Imaging leaders should encourage and promote the use of robust dialogue, according to a new commentary published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology. By taking part in more reasoned arguments and debates, the authors argued, radiologists can improve the quality of care they provide to patients.
“Assertions that go untested by argument, whether they be true or false, can never be so thoroughly understood as those that have been tested,” wrote authors Joseph C. Thomas and Richard B. Gunderman, MD, PhD, of the department of radiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. “And those that are inadequate or not as well stated as they should be may languish unattended and unimproved.”
In many meetings, the authors observed, participants go out of their way to not be offensive. The goal often appears to be to end the meeting as quickly as possible instead of pushing the group to walk away with the best decision or plan possible.
“Our first loyalty, however, should be not to what is nonthreatening or politically expedient, but to what is true, well reasoned, and well supported,” Thomas and Gunderman wrote. “We cannot determine the degree to which a proposed course of action is appropriate until we have thoroughly explored it from multiple different points of view.”
So how can leaders encourage robust dialogue? One way suggested by the authors is taking part in as many healthy debates as possible. Groups focused on making policy should also make sure they act in a transparent manner, giving members a chance to actively discuss the topic at hand instead of simply watching the a few individuals come up with a final decision.
Leaders looking to promote such dialogue may run into certain challenges, such as employees who don’t buy into the philosophy or participants who don’t prepare enough to truly take part in a spirited conversation. Also, dualism—the view that topics should be limited to two conflicting points of view and no more—should be avoided at all costs. However, it is still worth the effort.
“A profession without civil discourse in which everyone speaks in unison is not healthy,” Thomas and Gunderman concluded. “At any particular moment in time, everything it is doing may happen to be entirely appropriate, but over time it will wander ever farther from the course that robust dialogue would help it chart. It is important to do the appropriate thing, but it is also important to know why it is appropriate, including the arguments that can be advanced for alternative courses of action.”
Michael has more than 16 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.