those out of control expenses that are currently blurring the lines between continued care for our population, and rationing or elimination of services?  But, the answer(s) must enable us to continue to add healing opportunities for our patients at every turn.

Because my creative energies have always been focused on producing more ways to generate new monies for whatever organizations I have personally represented,  it seemed somewhat foreign to me to spend more time on fiscal issues than creative alternatives.  However, with literally millions of Baby Boomers coming of age each year, it was obvious that our entire culture is at risk both fiscally and socially. Consequently, after listening carefully to my peers, several opportunities presented themselves that would address all levels of these concerns.

Through the combination of their proprietary software and dozens of years of combined knowledge in the healthcare finance field, SunStone Consulting, LLC, spends each and every working day addressing the challenges of finding monies that should already have been captured by hospitals and physician practices, while also creating new opportunities that have heretofore not been explored. That’s where SunStone Management Resources comes into play.

SunStone Consulting - Nick Jacobs, FACHE

We have identified new companies, new entrepreneurs and new creatives who can not only improve healthcare, but also significantly improve the bottom line of those organizations willing to embrace their programs. One such company with whom we are partnering can increase Emergency Room productivity by as much as 35 to 50%.  They can also help do the same for cancer centers and operating rooms. They utilize robotic systems that communicate patient needs and simultaneously seek out the appropriate medical services required as soon as the patient is triaged. The patient’s condition and potential requirements are communicated to every individual who will or should have contact with them throughout their hospital stay.

We have also identified what I refer to as “no brainer” opportunities. By making otherwise locked fiscal percentages  a commodity, even small and medium sized organizations can save huge dollar amounts. How? By changing out only the electronic reading devices used hospital-wide. This simple change has resulted in huge fiscal savings for clients.

Add to examples like those above the introduction of  a new invention that, in the right hands, can help to extend some types of Stage 3B and Stage IV cancer patients’ lives from months to years through a relatively simple post-surgical procedure. Also consider the invention of new materials that would support bone growth, while virtually eliminating the need for casts or even slings. Imagine a series of protocols that have brought over 40 people out of deep, irreversible comas. Then, on a completely different path, consider having access to  the cumulative knowledge garnered from over a hundred million dollar investment in breast cancer care.  (This is about to be made available to small and medium sized hospitals across the world.)

These are but a sampling of  just some of the opportunities currently driving my passion in this new healthcare world order.

You may want to make a simple inquiry into what’s behind the innovative, practical, and incredible creations of the brilliant people doing this work.  It’s not just so many words on a page.  It is the future, and the future for you and your organization could be now.

Share

18 comments »

Posted in Boomers, Healthcare, Hospital Administration

Tags:

IBRF – The International Brain Research Foundation

April 23rd, 2010

Popular Science in their March 2010 Edition published an article entitled “Waking Up the Brain Dead.”  the sub-title read “A Cocktail of Therapies Jump-Starts Patients’ Brains.”  Then, the May 2010 Ladies Home Journal is publishing an article entitled, “World Leaders in Translational Clinical Research for Alzheimer’s Disease,” (The International Brain Research Foundation – IBRF; in November of 2009, The Clinical Neuropsychologist published an article “The New Neuroscience Frontier: Promoting Neuroplasticity and Brain Repair in Traumatic Brain Injury” that was co-authored by at least two members of the IBRF, Dr. Philip DeFina and his associate Dr. Rosemarie Scolaro Moser, regarding the future of treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).

Philip De Fina, M.D.With an 84% success rate in waking up patients from deep, irreversible, persistent vegetative state comas traditional neurologists, neurosurgeons, and neuroscientists have called these “wake ups” flukes, but once you have nearly 45 flukes, the question becomes, “Are they real?”  As the Popular Science article states, Dr. DeFina and his team apply already approved medications, electrical stimulation, and nutraceuticals to the patient, but they do it in a virtual cocktail that has had a dramatic impact on these patients.

