Companies Like The Saunders Group Get It

I wanted to call attention to a recent comment on the blog from Robin Saunders in response to a Clinical Consult post. Robin is the Chief Operating Officer of The Saunders Group (as if her name wouldn't give away some higher level involvement), a company many of you know to be the 'company that sells us traction tables'. She is also a co-owner of Saunders Therapy Centers, P.A., and President of Therapy Partners, Inc., both independent physical therapy practices.

The specifics of her comment are not all that relevant, other than the fact that she suggested a treatment option that included the use of a traction device, one that her company could readily sell you. The most important part of her post was that rather than the typical self-serving, over-the-top, sales pitch you commonly hear, she made no under-handed attempt to pretend who she was or where her interests lie (never mind the fact that her name would give it away). Rather, she clearly acknowledged the limited evidence for her suggestion (there are no easy answers for this patient) and included a full disclaimer as follows:

My company, The Saunders Group, manufactures traction devices, including a table that is designed specifically to accommodate flexed/shifted positions initially, to treat these difficult patients.

She goes on to say that, 'I can elaborate more if anyone wants...I'm aware that my input may be met with some skepticism because of the potential conflict of interest:)'.

Business is far too complicated to suggest that a simple solution would solve all business woes. However, full disclosure goes a long way. The problem is NOT with having an agenda. We all have them, whether we admit it (or are even aware) or not. They may not always be financially motivated but could be to gain influence or influence thought (I suppose an agenda of any blog such as ours). Countless possible agendas exist. The key is disclosure.

In this case, readers can judge for themselves whether they think Robin's comment is unduly influenced by her financial interest in The Saunders Group. I personally think she's responding primarily as a clinician (partly because she is still actively involved in clinical practice) who simply wants to contribute to a professional dialogue about the Clinical Consult. The key is that her transparency allows you to decide for yourself! She gives us the opportunity examine her motives and even criticize her publicly for it on the blog.

If only 'Big Pharma' could learn this lesson. It wouldn't surprise me at all is we see several Big Pharma ‘Enrons’ in the coming months and years. Vioxx is likely only the beginning of coming tales of a sordid non-disclosure and conflict of interest history, companies whose actions will one day be disclosed for all to see (not by their choice, of course). Britt Smith's post earlier this morning alludes to exactly this issue.

We shouldn't have to give kudos every time someone does something right (should be automatic, huh?), but you don't see enough examples like this. The good news is that companies like The Saunders Group will likely be around for many years to come...and I believe will ultimately be more profitable for it, never mind the fact that doing the right thing has immense inherent value in its own right.

John

And to reciprocate...Evidence in Motion has no financial interests in The Saunders Group, nor did Robin ask me to respond to her comment or have the opportunity to review my post....I think you get the point.

Comments

[David Browder]

We recently purchased several of the 3D Active Trac tables that Robin described and have so far had favorable responses. The concepts behind this table are far from new - they can be used not only as a standard traction table - with a slick pneumatic system that splits the table instead of a rope and pulley system, but can be used in a similar way to the old Auto-trac systems that are no longer easily found in the US. Allowing passive positioning in several planes of motion while the traction force is applied. I do not see how this particular intervention would be effectively studied - given that the subgroup of interest is even smaller than the 'traction category' - which is already small. I'd imagine that anything larger than a case series would have to broaden the inclusion criteria so much that the findings would not be positive.
Bottom line: we've only had these tables a few weeks but they seem to fill a niche. The other day I did a prone traction treatment with a patient at 15 deg of extension with a little bit of sidebending and rotation - just enough to centralize his symptoms... and that was pretty cool.