After having spent several days working with the folks at the International Brain Research Foundation, my personal heart strings began making their own music.  Not unlike the work that we did at my previous employer, DeFina’s Research Foundation is blazing new trails, not necessarily by inventing all new methodologies, but by applying new approaches to  well-established and FDA-approved drugs and protocols.  They are making unbelievable progress with highly nuanced protocols that will potentially change neuroscience forever.

In typical “small science” fashion, the traditional approach to these patients has been to apply one protocol at a time, and when that fails, move on to the next.  Dr. DeFina appropriately points out that this unconventional approach is effective because it goes to the source of numerous highly complex brain centers.  He asked me to imagine the Wright brothers trying to fly an airplane one “part” at a time.  “Orville, do you think this propeller will fly?”  Of course, that concept is absurd, but that is an appropriate description of how  Traumatic Brain Injuries are currently addressed.

Image from Popular Scince - Waking the Brain DeadNearly a dozen years ago, when we were beginning our work at the research institute, it was obvious that the reason that cancer had not been cured was because science takes a very laser-like approach to everything;  let’s call it small science.  When we determined that we should have a pristine, highly-annotated collection of specially-collected breast tissue, that we should have a central data repository, and that, heaven forbid, we should have ensemble-type multi-disciplinary teams of scientists and MDs working together, it was as if we had suggested that all science be trashed.  It was so controversial.  To think that one scientist did not keep total  and complete control over all of the data generated by his work.  It was heresy.

Bottom line?  I believe that the International Brain Research Foundation will have us rethinking our living wills not to many years from now as they continue to awaken deep, irreversible coma victims and help them find their lives again.   Not unlike the activities at the Windber Research Institute, where the “Platinum Quality Tissue” is currently being used to map the breast genome.  We are looking into the future of science, and it is very exciting indeed.

IBRF Banner - Dr. Philip De Fina - Nick Jacobs - HealingHospitals.org - Sunstone Consulting

The very difficult news is that the IBRF is totally and completely dependent upon donations and grants for their work, and traditional granting organizations do not favor nontraditional approaches to curing disease and saving lives.   So, after you do your due diligence, if you are as moved as I was, check out the IBRF’s website (including their excellent videos) at www.ibrfinc.org, and help them change history.

For further reading:

Share

102 comments »

Posted in inspiration, Medicine, Military Medicine

Tags:

Loyalty and The Life of a CEO

August 9th, 2009

Since stepping back from my CEO role, I have had time to reflect upon the toll that a position like that can take on any individual regardless of the thickness of their epidermis. I have come to realize that anyone who is completely in charge of an organization faces many of the same challenges.

CEO_scales256As a young man, I had serious delusions about what it would be like to be in the role of President. It was kind of a Superman fantasy: Yes, I would be kind, understanding, and fair. It would be my further commitment to be honest, forthright, and ethical in every way. My obligation would be to the people and the patients at all levels. My motto would be “Truth, justice, and the American way.”

Then the big day came, and my tenure began. It took about an hour to realize that it was now my personal responsibility to do everything necessary to generate all of the money needed to make payroll for the employees. In an area with a disappearing population base, that was an extremely challenging task, and as the Sisters of Mercy used to say, “No money; no mission.”

During the money quest, the issues of loyalty and fairness were always rearing their ugly heads. Could you, in this very self-centered culture, ever really expect people to be loyal no matter what your commitment had been to them? I would minimally try to play the role of a benevolent, servant-leader.

I was the guy who would reach out to people who needed a break and then provide them with that break; sometimes against the conventional wisdom. What did I expect in return from them?  Simple loyalty. Time and time again, however, those same people who might never have had the opportunity that they were given would turn on me. It became almost predictable.

It took them a long time to believe that they were capable of doing the job that I had personally selected them to take, but usually as soon as they reached their comfort zone they would begin to turn away. Maybe it is just human nature, but even Mighty Mouse would have been disillusioned by this recurring situation.

The other CEO reality is that fairness is situational and so subject to interpretation that it becomes impossible to please or satisfy everyone. The nature of our new collective employee psyches seems to be one of “If it’s not done directly for me, then it’s not fair.” The list of individuals who were brought to the leadership stage over my 22 years in healthcare was voluminous. Dozens of people were given consideration for their education, salaries, promotions, and advancements, yet if one other person was recognized in a similar way, the hue and cry was often, “It’s not fair.”

superman_couch

So, looking back over two decades of running hospitals, foundations, a research institute, and several other spin-off companies, an appropriate summary for any future leader is to “go with your gut.” With that in mind:

You are not now and will never be a superhero.

You are a human being with human frailties.

You cannot right the world or repair dysfunctional childhoods, marriages, or lifestyles through your benevolence.

However:

You can do what you believe will result in the most good for the most people.

You can respect the fact that your efforts could help to continue payrolls for hundreds or even thousands of families.

You can embrace the fact that the vast majority of your mistakes will not be fatal to anyone, but you also need to learn to cut your losses and deal with the disloyal.

One of my mentors used to pull me aside periodically and say, “Nick, you’re doing a great job, but you need to lighten up. We only pass through here once. So, try to enjoy yourself, my friend.”

Now that was good advice.

Share

12 comments »

Posted in Healthcare, inspiration, Leadership, Motivation

Tags:

The Valley of Death

November 20th, 2008

Sharon Begley wrote for Newsweek Magazine an article entitled Where Are the Cures? Scientists call the gulf between a biomedical discovery and new treatment the “valley of death.” This has been a topic about which I have written several times. As a relative newcomer to the world of scientific research, my journey has been somewhat perplexing and always disconcerting. Every day articles, web stories, and scientific papers cross my desk touting the amazing discoveries that are being made at the basic research level. When I query my insiders, however, they point out that these discoveries very rarely ever get to the public for their care and treatment.

Some of the reasons behind this gap in medical science lead back to a broken system with inappropriate incentives locked firmly into place. How do we get the basic discoveries to be translated and moved into actual treatments?

Why are so few of the discoveries making their way to both treatments and cures? It is because our system of NIH-sponsored science is set up to discover things; plain and simple. Once the discovery is made, articles can be written, which is the sought after reward in academia since these publications lead to more grants from the NIH, and so the circle goes round and round.


Image Credit: Corbis

The obstacles to translational research in which the studies actually move from the scientist’s bench to the patient’s bedside are so intense that they are referred to in some areas of the scientific community as the “valley of death.” According to Begley’s article, “The valley of death is why many promising discoveries-genes linked to cancer and Parkinson’s disease; biochemical pathways that ravage neurons in Lou Gehrig’s disease-never move forward.”

The author challenges the incoming Obama administration and Congress to take a look at this daunting dilemma and to begin to revamp our biomedical research system by creating what Richard Boxer, a urologist at the University of Miami, and Lou Weisbach, a Chicago entrepreneur, call a “Center for Cures” at the NIH. Interestingly enough, the model that they endorse is exactly what was created here in Windber where multidisciplinary teams of biologists, proteomic and genomic scientists, technicians, and biomedical informatics specialists work together with Walter Reed Army Medical Center to move a discovery to an actual cure.

Of course, with the cuts made to the NIH funds, creating anything new that is unfunded could take away from basic research, and limit hopes for these cure discoveries. The article explains that while the NIH budget was doubling, new drug approvals fell from 53 in 1996 to 18 in 2006. What’s wrong with this picture? Twice the money, less than half the discoveries.

The sad case, however, is that even those organizations that try to establish these new world order cure centers are not funded by the NIH because of this fundamental design to enhance only basic research. The article ends with this: “I’d be willing to put up with potholes in exchange for a new administration spending serious money to take the discoveries taxpayers have paid for and turn them into cures.”

Share

19 comments »

Posted in Healthcare, Medicine

Tags: