Podcast appearances and mentions of Bob Arnold

For our final episode of the season, Jack and David are thrilled to welcome back and old friend and a new group! Bob Arnold- previously of Chatterbox Audio Theater is back and this time with the group Spoken Signal Audio Drama. Headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, Spoken Signal Audio Drama creates and freely shares original, full-cast audio productions. And we have two here with “The Waverly House Haunting” and “Hidden Folk”! One more time, it's Audio Drama Time! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For our final episode of the season, Jack and David are thrilled to welcome back and old friend and a new group! Bob Arnold- previously of Chatterbox Audio Theater is back and this time with the group Spoken Signal Audio Drama. Headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, Spoken Signal Audio Drama creates and freely shares original, full-cast audio productions. And we have two here with “The Waverly House Haunting” and “Hidden Folk”! One more time, it's Audio Drama Time! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The worst thing imaginable happened to Bob Arnold and his wife Jeanne in 2002. They were getting ready for bed and a coroner calls. Their 23-year-old daughter Marcie was found dead in her apartment nearly 500 miles away. Marcie, a vibrant young woman who was just getting established in North Myrtle Beach, S.C., was talking with a friend on the phone when the conversation went silent. She had suffered QT prolongation, sudden death from cardiac arrest, a rare occurrence that afflicts people with arrythmia, or irregular heartbeat. It is a tragedy that no parent should have to endure. But rather than get angry or go into denial, Bob and Jeanne chose another route to confront their suffering. "I knew one thing that had to happen in order to do that ... is to really be honest about what's going on," Bob said. "Trying to think of all the ways to try to rationalize this or deal with this, I knew none of those were reality." Bob started journaling. In the first three years after Marcie's death, he wrote 1,300 pages to help him "sort through the depths of despair" he was feeling. Those reflections turned into a book authored by Bob and Jeanne called When the Circle is Broken: Our Journey Through Deep Sorrow and Surprising Joy in the Loss of Our Daughter. The suffering also led Bob to ministry. The Arnolds now have a 70-acre farm in Western Maryland named Marcie's Meadow, which serves the ministry. They help people who are facing illness, death, divorce, or family difficulties find the joyous hand of God in their sorrow. "God doesn't take away the pain, but the pain continually became a healing agent," he said. "It (keeps) shaping and reforming and reforming, and in the process, we meet this compassionate and caring God." Bob's spirituality is evident in this week's episode of Chiseled. He tells a profound story of sorrow and joy and shares a path to healing that we can all follow.  Bob's ministry is available to anyone who needs a lift. He can be reached at his email or phone number, which he shares at the end of the episode. Meanwhile, you can check out his ministry at his website, meadow4.org.   

Serious illness communication is hard. We must often deliver complex medical information that carries heavy emotional weight in pressured settings to individuals with varying cultural backgrounds, values, and beliefs. That's a hard enough task, given that most of us have never had any communication skills training. It feels nearly impossible if you add another degree of difficulty, whether it be a crying interpreter or a grandchild from another state who shows up at the end of a family meeting yelling how you are killing grandma. On today's podcast, we try to stump three VitalTalk expert faculty, Gordon Wood, Holly Yang, Elise Carey, with some of the most challenging communication scenarios that we (and some of our listeners) could think up. During the podcast, we reference a newly released second-edition book that our guests published titled “Navigating Communication with Seriously Ill Patients: Balancing Honesty with Empathy and Hope.”  I'd add this to your “must read” list of books, as it takes readers through the VitalTalk method that our guests use so effectively when addressing these challenging scenarios. If you are interested in learning more about VitalTalk, check out their and some of these other podcasts we've done with three of the other authors of this book (and VitalTalk co-founders): Our podcast with Tony Back as well as Wendy Anderson on “Communication Skills in a Time of Crises” Our podcast with James Tulsky on “The Messiness of Medical Decision-Making in Advanced Illness.” Any one of our podcasts with Bob Arnold, including this one on the language of serious illness or this one on books, to become a better mentor. Lastly, I reference Alex's Take Out the Trash video, where he uses communication skills learned in his palliative care training at home with his wife.  The results are… well… let's just say less than perfect.  By: Eric Widera

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “Three Days was Enough” by Dr. Teresa Thomas, Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing. The essay is followed by an interview with Thomas and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Having medically adjacent experience, Thomas shares her personal story of helping her family come to terms with hospice care for her father. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Three Days Was Enough, by Teresa Hagan Thomas, PhD, BA, RN  My dad agreed to receive hospice on a technicality. It happened after weeks of trying to get him home oxygen. My brother drove him to the oncologist's office, and I helped him get into the wheelchair. He did not complain, but just asked me to hold his coffee mug, smiling because I snuck him a fresh donut. Three months before, dad was well-maintained on treatment for a neuroendocrine tumor. It was not until two separate, non–cancer-related hospital admissions kept him off treatment that the cancer saw a chance to hijack his body, take over his organs, and lead to a precipitous decline. As we waited for the oncologist, I told dad not to downplay his shortness of breath. But he wanted to look good enough to get chemotherapy the following week, the only way he saw to resolve his lymphedema and keep the cancer at bay. He failed the oxygen saturation test by one point, and having not qualified for home oxygen, we drove home disappointed without further recommendations or support. The sense of defeat was maddening. We were batting down an escalating onslaught of health issues at home only to be turned away from the professional caregivers when we most needed their advocacy. I was enraged that all the work arranging the appointment led to nothing and disappointed for my dad as he sat consumed in his pain and shortness of breath. His oncology team was supportive when his health was stable but did not have the skills or systems to proactively help us manage the dying process. I channeled my disillusionment with the health care system by calling in favors for a palliative care consult, both aware of my privilege but also stopping at nothing to give relief to my dad. A few days later, my dad and mom were willing to accept hospice care for the singular purpose of getting oxygen. I was sitting next to my dad in his home office, amix of posters from his travels abroad and family wedding photos surrounding us. When he asked for my thoughts about hospice, I carefully laid out what I saw as the benefits—namely, he would immediately qualify for home oxygen and get a level of care beyond what his oncologist could offer. But as I tried to give him all the words I knew from my professional life, I just saw the man who raised me staring back at me hoping for a way out of the painful, weak state he was in. He was not giving up on treatment or controlling the cancer. I was not going to change that. I wanted that, too. Now his eyes were sunken, all the fat gone from his face, and his entire body working to breathe. His belly was large, the tumor taking over, and his legs swollen with lymphedema. I felt the boniness of his shoulders and back. There was no coming back from this. I was in disbelief that he was dying so quickly, selfishly wanting him to stay but also knowing he deserved a pain free death. He agreed to enroll in hospice, with the plan that he would unenroll and try to get more treatment. I wanted to be right there with him, treating this as a temporary detour and not the end. I looked him directly in the eyes, searching to see any recognition that he would never get treatment again and that this was it. Not seeing anything, I tried to open the door to discussing death, reminding him how tenaciously he had fought to keep this cancer controlled and acknowledging the need to focus on his quality of life. I desperately wanted to have an open discussion about dying, but his stoic Irish mentality kept us from having that heart-to-heart. Initially, I was disappointed that my attempt had failed, but now I recognize that achieving a good death did not depend on verbalizing that he was dying. He was living and dying, hoping and accepting, trusting and doing his own thing. Our plan was logical and irrational. I remember thinking people in these situations needed to face reality. Here with my father, being so direct would be counterproductive. He very likely recognized what was likely to unfold, and hospice allowed him the unstated permission to let go. I called his oncologist, and together dad and I asked to enroll in hospice. The oncologist responded, “We are so glad you finally made this decision.” By that night, the hospice nurse was sitting at my parent's kitchen table preparing us. Dad was sitting in the front room, finally relaxing in the plush leather lift chair we impulsively bought for him, with the oxygen machine humming at this side. We grilled the hospice nurse with questions. She kept saying how fast patients with cancer seem to go downhill. She told us without telling us. She gave us breadcrumbs, just enough information to get us through each step of the dying process, giving morphine, getting a hospital bed, giving Ativan, and finally seeing him pass. Three days after enrolling in hospice, he died at home withmany of our family at his side. Just like the hospice nurse said he would, he died on his own terms: after he had said goodbye to all his siblings, after the infant he and my mom were fostering was placed with his adoptive parents, and after all five of his children were at home with him. He died with dignity, mentally capable until the last hours, and surrounded by love. His exact terms. I am not sure what conversations were had between my dad, my mom, and his oncology team in the weeks before he died. I do not know if they openly discussed the need for palliative care or hospice. Dad's providers might have, and my parents willfully or naively missed the clues. I can imagine for the oncology team, discussing hospice meant admitting that the treatment plan had not worked as intended and that they could not meet my dad's needs. I know for my parents, discussing hospice would give air to the idea of death and therefore was not only avoided but actively discounted. As a researcher focused on palliative care, these dynamics were not new to me. I recognize how the stigma surrounding hospice and palliative care prevents earlier provision of quality end-of-life care. That knowledge did not prepare me when it was my dad dying. Awakening to the reality of dad dying was incredibly difficult when every hour we were managing his frenzy of health issues.  Three days is used as an indicator of poor end-of-life care since people are eligible for hospice when they have a 6-month life expectancy.1 My dad did not openly discuss hospice until days before he died, but the number of days did not matter for my dad. What he was now able to do—because of hospice—during those days mattered more. During his last 3 days, dad meticulously rewrote his will, had it notarized by a hospice social worker, visited with his siblings, and made amends for long-past transgressions, enjoyed his favorite foods—fresh Boston cream donuts and black French press coffee—and spent quality one-on-one time with each of his kids and most of his grandkids. Although death was never directly discussed, neither was the idea of unenrolling in hospice. Hospice was what was allowing him to maximize the mental and physical capacity he had left. Those 3 days took my family from being stressed to our limit trying to manage dad's disintegrating health to feeling like we were being led by competent, caring hospice nurses who picked up our phone calls and responded within minutes. Now a year since he passed, I have a newfound appreciation for the complexity of discussing death with families and an even greater desire to advocate for improved end-of-life care for patients with serious illness. Despite his dramatic decline in health, my dad had a good death thanks to his hospice team. Three days was all it took.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Teresa Thomas, Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article “Three Days Was Enough.”  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  Teresa, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us. Dr. Teresa Thomas: Thank you. It's great to be here. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's great to have you. So let's talk about your beautiful piece, which is very personal. Thank you so much for writing and sending this and sharing this. In your piece, you say that you waited about a year before you thought about writing. Can you tell us a little bit about why you waited and why perhaps for you it was important to take some time to process the experience and then decide to share it? Dr. Teresa Thomas: Absolutely. Well, I think it would be false to say that I waited a year to write it. I think I was writing it for a year. And like a lot of researchers, I really process things through writing, trying to make sense of the passing of my father, of course, but also what this means for me professionally. It's very ironic that everything that I study in my research, things that we encounter clinically, unfolded right there extremely poignantly with my father. And like anyone, I'm just trying to make sense of it and trying to find lessons learned where we as nurses, healthcare providers, researchers, can push things forward a little bit, which I think is what I was trying to do with the piece because it did raise a lot of questions for me and is making me rethink my research questions and how I conduct myself and what the important areas of our field really are.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk a little bit and go deeper into that. First, I wanted to talk a little bit about your vulnerability, personal vulnerability. It's your father we're talking about, and you clearly adored this man who is your father. Can you talk a little bit about the emotional aspect of dealing with the family's acceptance finally, or the family's readiness to call hospice in? Dr. Teresa Thomas: Absolutely. I mean, it's all of the emotions. When I think about it, it was this very awkward place of being one of the few medically adjacent people. I'm not a practicing clinician. I am a researcher who has a nurse training. So it was this ‘I know enough and the family's relying on me and I'm going to the appointments.' And being that in between, between the oncology team, my father, my mother, my siblings, people asking questions. And at the same time, I know this story. So it was personal and distant. I knew what was happening, that he was dying. I didn't want to know that he was dying. And it was just a crazy time too. Every day there were a thousand things going on. I didn't put this in the piece, but I was also extremely pregnant at the time, so had hormones going. My mom was getting sick herself with cancer, ironically, right as my father was dying. It was just absolutely insane. And now we're trying to unpack all of that. But to be that person that people are relying on to understand what's going on, to shepherd them, and also not really wanting to know, it was a hard juxtaposition. I knew what should be happening, right? I knew that we should be having these discussions about palliative care. I knew that he was eligible for hospice, I knew he should be on hospice, but I wasn't ready. And professionally, I wear that hat of a nurse and a researcher very reluctantly. When I'm dealing with my health care, and especially someone else's healthcare, I do not disclose, I do not try to interfere. And for Dad, I had to step up and push and interfere a little bit, which is extremely awkward and not comfortable. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about readiness, because readiness means so many things, but it's such an important theme here, and it's often such an important theme when we look at the literature about end of life communication. Can you talk a little bit about how this experience has informed the way you think about readiness, readiness to accept that it is indeed time for that call to hospice? Dr. Teresa Thomas: Absolutely. So I think as a researcher and as a clinician, you want that discussion, you want the documentation, you want all the ducks in a row. You need to understand, do they get it? Is their head in that space where they're making plans? Can you think about what you want your death to look like? We need it said, we need it laid out so that we can check that box. And obviously, there's a lot more than checking boxes when this is done correctly and in a patient centered way. We didn't have time for that to happen, and yet everything still laid out. Now, I write in the piece, my dad was just very stoic and had a history of not talking about emotions. And I don't think it's all too different than his generation. And maybe men in general or there are patients that are just like that. There were never those deep conversations with the oncology team. There basically wasn't that conversation even with me.  So beyond that, I mean, beyond just saying we had that conversation, what the piece is trying to say, or what I was trying to say was that it was the things that he did that were more important, he literally rewrote his will in his last days. In his few moments of clarity, he was sitting there. He was a wills and estates attorney. So, I mean, he was fully equipped to do this, but this is what he was doing. He knew that he was dying. He never voiced it. He never made a specific plan. But we had a care team in his oncology team, and absolutely in his hospice team, who just shepherded us and allowed him to do everything that he would have done even if he had had six months in hospice. And that's what was more important. He got what he wanted, and he was allowed to do what he wanted. And that's now how I'm thinking about end of life care and where our field in research and in executing that needs to go. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I think that's incredibly profound. I think one of the lines that I enjoyed the most in reading and rereading your essay is when you just describe what actually happened and how he relaxed into the chair. He relaxed when he had oxygen. I mean, it wasn't so much what he said, but what you saw there was even the physical signs of somebody who says, “Well, you know, something else is happening here.” There was a transition that you actually appreciated there and captured. Am I right? And did I read that right?  Dr. Teresa Thomas: Absolutely. That was the turning point. I mean, we are a big family. We never make impulse purchases. But my sister and I, we just drove out. We didn't care about the cost. I think my mom gave us her credit card. She never gives us a credit card. And we just said, “We don't care. This is our dad. We're buying this.” And to see him after this, just extremely precipitous decline where every breath in and out and that searching for air and all of those signs, even to take away a little bit of that, absolutely felt so good. And he wasn't totally pain free, but he had oxygen. I mean, the most basic thing you need. So, yes, that was a very good feeling. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So the labor of breathing can be overwhelming and in a way distressing. Whether we call that painful or not is maybe just a matter of the language that we use.  There's another theme that emerged in your writing, and again, I wanted to hear your reaction to this, and that is failure. You use the term in terms of, in so many different ways, perhaps the failure of the oncology team to develop or deliver or propose a treatment that was really good. They were done. So they- in some ways, there was a sense of failure. It was a bit of a failure of capturing the right moment to make the hospice referral. It wasn't quite what the books say we should be doing. There's a lot of that in the essay. Can you talk a little bit about how you understand failure and how that concept may in some way interfere with our ability to act or appreciate things? Dr. Teresa Thomas: There were no specific failures as more of a secondary caregiver at the end who stepped in to assist my mom. There were likely things going on that were under-recognized, unappreciated, or because nothing was said directly that there could have been soft leeways into. “Let's talk about hospice.” That, I think, my parents did not want to hear, and that door was closed. That's where additional layers of support in how do we talk about this as a family? How do we introduce, well, hospice isn't end of life care necessarily, but there are additional supports that hospice allows that your typical oncology practice can't provide.  I remember one conversation when my mom called me up and she was telling me that she had just met with Dad's team, and she was saying, the oncologist said, this is the last treatment, that after this, there's nothing left. She was going on and on, and I wanted to basically rip the band aid off for her. And I said, “Mom, they're telling you that it's time for hospice.” “No, absolutely not, Teresa. Hospice was not brought up. Don't bring up that word to your father. All they were saying was, this was the last treatment.” Now we can talk about that with my mom and say, “Do you see what they may have been laying the groundwork for?” And she says, “Yes, now I understand. But at that time and place, that soft entry, that door was not being opened by them.” And I don't think that's untypical. I think that we did the best that we could with the situation that Dad had. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So, Teresa, I'm struck by the incredibly generous and wise framing that you use to talk about this. You could have said, “Oh, my goodness. It was only three days,” and instead you chose to say, “Three days were enough.” So I wonder how you did this, how you actually looked at it from that perspective, because so much of what happens to us is defined by the lens through which we see it and the words we use to construct the narrative. So tell me how you got to, “Oh, my God. They weren't ready, and there was so much failure,” to, “Hey, three days was enough.” Dr. Teresa Thomas: The three days were important for me because one year ahead of my dad getting sick, I was writing a paper with one of my mentors, Yael Schenker, and one of the wonderful med students that we work with and we used it as an indicator of poor quality end of life care. Did the patient enroll in hospice within the past three days? And we had these wonderful discussions with Yael and Bob Arnold and Doug White and everyone here at the University of Pittsburgh involved in palliative care about what does that mean? And is this just a random quality indicator with no real world value? And I respect all of their opinions because they do see this clinically, whereas as a researcher, “Oh, this is easy for me to analyze and I have a citation that says this is a quality indicator, so let's use it.” And I thought, “Oh, isn't the world ironic? This is exactly what happened with Dad.” And it was. I mean, maybe part of it is to our Catholic faith, and threes are very important so I think that was a little for my family.  But there was nothing else to do. We opened up, we had conversations, we had heart to hearts. We found when dad was mentally with it, we sat down with him. I gave him his coffee. He always had a doughnut, he was pre-diabetic. Who cares? There was ice cream, there were donuts, there was coffee. All of a sudden we went from, “Don't give Dad any pain meds,” to, “Where's the morphine? Give him some more.” And we timed it so that each one of us kids and his wife and his siblings, we got to say the things that, man, if it was any other illness or any other setting where we weren't there, we would have lived our entire lives regretting not having had that. Would I have wanted him to be around when the son that was protruding from my belly was born a couple months later? Absolutely. Would I have wanted more trips, more meals? Yes, yes, and yes. It wasn't going to happen. And it didn't. That's selfish. I mean, that was a selfish desire.  He lived a wonderful life. He closed out everything in those three days. He said his goodbyes. He was ready to go. And our family is a strong family. We carried my mom through it and we carried each other through it. And for him, he deserved to go without the pain, the loss of control, the loss of being himself. When we moved him into the hospital bed, that was it. We had to help him go to the bathroom within the last 12 hours of life. And I thought, this is not my dad he's going to check out because this is just not how he's going to live his life. Is that worth it? No, that wasn't worth it. And that was him. And that's what the hospice nurse told us. Everyone checks out when they're ready. That's Dad. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I can't resist the urge to ask you this question of how you're taking this life lesson, this really important story which you framed and articulated so beautifully here for us into your work.  Dr. Teresa Thomas: So my work has always been in patient centered care, as nebulous as a concept as that is, and promoting patient self-advocacy. How do patients say what they need? Which is the great irony, right? That my work is corresponding exactly with what I experience and see. And I think that's probably why I love this research question. And now I see that not just the cancer experience, but framing that end of life care. And what does hospice mean? I think we had the best hospice team in the world. I don't see how any other hospice team could deliver as great care. And then, of course, I'm looking into, is all hospice like this? What are the hospice outcomes? And I realize, unsurprisingly, that we absolutely are spoiled, and this is not what most people experience. So I'm lucky that I'm in a place here at the University of Pittsburgh and with researchers that we have a palliative research center. This is easy for me to pivot into this place and to think about how do we create teams of clinicians, policies at a local level, at a state and a federal level that allow people access to really good clinicians at the end of life - clinicians that understand absolutely there's a medical management part just as much there's a human part that's happening here with the patient and with the family.  What was it that our hospice team did? It's the easy things. They gave us one sheet of paper, one phone number, “Call this number. We will pick up. You do not need to give us your medical record number. You don't have to tell us a history.” We called that number any time, and someone answered our questions. So basic, patient centered care, so basic. How do we do that? How do we do that at a systems level? How do we prepare patients to work with their clinicians when that's not there? These sort of high touch, but very difficult to innovate in clunky segregated systems. It's given me direction, and it lets me feel like I'm helping my family in retrospect, too. Dr. Lidia Schapira: In some ways, it keeps you connected to your dad. Dr. Teresa Thomas: Absolutely.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah. Well, thank you so much. It was a really beautiful, beautiful piece. Art of Oncology is about telling a story. But stories can inspire, stories can lead people to find their own path towards advocacy or research so thank you so much. To wrap this up, do you have a final message for our readers and listeners? Dr. Teresa Thomas: Everyone has their experience with end of life and with palliative care, maybe, but definitely cancer care, and I just hope that it strikes a chord and makes people think about how we can make sure that families and patients receive the best care at end of life. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, thank you so much, Theresa, for your story and for what you do. And until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.    Guest Bio: Dr. Teresa Thomas is an Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing.  

What comes to mind when you think of spring? Warmer weather? March Madness? Spring training? Warming up your golf swing? Well, all of those are fine answers – but for many the thought of spring means the beginning of conference season. Hello everyone and welcome episode 122 of the Resilient Journey podcast, presented by the Resilience Think Tank. This week we're joined by Bob Arnold, President of Disaster Recovery Journal and the emcee for DRJ Spring 2024 – Lisa Jones. Lisa and Bob talk about the evolution of the world's best resilience conference. Lisa talks about what attracted her to accept the role of emcee and how DRJ has paved the way for many in our organization. They share the value of networking and offer tips for getting the most out of the conference and we talk about the partnership between DRJ and the Resilience Think Tank.

Ellen and Lindsay first met today's guests in 2015. Lisa and Bob, sweetest couple who decided that they could no longer sit back and do nothing about the overcrowded and under resourced shelters in Los Angeles. Dogs were dying and they were here and ready. They continuously look their worst fears in the eye and become a part of the good fight, even if it means falling in love with animals they know will never make it outta the shelter alive. They are choosing a path in life that is soul crushing on the daily. The number of animals who because of them have taken that coveted freedom walk from behind the locked gates of what could have easily have been their last stop are too numerous to count. And there are so many more that together they have. Both positively impacted and therefore are alive today. To us, they are true heroes and we are so happy to have them here today. Lisa and Bob, welcome to A Pawdcast.

“There's a better way to live and work — Dan showed you can be effective and have a good time doing it.” “For someone to be in a rock band and talk like a rock star, and still have the command and respect of your business partners — it showed that you can get beyond stereotypes and be successful.” Dan Hamilton was a longtime friend and mentor to many - an experienced marketing, media, and creative leader - who passed away suddenly last December of 2022. This is the second of two conversations with friends and colleagues who knew Dan - this one with two fellow P&G Digital Alums: Bob Arnold, now a Media Innovation leader at Google, and Aaron Fetters, now CEO of Transparent Partners.  https://adage.com/article/opinion/ocean-spray-remembers-dan-hamilton/2459791 Dan Hamilton was a dreamer, a mentor, and someone who had a passion for coloring outside the lines and breaking all the rules, and bringing us along for the ride. Dan was a bandmate, a father, and a friend. He was born in Seattle in 1969 to Valerie and Vernon “Bud” Hamilton. Bud is a fellow P&G Alum who retired after 37 years as a VP in Sales, Marketing, and Governance, and one of the reasons Dan came to P&G. Dan grew up in Cincinnati later studied journalism and jazz guitar at the University of Cincinnati and CCM, he co-founded the band Spookfloaters, which he toured with, then went back get his Masters of Computer Science from Miami of Ohio, after which he joined P&G as one of the earliest digital marketing managers, starting in the beauty business on Olay. Dan quickly changed the game in digital, rising to become media leader of Olay, arguably one of P&G's most innovative brands in marketing and media during Dan's tenure. Over nearly 15 years Dan worked across Olay digital, Olay media, Olay design, P&G's corporate brand, and personal care. Dan spent another seven years in Colorado as a marketing, media and creative leader @ WhiteWave Foods, as it later merged with Danone. In 2021 he joined Ocean Spray as the company's Head of Marketing Center of Excellence.  Across his entire career, Dan was a friend and mentor to the many who had the privilege of working with him. He was always one of the Alums we wanted to reconnect with on this Learnings from Leaders podcast, but we regret missing our chance. So to capture some of the “Learnings from Dan” - we wanted to share a few stories from those that knew him well. Got a Dan story? Please send an email or voice memo to pgalumpod@gmail.com - we'd love to hear it, and share with the many friends and family who survive him. We know you'll enjoy this candid conversation about our good friend Dan.

Communicating about a serious illness is hard. Last week's podcast we talked about the challenge around miscommunication in serious illness. This week we dive into the challenges with communication when it comes to life sustaining treatments and CPR. Take for example the simple question: “If her breathing gets any worse, she will need to be intubated.” This seems like an innocuous statement of fact, but does she really “need” to be intubated if, for example, her primary goals are to be comfortable and die at home?  Of course not.  We've invited Jacqueline Kruser and Bob Arnold on this week's podcast to talk about their recently published JAMA Viewpoint article titled “Reconsidering the Language of Serious Illness.” I love this article as it specifically discusses what's wrong with “need” statements and how we can shift our communication and thinking to create space for deliberation about patients' priorities and the best course of action.   We've also invited Sunita Puri to talk about the language of life sustaining treatments, in particular CPR. Sunita recently published a wonderful New Yorker article titled The Hidden Harms of CPR arguing among other things that these conversations “are procedures, demanding the same precision of everything else in medicine.”  So take a listen and check out some of these other links to dive deeper: Our first podcast in the series of 3 podcasts “Miscommunication” A great article on why you shouldn't ask what patients “want” Sunita's book That Good Night: Life and Medicine in the Eleventh Hour The paper Jacky talked about regarding the ingrained pattern of focusing on the “need” for specific life-sustaining interventions, typically as the reason to admit a patient to the ICU Changes in End-of-Life Practices in European Intensive Care Units From 1999 to 2016 Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Television — Miracles and Misinformation Code Status Discussions Between Attending Hospitalist Physicians and Medical Patients at Hospital Admission

When you attend a conference like DRJ Fall, there are two ways to learn. You can go to sessions, workshops and panel discussions. And you can listen to vendors in the exhibit hall. In this wrap of DRJ Fall 2023, I decided to talk to the vendors. Hello everyone and welcome to episode 101 of the Resilient Journey podcast, presented by the Resilience Think Tank. This week I want to take you on a journey inside the exhibit hall of DRJ Fall 2023. We'll hear from Bob Arnold and folks from Iluminr, Riskonnect, Infinite Blue, Alert Media, Simple Life and even the BCI. It's fun learning about different products that are available to help make your organizations and clients more resilient. Be sure to follow The Resilient Journey!  We sure do appreciate it! Learn more about the Resilience Think Tank here. Want to learn more about Mark? Click here or on LinkedIn or Twitter. Special thanks to Bensound for the music.

Are you a conference person? Maybe a speaker, vendor or attendee? Well, we're heading into conference season and it's good to know what to expect. We have the right guy because this week's guest has been putting on conferences for 37 years. Hello everyone and welcome to episode 97 of the Resilient Journey podcast presented by the Resilience Think Tank. This week I'm joined by President of DRJ Bob Arnold. Bob and I talk about the upcoming DRJ Fall conference – Focus on Resiliency. Bob shares that this year's conference will talk about proactive approaches to preparing organizations for disruption. And I make a special offer to anyone who would like to speak at a conference for the first time. And we talk about Bob's commitment to DEI and the challenges DRJ faces navigating a divisive landscape. The Resilient Journey podcast is a Resilience Think Tank production.   Be sure to follow The Resilient Journey!  We sure do appreciate it! Learn more about the Resilience Think Tank here. Want to learn more about Mark? Click here or on LinkedIn or Twitter. Special thanks to Bensound for the music.

The CPG Guys are joined by Bob Arnold, CEO of Q Mixers, which makes the world's best carbonated mixers that are proudly served by discerning bars and restaurants across America, as well as sold in grocery and liquor stores nationwide.Follow  Bob Arnold on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-arnold-972a253/ Follow Q Mixers on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/q-mixers/Follow Q Mixers online at: https://qmixers.com/ Bob answers the following questions:1) Bob, your career has some elite brands in your background but you are clearly the ‘beverages guy'.Take us through the years at InBev, Coca-Cola and now as CEO of Q Mixers. What advice would you give to someone early in their career in this space seeking to follow in your footsteps in beverages?2) With eCommerce prevalent everywhere and volume moving to omnichannel, how have you led the last 3 years to digitize your portfolio and make it available online for consumers to discover & purchase?3) Peter and I strongly believe that the path to true scale is being available on the store shelf. How do you focus on category management and therefore ensuing distribution?4) Take us through the portfolio and I noticed you have cocktail recipes? How do these come together and how does that play out at retail?5) I have been waiting to ask you about the ‘highball' - what is this? What other tricks and trips would you share with our audience? How does this help sell the product?6) Innovation - last 3 years, we haven't really seen much in the CPG world given supply chain issues. What's your take on the importance of it? How are you innovation and is there a pipeline?7) Let's go to talent. No brand can be successful without the right brand stewards? What makes a good marketer - what is their DNA? How do they connect with retail?8) The last question on the CPG Guys is always ‘fast forward' - what's next for you and Q Mixers? Where is the growth: innovation, distribution, both?CPG Guys Website: http://CPGguys.comFMCG Guys Website: http://FMCGguys.comCPG Scoop Website: http://CPGscoop.comNextUp Website: http://nexupisnow.org/cpgguysRetailWit Website: http://retailwit.comDISCLAIMER: The content in this podcast episode is provided for general informational purposes only. By listening to our episode, you understand that no information contained in this episode should be construed as advice from CPGGUYS, LLC or the individual author, hosts, or guests, nor is it intended to be a substitute for research on any subject matter. Reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by CPGGUYS, LLC. The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent.  CPGGUYS LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability or responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or other damages arising out of any individual's use of, reference to, or inability to use this podcast or the information we presented in this podcast.

Sometimes you read a book and get a flash of insight - that “ah ha!” moment - about yourself and the ways you interact with others.  That happened to me when reading “Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World.”  It helped me to understand and justify my interest in (this won't surprise you) EVERYTHING related to geriatrics or palliative care.  Also hat tip to Matthew Growdon for recommending the book. Today we talk with Bob Arnold, who has a long list of recommendations for books that have the potential to generate an “ah ha!” moment.  The podcast is ostensibly focused on becoming a better mentor, but as you'll hear, we discuss techniques that can help you cope with anxiety, stress, your spouse…the list goes on.  In reality, insights from these books can help you be a better teacher, a more curious person, as well as a better mentor or mentee. Bob urges you to buy these books from your local bookstore.  To that end, we're not including links with the titles below.  Please shop locally. As a bonus, Lauren Hunt, frequent guest on GeriPal, heard we recorded this podcast and wanted to add a couple books to Bob's list (she saw Bob give a talk about these books at the NPCRC Foley retreat).  Her list will strongly resonate with women in academics. See below for Lauren's two additions to Bob's list, with her personal commentary. Enjoy! -@AlexSmithMD   Bob's booklist: Lori Gottlieb, Maybe You Should Talk to Somebody: A Therapist, Her Therapist, and Our Lives Revealed Ethan Kross, Chatter: The Voice Inside Our Head, Why It Matters, and How to Harness It Eric Barker, Plays Well With Others: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Relationships Is (Mostly) Wrong Stephanie Foo, What My Bones Know: A Memoir of Healing From Complex Trauma Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do Claude M. Steele, Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do Marcus Buckingham, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader's Guide to the Real World Marshall Goldsmith, What Got You Here Won't Get You There Adam Grant, Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success David Epstein, Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World Douglas Stone, Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well Douglas Stone, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most Kerry Patterson, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High Kerry Patterson, Crucial Accountability: Tools for Resolving Violated Expectations, Broken Commitments, and Bad Behavior Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life James Clear, Tiny Changes, Remarkable Results, Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones Michael Bungay Stanier, The Coaching Habit: Say Less, Ask More & Change the Way You Lead Forever Peter Bergman, You Can Change Other People: The Four Steps to Help Your Colleagues, Employees--Even Family--Up Their Game Doug Lemov, The Coach's Guide to Teaching Doug Lemov, Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College Doug Lemov, Practice Perfect: 42 Rules for Getting Better at Getting Better   ​​From Lauren: The Secret Thoughts of Successful Women: Why Capable People Suffer from the Impostor Syndrome and How to Thrive in Spite of It by Valerie Young  I was inspired to read this book after reading a post on the 80,000 hours blog. I had heard of course heard of imposter syndrome in the past but I didn't make the connection to myself until I read this article and saw my thoughts printed on the page. You would think that after several years of a number of career successes, the imposter syndrome would have abated for me, but rather I found it getting worse! I thought that I should know more of what I was doing by this point in my career, but instead I often felt like I had no idea what I was doing!  So I came across this book and found it very helpful. Young defines people who have imposter syndrome as those who have a “persistent belief in their lack of intelligence, skills, or competence. They are convinced that other people's praise and recognition of their accomplishments is undeserved, chalking up their achievements to chance, charm, connections, and external factors. Unable to internalize or feel deserving of their success, they continually doubt their ability to repeat past successes.”  I certainly related to the point that instead of successes alleviating feelings of fraudulence, the opposite happens, because it increases pressures to uphold one's reputation. The pressures can be intense, leaving one wondering if it's all worth it, and prompting fantasies of leaving the charade behind.  One thing I really liked about this book is that it places the imposter syndrome into the context of a patriarchal, misogynistic, racist society and organizations that create cultures that cultivate self-doubt (ahem academia). Imposter syndrome is a rationale response to a crazy world. We exist in a society and culture that actually judges women to be less competent at work (the studies she details are SUPER disturbing). It is not surprising we would internalize these norms. Also that being underrepresented in a field creates pressures not only to represent just oneself, but an entire gender.  She focuses on women, but these concepts obviously apply to people of color and other disadvantaged social groups. And of course men can have imposter syndrome too.  Another part I liked about the book is digging into the notion that one's success is due to luck, or being in the right place at the right time. She dispels these notions by pointing out that, first of all, luck is always present, even for people who are enormously talented and second, being the right place at the right time, having the right connections, and having a winning personality can sometimes actually be the result of skills or abilities, often the result of hard-work, hustling, and efforts to develop one's socioemotional capacity.   This is a self-help book, so throughout she offers some useful rules and self-talk for responding to imposter syndrome thoughts. She details different ways to respond to thoughts based on your competence type. For example, if you are a perfectionist, she recommends reframing to a “good enough” quality standard—a mantra I adopted from colleague during the pandemic and has been incredibly helpful for me over the past few years. For the rugged individualist who equate true competence equals solo, unaided achievement, the reframe is “competence means knowing how to identify the resources needed to get the job done.”  Another really important idea she raises is that women often have difficult choices to make about their career and its impact on other parts of their families and their other social networks that aren't as pronounced for men in our society. Sometimes it is difficult to disentangle these questions from feelings of imposter syndrome. For example, is reluctance to take on more responsibility at work or relocate because you feel inadequate or is it because of genuine concern about the impact on your family? Moreover, women (generalizing here) tend to place lower value on traditional measures of work success (e.g. money, power, influence) and greater value on connection and meaning. It can require a lot of soul searching to figure out whether one is avoiding career “success” out of fear or that certain paths are just truly not aligned with our values.   Finally, towards the end of the book, she introduces the idea of “faking it till you make it” and having chutzpah—i.e going for it. Of course, she's not advocating for a George Santos approach (no lying) but just having a little bit more of a mindset that you'll figure it out once you're on the job.  I'd definitely recommend this book if you've ever struggled with similar feelings or mentor people who might. She's got a breezy and relatable writing style that's easy to read, lots of great real-world stories, and piquant quotes.   The No Club:  Putting a Stop to Women's Dead-End Work by Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, Lise Vesterlund, and Laurie Weingart  Summary of the book's premise:  Work activities fall on a spectrum from promotable and non-promotable (NPT).  Promotable activities are those that advance one's career. They use the word “advance” quite broadly to encompass various outcomes, like earning a promotion, getting plum assignments, increasing compensation, and enhancing marketability for other jobs. Promotable tasks are visible to others and increase the organization's currency. Some tasks may be indirectly promotable—they help you develop skills that have the potential to enhance your future success or access to future promotable work.  NPT's are important to your organization but will not help to advance your career. These tasks have low visibility (think committees and other service).  Too many NPT's can lead to work/work imbalance where promotable tasks get pushed to the side and advancement slows, or work-life imbalance, where advancement continues but at the expense of time in one's personal life (or both).  Although not exclusively a problem for women, women are more likely to take on NPT's at work. This is because they are both asked more often and are more likely to say yes when asked.  They propose both bottom-up (women saying no to more things) and top-down solutions (organizations making efforts to divide up NPT's more fairly and ensuring everyone is pitching in).  Before I read this book, I didn't fully grasp the idea that an activity would be helpful to the organization but not to my own career. Sometimes requests for participation in these activities come with a veneer or prestige and lots of feel-good gratitude. I personally feel a lot of guilt and worry about disappointing people when I say no to things. Even declining to review an article for a journal is accompanied by some stomach knots (it's so hard to find reviewers!) I also place a lot of value in collaboration and working in teams, and the idea of working in a culture where everyone is only looking out for themselves is not appealing to me.  But I'm also worried at the level of overwhelm I experience at times and perhaps some of you have experienced as well. How do we ensure that we are on sustainable path where we can stay in and build the world we want to live and work in?   The book also got me thinking about what is promotable or not in academia, i.e. what is the currency. I think we all know that grants and publications are promotable activities, but even within that there are hierarchies. Some of these hierarchies I think I understand: a data-based paper in a high-impact journal has higher promotability than an editorial in a lower-impact journal. Some of them I'm not sure about: is an NIH project grant more promotable than a foundation grant and if so why (bc higher indirects?)  Also, things like mentorship seem gray to me: senior-authored articles are evidence of independence and potential track to mentoring awards, but people often seem to place mentorship in the NPT category. I think having more transparency and discussion about what is promotable or not would be very useful.    Highly recommend this book for women, men, people in leadership, and employees. It's extremely well-written, nuanced, and eye-opening.   SPONSOR:    This episode of the GeriPal Podcast is sponsored by UCSF's Division of Palliative Medicine, an amazing group doing world class palliative care.  They are looking for physician faculty to join them in the inpatient and outpatient setting.  To learn more about job opportunities, please click here: https://palliativemedicine.ucsf.edu/job-openings  

A is for...AKIRA. For 2023 we're reading our way through the alphabet! AKIRA, the seminal Japanese cyberpunk post-apocalyptic manga series written and illustrated by Katsuhiro Otomo. This revolutionary Japanese comic ran from 1982 to 1990, serialized biweekly in Kodansha's seinen manga magazine Young Magazine, with its 120 chapters collected into six tankōbon volumes. The work had an outsized influence on not just comics east and west, but its landmark anime film adaptation from 1988 shaped a generation of storytellers. Almost across between Blade Runner meets Mad Max — with a little bit of 2001 A Space Odyssey thrown in, the FILM Akira was listed as one of the 10 essential animations. And it wasn't until the early 2000s that Dark Horse finally adapted the original manga for western audiences like us to READ. Akira takes place some 30 years after the 1988 Japanese government atomic bombing of Tokyo after ESP experiments on children go awry. . Kaneda, the leader of a Japanese youth biker gang — and his pal Tetsuo are cruising the border of OLD Tokyo, where they have an strange encounter, which leaves Tetsuo hospitalized. Tetsuo is whiskey-a-go-go'ed away to a secret government project and Kaneda finds himself subsequently battling anti-government activists, greedy politicians, irresponsible scientists and a powerful military leader. Ultimately, Tetsuo's supernatural powers manifest, and all hell breaks loose. The action culminates at the site of the modern day Tokyo Olympiad exposing the experiment's secrets. Otomo has stated that Akira reflects the essence of his views toward life and death, and the world which surrounds us. And joining us to help us make sense of the world which surrounds us (or at least this comic), is the very man who introduced Ryan & Raman oh so long ago, the one and only Bob Arnold, who apparantly named his cat after the lead character in Akira, who is really Canadian.

One of the most devastating experiences a family can go through is the death of a child. Bob Arnold joined us, sharing the intimate spiritual journey of his family's deepest pain and sorrow, and describing the desperate hope they clung to as they waited for God to take away their pain and answer their questions. The irony of this pain is that it grows; yet God meets their pain in ways you can't imagine. When the Circle is Broken: Our Journey Through Deep Sorrow and Surprising Joy in the Loss of Our Daughter See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The phone rang in the middle of the night, followed by the horrified screams of Bob Arnold’s wife, Jeanne. “What are you saying?” she cried. “Marcie’s not dead!” The man on the other end of the phone was the coroner in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and he was calling to break the news that Bob and Jeanne’s beautiful 23-year-old daughter, Marcie, had suddenly passed away from an undiagnosed heart defect. As the founder of Meadow Ministry and former Executive Director of Youth for Christ, Bob reveals how he and his wife battled through grief and sorrow in the wake of their daughter’s shocking death nearly 20 years ago - and how they included their surviving children in the grieving process. Daily journaling and scripture reading became his book which helps others heal through their time of grief. TAKEAWAYS The beauty of God’s creation will restore and heal your soul Bob and Jeanne survived the tragedy of their daughter’s death largely due to the support of their Christian friends Being open about what you are feeling and thinking after experiencing deep loss is an important part of the grieving process Bob and Jeanne’s book, When the Circle is Broken, tells the detailed story of how they persevered after Marcie’s death

One of my favorite Piece of My Mind essays in JAMA is by Rebecca Sudore, titled, “Can We Agree to Disagree?”  And today our guests agree to disagree.   And yet, and yet… They also agree across a whole range of issues, some of which surprised us. This is the latest in our series of podcasts on concerns about, and potential of advance care planning.  If you're new to this discussion, don't start with this podcast!  Start by reading this article by Sean Morrison, Diane Meier, and Bob Arnold in JAMA, and this response from Rebecca Sudore, Susan Hickman, and Anne Walling. Then listen to these prior podcasts with Sean Morrison and Rebecca Sudore about this issue, and we recently discussed differences between Advance Care Planning and Serious Illness Communication with Juliet Jacobsen and Rachelle Bernacki.   On today's podcast we ask our guests about areas in which there might be agreement or disagreement, including: The Best New York style bagels are made in California. Assigning a surrogate decision maker is important for everyone, including those who don't have serious illness. Where does POLST fit in with this debate? All decisions are made in advance, the question that we are debating is how far in advance and what to call it Completion of advance directives and billing codes for advance care planning as quality metrics Among other topics.  I'm heartened that we could have this discussion as a field, as it shows that we've grown to the point where we can agree to disagree respectfully with each other.   We can work it out! Links to a few couple items mentioned on the podcast: Objectives for Advance Care Planning 2018 Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews on ACP -@AlexSmithMD

Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Audio Theater presents the Old Time Radio classic “Bathysphere” by Arch Obeler for our first episode of Sonic Summerstock Promenade! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Audio Theater presents the Old Time Radio classic “Bathysphere” by Arch Obeler for our first episode of Sonic Summerstock Promenade! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bob Arnold, former Youth for Christ leader and Director of Alive and Impact student conferences (and more) discusses the book he and his wife, Jeanne wrote about their encounter with grief, sorrow, and joy through the loss of their daughter, Marci When the Circle is broken: https://meadow4.org/when-the-circle-is-broken  Maranomi: https://www.amazon.com/Maranomi-story-Paxton-Carys-Rainn-ebook/dp/B01DFFEY9Y 

“The take home message of this study is NOT that primary palliative care does not work.”  So says Yael Schenker of the negative study of an oncology nurse-led primary palliative care intervention for people with advanced cancer. And we pushed Yael and Bob Arnold (senior author) on this point - we have several negative studies of primary palliative care (see links below to podcasts)  - is it time to start to question the effectiveness of primary palliative care?  We certainly all agree on the problem: we have only enough palliative care specialists to care for some small proportion of the population of people with serious illness.  But when we move away from specialist palliative care to primary palliative care do we lose something critical? Perhaps we cannot train primary providers (front line nurses and doctors generally) to deliver palliative care that is “good enough” to impact outcomes. That's one interpretation.  Another is that we need a “stronger dose” of primary palliative care.  In Yael and Bob's study nurses averaged 2.2 visits, hardly robust longitudinal palliative care.  Patients who had 3 visits had better outcomes. Unpacking negative studies is just as interesting as unpacking positive studies.  Knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does. Links: Negative multi-national study of primary palliative care in nursing homes Negative ICU primary palliative care intervention Project ENABLE Podcast on palliative care's diversity problem Systematic review of palliative care  

Governance and Leadership in Health and Safety with Dr. Waddah Ghanem and Bob ArnoldWorkplace health and safety matters have become of significant importance. With changing regulations and standards being introduced globally, the effects on companies and negative impact on share values and reputation cannot be ignored.Many of the human, asset and economic incidents are caused by systemic issues emanating from a culture set at the top. H&S is now more than an operational or technical issue. Thus, we have seen the liabilities of directors increase to provide a stimulus for rectifying this situation. Executive teams want to ensure that the required range of values, behaviours, competences and management systems are defined and applied rigorously.The ISO 45001:2018 standard can bring about a step-change in the management of H&S to meet this higher expectation—especially with guidance and insights from the new book, Governance and Leadership in Health & Safety, authored by Dr. Waddah Ghanem and Bob Arnold.Learn from their extensive experience and the research they did for the book on Larry Wilson Live, an online talk show where the world's top leaders expand their mindset through “out of the box” discussion on pressing health and safety topics.You can contact Dr. Waddah Ghanem Al Hashmi at:waddah@pcllearning.comContact Bob Arnold at:bobarnold@bargroupltd.com Find there book here:https://www.routledge.com/Governance-and-Leadership-in-Health-and-Safety-A-Guide-for-Board-Members/Hashmi-Arnold/p/book/9781032023915- AND - Sign up for an in-depth 90-minute webinar on September 8th:https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/4397541152568127504

For our final episode of Season 16, Jack and David are thrilled to welcome back and old friend and a new group! Bob Arnold- previously of Chatterbox Audio Theater is back and this time with the group Spoken Signal Audio Drama. Headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, Spoken Signal Audio Drama creates and freely shares original, full-cast audio productions. And we have two here with "The Waverly House Haunting" and "Hidden Folk"! One more time, it's Audio Drama Time! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For our final episode of Season 16, Jack and David are thrilled to welcome back and old friend and a new group! Bob Arnold- previously of Chatterbox Audio Theater is back and this time with the group Spoken Signal Audio Drama. Headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, Spoken Signal Audio Drama creates and freely shares original, full-cast audio productions. And we have two here with "The Waverly House Haunting" and "Hidden Folk"! One more time, it's Audio Drama Time! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every organization has areas for improvement. The first step to identifying those areas is proactively learning from your wins and losses. Want to take it a step further? Share what you learned with others in your industry to empower your community and promote business continuity. In this episode, Bob Arnold, President of Disaster Recovery Journal, joins Peter to discuss the importance of community and information sharing for business resilience. Peter and Bob discuss: - How to bring disaster recovery and business continuity together - Tips for convincing leadership to implement safety initiatives year-round - The importance of sharing business challenges with your industry - How organizations can learn from others during the pandemic For more information, email Bob at bob@drj.com or give him a call at (636) 282-5800. The Employee Safety Podcast is hosted by Peter Steinfeld, VP of Sales at AlertMedia. You can find this interview and many more by subscribing to The Employee Safety Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or here. Listening on a desktop and can't see the links? Just search for The Employee Safety Podcast in your favorite podcast player.

Bob Arnold worked with Youth for Christ for 40 years, and this eventually led to his ministry at The Meadow. In addition to his ministry, Bob shares vulnerably about the shocking loss of his daughter. Check out his Meadow ministry here. To support this life affirming ministry, click here.

The work of farming is all consuming, but occasionally there is time to relax on the front porch. Bob Arnold has published numerous collections of poetry and is the editor and Publisher of one of the longest running small presses in the country Longhouse, which publishes remarkable poetry and literature. He lives in Vermont and is a stone builder and landscaper, having built many stone houses.  

Are you a good communicator? Can you identify the skills of optimal communication? Might you sometimes respond to emotion with facts? Communication is perhaps the most important thing we do in healthcare, let alone in life. And to support our patients in understanding their ill health and their healthcare needs requires a high level of human connection for communication to be optimal. So let me introduce you to Dr Laura Rock, an American intensivist, who reminds us on this podcast that (1) communication skills are learnable, (2) there are benefits in understanding our patients emotionally, (3) we can help patients greatly if we don’t try to reassure with facts when we hear emotions in the words they use, and (4) a focus on transparency, respect and curiosity can help us all to understand each other better; all of which seem likely to help us in our roles in the Intensive Care Unit. Laura is a Pulmonologist, Intensivist and Director of Communication and Teamwork for Critical Care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, an Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School, Faculty for the Center for Medical Simulation and a VitalTalk instructor. Laura studies and teaches the role of emotion in critical conversations, debriefing, feedback, and interprofessional conflict negotiation. She thinks we can change the world one conversation at a time, when we truly listen, and when we allow for creative and collaborative possibilities. When not teaching or seeing patients in the ICU, Laura loves to spend time with her family and to hike, ski, mountain bike, surf and sing. In this episode you will hear Laura speaking about many aspects of communication, also including: How she got into critical care and then became focused on communication What good communicators do to make human connection How micro-encounters and casual interactions are all part of building trust The GIVE acronym she suggests for responding to people’s emotions (Get there is emotion, Identify the emotion, Validate the feelings, Explore to understand) Some examples of how to respond to what sound like comments with emotions Some thoughts on what to do when the person is angry How we should guess at people’s emotions, not tell them what they are feeling Her thoughts on touch including hugs How the universality of communication skills can help us with friends and family too Being specific when helping debrief a team The teaching she does on ward rounds How most poor communication interactions can be helped by saying sorry Her self care including her approach to exercise, nature, guitar-playing, sleep and balance The gratitude she feels for having recently spent a lot of time with her dying mother. Laura is kind, caring, astute, thoughtful and the sort of listener and communicator I would have liked to have been involved in the care of my father when he was dying, something we talk about towards the end of the episode. This one is really worth listening to, no matter how good you think your communication skills are. Please listen to and learn from Dr Laura Rock. Andrew Davies -------------------- About the Mastering Intensive Care podcast: The podcast is aimed to inspire and empower you to bring your best self to the intensive care unit, through conversations with thought-provoking guests. I hope you’ll glean insights to help you improve as a healthcare professional and as a human being so you can make a truly valuable contribution to your patient’s lives. -------------------- Links to people, organisations and other resources mentioned: Laura Rock on Twitter Laura Rock at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Laura Rock at Harvard Catalyst Laura Rock on LinkedIn Center For Medical Simulation VitalTalk Published papers by Tony Back and Bob Arnold 2019 World Congress of Intensive Care Medicine SMACC Melbourne marathon  Melbourne Cricket Ground Mastering Intensive Care podcast - Episode 47 with Matt Morgan New Normal Project podcast Mastering Intensive Care podcast Mastering Intensive Care page on Facebook  Mastering Intensive Care at Life In The Fast Lane  Andrew Davies on Twitter: @andrewdavies66 Andrew Davies on Instagram: @andrewdavies66 Email Andrew Davies

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the world’s leading professional organization for doctors who care for people with cancer. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so the data described here may change as research progresses. Greg Guthrie: Hi everyone, I'm Greg Guthrie, and I'm a member of the Cancer.Net content team. And I'll be your host for today's Cancer.Net podcast. As a reminder, Cancer.Net is the patient information website of ASCO, The American Society of Clinical Oncology. Today, we're going to be talking about some research highlights from the upcoming Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium. And my guests are Dr. William Dale and Dr. Joe Rotella. Dr. Dale is the Arthur M. Coppola Family Chair in Supportive Medicine at the City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California. He is also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Geriatric Oncology. Thanks for joining us, William. Dr. William Dale: Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here. Greg Guthrie: And Dr. Rotella is the Chief Medical Officer of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Thank you for joining us as well, Joe. Dr. Joe Rotella: It's nice to be here with you today. Greg Guthrie: All right. Now, I also want to comment that William and Joe both served on the news planning team for this symposium, which means they helped select the studies that we'll be discussing on this podcast. So let's start off by discussing what is meant when we say “supportive care.”  William, what do you think when I say supportive care? Dr. William Dale: So supportive care medicine, and we have a Department of Supportive Care Medicine here at City of Hope, focuses on providing quality of life considerations for patients in a multidisciplinary way to emphasize functional status, to emphasize overall health for patients. Within supportive care, almost any part of the multidisciplinary team could be included outside of the cancer-directed therapy itself. As an example, palliative care exists as a division within our department of supportive care along with psychology, psychiatry, interventional pain, social work and some others. So when someone says supportive care, I think of everything outside of the cancer-directed therapy that we might do on a multidisciplinary team. Greg Guthrie: That's a great foundation to have before we jump into these studies. And the first one I'd like us to talk about is called “A pilot study of oncology massage to treat chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, also called CIPN.” So Joe, what is chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy? Dr. Joe Rotella: Well, peripheral neuropathy is a nerve damage which is often associated with neuropathic pain which can be of 2 sorts: sort of a constant burning or a deep kind of pain, or it can be more of a sharp and shooting type of pain. But it's associated with the toxicity of some common chemotherapy drugs, particularly those related to platinum and the Taxol family of drugs. And so it's a pretty common side effect of pretty common chemotherapy that's given to people with advanced cancers and not an easy symptom to treat. The typical pain medications that we would use for any sort of pain, for example opioids, don't always work that well for neuropathic pain. And, of course, there are safety issues and other concerns around using opioids. The other medicines that are often used might fall in the class of the medicines like Gabapentin, or anticonvulsants. And they also can have quite a few side effects and are just not terribly effective. So this study looked at a nonpharmacological approach to managing the pain of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Very interesting, they looked at a standardized Swedish massage technique applied to the lower extremity, and then they had a number of other less intensive massage therapies that were used as a control. And they gave this 3 times a week over 6 weeks, and they were actually able to show a significant reduction in the symptoms related to the chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, and that it actually was sustained for up to 6 weeks after the massage treatment had been completed. So this was fascinating that we could apply what appears to be a low-risk treatment that seems to be free of significant side effects that falls in that category of complementary alternative medicine that is so appealing to patients, and that this actually showed results that lasted beyond the duration of the intervention. And the less intensive control interventions did not result in as much symptom improvement. So very interesting study. Greg Guthrie: Great. William, what do you think of this study? Dr. William Dale: You know, peripheral neuropathy is extremely difficult for patients to deal with in our treatments as Joe just pointed out, are kind of notoriously ineffective. It works for a few patients, but often it doesn't that well and the side effects are quite high. So looking for alternatives to medications is something that's on all of our lists. Too often patients, in some ways, either get medicines or they're left on their own devices. We don't really have good evidence base to tell them what to do. Even though this study is not huge, it was very well constructed. So we know what kind of massage was used, what kind of evidence we had, and that it had a longer-term effect. And I agree with Joe that it's really nice to have an alternative that we can say has evidence that we might let patients consider and that's outlined in a way that lets us say this was a causal relationship or at least seems to be that patients were put into these two groups and it really was the group that got this very specific Swedish massage that had these enduring effects. So it'd be great to see this in a larger group of patients and to know for sure if this will work from a wider group of patients, but as a starting point, to have an alternative to medications for such difficult-to-treat side effect with such quality of life implications is really exciting. The other thing I would mention and ask Joe about is they make the point that, these are licensed professionals. These were people who were expert at doing this kind of intervention. And patients sometimes ask, "Oh, can I get this?" And it would be nice to say just like any other intervention whether it was a medication intervention or a procedural intervention to say, "This is the way that this has to be done," and very specifically, what the outcome is expected. Too often we give vague information to people when it comes to so-called alternative therapies. But this was very specific to people trained to do this, presumably in patients who have cancer. Dr. Joe Rotella: Yes, I agree. It's actually important to have a sense of what the intervention is that is actually performing better, let's say, than control or better than placebo or better than no intervention. The more we can pin down exactly what works and what frequency, what intensity is needed to get the optimal results, the more we can treat this like we would a pharmacological therapy where we can say, "Here's precisely what I recommend for you. Here's the dose. Here's the frequency. This is where the evidence says you're likely to get the most benefit." And I think there are certain interventions in complementary alternative medicine where we're starting to get there, where we can actually say, "This technique works better than that technique." And I think that's when we can begin to bring it into the same sort of rigor that we do our pharmacological treatments. Greg Guthrie: Yeah, that's really great, just having an evidence-based approach to complementary therapies. So let's move on to our next study which is called “Anxiety, depression, pain, and social support in a large representative cancer population.” So what questions did this study set out to investigate? Dr. Joe Rotella: This study started with the recognition that pain is a very common symptom in patients with cancer and actually looked at what are some associations with pain? How does it relate to the presence of anxiety and depression? How does it relate to whether people have good social supports or not? Can we start to get a sense of how these things all interrelate to modulate the intensity and frequency of pain? And this study was interesting because it really looked at over 11,000 patients. And it was looking at patient-reported information. These were patients who were undergoing treatment for anywhere from stage I to IV cancer who were using a tablet to record their symptoms and information in a large academic center. And through this large database, a lot of analysis could be done to determine what were the key drivers of pain or modulators of pain. And what they found was a number of things were independently associated with the severity of pain in these cancer patients, included the site of the tumor. For example, head and neck cancer versus gastrointestinal cancer. The degree or severity of the disease, how advanced it was. Race and ethnicity was a predictor, lower income, all of these were independently associated with severe pain. But this study went a little further and looked at the effect of anxiety or depression and the level of reported social supports. And in all cases, if the patient reports high anxiety or high depression, it is associated with higher pain scores. But those could be further modulated by the degree of social support. So if a patient had low social support level as self reported, then the effect of the depression on pain was more. If they had anxiety and high levels of pain and the ones who had transportation issues, for example, tended to have even more pain. So with this really large database, we begin to get a sense of how these various factors interface. And it's not just a tumor type, it's not just a stage of the tumor, it's not just things like race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, but it's also the degree to which anxiety and depression are present and the degree to which there are social supports that can actually play a role in the level of pain that patients report. All of this would support this multidisciplinary holistic approach that we take in supportive care programs or when we're providing palliative care through a team. This really supports that concept that pain is not an island unto itself. The whole rest of the patients’ experience has a big impact on how they experience pain. Greg Guthrie: William, what are some patient takeaways from this study? Dr. William Dale: Yeah, to pick up on Joe's great summary of this, so overall, sometimes we have big studies but we don't have a reason for those studies to be big other than we happen to have a lot of data. What was nice in this study was they used the fact of a large dataset to show how the various variables interacted with each other. So in many cases, you can say well, if someone has a lower income or comes from a certain part of the world, whether a city or in an urban area versus a more rural area, they have worse outcomes. But, of course, those are very non-modifiable things. And it's perfectly fine to say it, but then what do we do about it? What made me feel good about this study was they said, "Well, if you have anxiety and depression, you can approach the problem this way. You can start to take care of those modifiable issues and that will help you with pain." Or if they live in a remote location, you could identify transportation. If you noted that they were living alone, for example, and they needed more help in the home, you could get that support. We all sort of feel that in our field, intuitively, that those things matter and are important. But this really started to connect the dots between pain and these other factors and how we might start to both take care of patients better, but to also start learning and putting the causal picture together about how this works. And to your question about patient outcomes, so the idea of patient-reported outcomes has become more common and I think for good reason to actually ask the patient, “What's going on? What's their experience? How are they feeling?” And this was nice because it put an emphasis on that. And in many cases as they reported—this was on tablet computers—patients and respondents to surveys will be more honest when they're talking to a computer than they were to people, especially if it's their oncologist. We know that they will often become nervous, that if they could tell the oncologist, "Oh, I'm having these other problems," that someone might stop their therapy. And so they don't want that to happen when they really need those outcomes so they can identify what's needed. So screening people for these problems, which we advocate for, this just emphasizes how important they are even for something as basic as pain management. And 1 other thing I wanted to mention, and Joe may want to weigh in on this as well, was this may help explain why we've had this so-called opioid crisis. And I don't want to overemphasize it, but if every time someone reports pain, our first instinct is to give them a medicine, especially an opioid medicine, and just increase the dose. Without identifying all these other factors, it's just an “If I have a hammer,” kind of solution to a problem, when really the multidisciplinary approach that palliative care and supportive care have always emphasized would do better even for something like the overuse of opioid medications. Dr. Joe Rotella: William, I really agree with you on that. Actually, the founder of the modern hospice movement who really started the whole palliative care movement as well, Cicely Saunders, had a concept she called “total pain.” And what it meant was that you may experience pain physically, but it is an experience that involves your physical being, your mental being, your social relationships, your spiritual concerns, that the whole person plays a role in how you experience pain. And whether we're prescribing an opioid or massage or a ride to the chemotherapy center, whatever else we're doing, that multidisciplinary approach that looks at all the experience of the patient, not just their physical experience, but what's happening not just in their body, but in their mind, in their heart, in their spirit. That's really the key to giving people the very best quality of life. And those interventions that are less physically oriented tend to be lower risk, they're tolerated well. It's just a question of getting that team engaged and providing that more holistic approach. Greg Guthrie: That's really great insight into this study. So let's switch to our third and last highlighted study for this symposium which is called “Racial/ethnic disparities in hospice utilization among Medicare beneficiaries dying from pancreatic cancer.” Before we delve deeper into the study, I think it's important if we define what hospice care is and what we may mean when we say disparities. So Joe, how would you describe these terms? Dr. Joe Rotella: Sure. Hospice care is a particular form of comprehensive palliative care that's provided to people near the end of life. Palliative care, supportive care is appropriate at any stage of illness when patients may experience stress or symptoms. But hospice care is designed for those patients that are near the end of life. And in our country, we have a Medicare hospice benefit which is in myriad insurance benefits, which means that it's generally a care that is accessible to almost everyone who is designated as most likely to be near the end of life. The Medicare benefit actually requires a physician to predict that it's probably the last 6 months or so. And it's a very comprehensive form of palliative care. It's really the gold standard of care for people who are nearing the end of life. And so what's interesting about hospice care though is even though it's comprehensive palliative and supportive care with a team right where you live in your home, wherever you call home, a lot of people don't access it at all or they don't access it until very late. Nationally, the trends are that about half the patients with Medicare who die actually get any hospice care before they die. And of those who do get hospice care, half of them get it for less than 3 weeks. And so it's really not fully utilized. And we could do a whole separate podcast on why people don't fully use it. But it's interesting then if it's sort of an underutilized service to try to determine either what drives that. And among other things, one way to try to understand it is to look at whether there are disparities. And by disparities, we mean, does 1 population seem to be treated or seem to be having outcomes that are different from another population who only differ, let's say, in race or ethnicity or gender? And so this study is trying to look at is there a difference in hospice utilization among Medicare beneficiaries who have a very specific condition? They're dying from pancreatic cancer. And again, large database looked at thousands of patients, and really, they were trying to see if there was an association between race or ethnic minority and the utilization of hospice before dying. Pancreatic cancer is a high mortality illness, and in fact, in this study, something like 64% of the patients did die during the course of the study. And there was a difference. Those from ethnic and racial minorities were less likely to initiate hospice care before they died. What's also interesting though is that disappeared if you looked at the very short hospice stay. If you looked at the patients who only got hospice for 1 or 2 or 3 days before they died. In that case, you don't see a racial disparity. But for that earlier hospice care, you do. This study can't explain why, but it really raises questions around why. Is it about how we present the option? Is it because there are different preferences for treatment near the end of life? Is it socioeconomic factors? Don't know from this, but what we can show here is just like with so many other parts of healthcare, there are in fact important disparities here that we should try to understand. Greg Guthrie: William, what are your thoughts on this study? Dr. William Dale: It's such a complicated story of why there are differences between groups. And this study has a great job of showing that we see these differences. I will reflect on my own personal experience of being in 2 different places with 2 different populations. First in Chicago where we had a mix of largely African-American patients and white patients, and now in Southern California where we have a group that's roughly one-third white, one-third Hispanic and one-third Asian. And just to take a simple thing like that, we all noticed differences in the communities with acceptance of the terms of hospice and end of life care. And I think we've all wondered gosh, it does seem like certain groups get it more often than others for a variety of reasons. And to have some data and a large dataset to show, that's really a good thing for us, so that we can advance to the next step of what are the reasons for that or as Joe just said, why is that? I note in the general population, about two-thirds of people when you ask them at the end of your life, what is your preferred location for dying? And two-thirds will say at home. And then when you look at the actual likelihood of where people die, it's about one-third that dies at home and about two-thirds that are in the hospital. Dr. Joe Rotella: Just to add a little bit more, there was something interesting kind of a side observation, and that is that in this particular study, although there was that disparity, overall, 74% of the patients actually did receive hospice care before dying. And so that's actually much better than that 50% or so that you see across the board for all people with all serious illnesses. And another set of disparities we might want to look at sometime besides race and ethnicity would be disease-specific disparities. Why do cancer patients have a higher rate of hospice utilization than patients with end-stage kidney disease, for example? Dr. William Dale: Yeah, that's a great point, Joe. And it makes me think of our ultimate goal when we talk about people having certain goals for their care including their end of life goals. And we use the term “goal-concordant care” so that people pass away where they want to. But boy, that is a moving target sometimes. And so it's helpful to just see well, where do we usually end up in terms of goal-concordant care. And cancer patients, I don't know what you think Joe, do tend to end up in hospice more often, but I still think the length of stay are pretty short even in the cancer population. Dr. Joe Rotella: I think that's true. And a lot of times, I think it may have to do with when the patient stops taking chemotherapy or some other direct cancer treatment. And in many cases, that's close to the end of life, and so then the stay is short. Dr. William Dale: Yeah, I think that's right. I do point out I'm at a cancer center. Our name is City of Hope. And so patients come here with that sense of their coming with hope for something. Usually some form of a new treatment or almost a miracle treatment that will rescue them. And we in the field are often trying to make sure patients understand hope for, can be hope for lots of different things. My old mentor, Bob Arnold, used to say hope for higher quality of life. Hope for meaningfulness. Hope for comfort. All should be part of the conversation. So broadening, again, beyond just the hyper focus on what can we do about this disease to a broader set of questions is probably the next thing we need to understand. Dr. Joe Rotella: Yeah, that'd be a great podcast [laughter]. Greg Guthrie: Well, I wanted to say I've heard the terms quality of life, multidisciplinary, and overall health a lot in our discussion today. And I think that that really just underwrites the role that supportive care plays in cancer treatments. And I think that that's just a great way to summarize the really interesting research that's coming out of this year's Supportive Care in Oncology symposium. So William, Joe, thank you for coming onto this podcast to talk about these studies and to show how they can help start to make improvements in patients’ lives. I really appreciate you taking the time to join us. Dr. William Dale: Well, thank you, Greg. We're looking forward to seeing these studies discussed at the conference. Dr. Joe Rotella: It was a pleasure. Thanks so much. Greg Guthrie: Thank you. ASCO: Find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net.  And if this podcast was useful, please take a minute to subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Google Play. This Cancer.Net podcast is part of the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of 9 programs covering a range of educational and scientific content offering insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all 9 shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds breakthrough research for every type of cancer, helping patients everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at conquer.org/support.

"Preparing for DRJ Fall 2019 in Phoenix" with Bob Arnold, Patti Fitzgerald, Rose Chotrow, and Jon Seals. Contact DRJ staff members at: https://www.drj.com https://twitter.com/drjournal https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-arnold-209b078/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/pattifitzgerald/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/rose-chotrow-987a5a10/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonseals/ Business Resilience Decoded: www.drj.com/decoded/ twitter.com/BRDecoded

Your host, Federal Stonecipher, brings you the latest in this newest week from Mutual! Monday Matinee begins with Sonic Society #413- Heman Master of the Audioverse and Chatterbox Audio Theatre "The Dead" a retelling of the classic James Joyce tale from Bob Arnold. Mutual... storytelling at its best!

Your host, Federal Stonecipher, brings you the latest in this newest week from Mutual! Monday Matinee begins with Sonic Society #413- Heman Master of the Audioverse and Chatterbox Audio Theatre "The Dead" a retelling of the classic James Joyce tale from Bob Arnold. Mutual... storytelling at its best! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Monday Matinee! This week we feature Sonic Society Season 10#412 with "The Elysium Project" by Natalie van Sistine, Jay Smith's "Hidden Harbor Mysteries" episode #4! Then to wrap things up, Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Showcase #2 brings us three short plays "The Interview", "The Prague Winter", and "The Sun"! If you love audio drama, the feeling's Mutual! 

It's Monday Matinee! This week we feature Sonic Society Season 10#412 with "The Elysium Project" by Natalie van Sistine, Jay Smith's "Hidden Harbor Mysteries" episode #4! Then to wrap things up, Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Showcase #2 brings us three short plays "The Interview", "The Prague Winter", and "The Sun"! If you love audio drama, the feeling's Mutual!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Good Monday Morning! And welcome to the Matinee! Your host, Jack Ward, tests the Summerstock Playhouse venue with the menu of this week's entertainment including Sonic Society #408 which features a special Christmas episode from Pete Lutz, and the conclusion of Chatterbox Audio's "Argonautica" a classic Greek Myth tale adapted by Bob Arnold. The stage is set on Mutual!

Good Monday Morning! And welcome to the Matinee! Your host, Jack Ward, tests the Summerstock Playhouse venue with the menu of this week's entertainment including Sonic Society #408 which features a special Christmas episode from Pete Lutz, and the conclusion of Chatterbox Audio's "Argonautica" a classic Greek Myth tale adapted by Bob Arnold. The stage is set on Mutual! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Finishing last week's reprise of Halloween's past... David continues his trek through the conclusion of the original tales from the Chatterbox Audio Horror Broadcast! Presenting our final voyage in live sounds from the direction of Bob Arnold and a plethora of writers and talented actors from the 2014 show!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Finishing last week's reprise of Halloween's past... David continues his trek through the conclusion of the original tales from the Chatterbox Audio Horror Broadcast! Presenting our final voyage in live sounds from the direction of Bob Arnold and a plethora of writers and talented actors from the 2014 show! 

In an early Spring reprise to Halloween... David awakens to find himself only connected by the incredible original tales from the 2014 Chatterbox Audio Horror Broadcast! Presenting the first part of the incredible voyage in live sounds from the direction of Bob Arnold and a plethora of writers and talented actors! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In an early Spring reprise to Halloween... David awakens to find himself only connected by the incredible original tales from the 2014 Chatterbox Audio Horror Broadcast! Presenting the first part of the incredible voyage in live sounds from the direction of Bob Arnold and a plethora of writers and talented actors!

Host Pete Lutz finds his seat in the matinee to present Sonic Society #395- Prenport, The one-person show that started it all "Breathing Space" from Jack J. Ward and "Homestead" from Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Audio! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Host Pete Lutz finds his seat in the matinee to present Sonic Society #395- Prenport, The one-person show that started it all "Breathing Space" from Jack J. Ward and "Homestead" from Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Audio!

"Growing Up In Disaster Recovery" with Bob Arnold, president of Disaster Recovery Journal. Contact Bob Arnold at: bob@drj.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-arnold-209b078/ https://www.drj.com Business Resilience Decoded: www.drj.com/decoded/ twitter.com/BRDecoded

We speak with Bob Arnold, Director of NASW Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization that supports NASW's educational, research, training and charitable initiatives through a wide range of projects that serve the profession, practitioners and the public. Visit the Foundation website to learn more

Here's the latest free podcast and download from Toby Hadoke, as he tracks down another figure from the first 50 years of televisual Doctor Who, and gets a view on their part in the show, as well as their career as a whole...

David continues his trek through the conclusion of the original tales from the Chatterbox Audio Horror Broadcast! Presenting our final voyage in live sounds from the direction of Bob Arnold and a plethora of writers and talented actors from the 2014 show!

David awakens to find himself only connected by the incredible original tales from the 2014 Chatterbox Audio Horror Broadcast!  Presenting the first part of the incredible voyage in live sounds from the direction of Bob Arnold and a plethora of writers and talented actors! 

Bob Arnold and Chatterbox Audio Theater  presents the Old Time Radio classic "Bathysphere" by Arch Obeler for our first episode of Sonic Summerstock Promenade! 

Seasonal programming begins again on the show with an unconventional Christmas story by Chatterbox Audio Theater, called “Snow Globe.” This is a holiday fable for adults, about the stresses the holidays put us under and our desperate desire to find magic and meaning in this time of year. Penned by Bob Arnold and wonderfully produced. […] The post Episode 202 – Chatterbox Stories Under the Snowglobe appeared first on Radio Drama Revival.

John Claverhouse's strange appearance and grating laugh are enough to get under anyone's skin. But how far will his neighbor go in order to get rid of the jolly, moon-faced man? A surprising and darkly comic tale from Jack London.

In this Norse myth, Odin and his family create a home for themselves in Asgard. But to keep themselves safe, they'll need to build a wall -- a wall that can only be built by magic, and whose construction comes at a great price.

A Christmas fable for grownups. An estranged daughter returns home on Christmas Eve after discovering what she believes to be a message from beyond. Act two of two.

A Christmas fable for grownups. An estranged daughter returns home on Christmas Eve after discovering what she believes to be a message from beyond. Act one of two.

Two men sit in a rented room, waiting. One is calm, the other nervous. To pass the time, the men play a game of checkers -- and the stakes are much higher than they first appear. A Chatterbox original.

A man comes to believe that he possesses extraordinary powers -- powers that he can only activate by putting himself in harm's way. But what will happen when he decides to test his theory? A Chatterbox original.

Chatterbox's second annual live Halloween performance on 91.1 WKNO FM. The second half of this terrifying anthology show features the stories "Silent Retreat," "Hypnosis," "The Damned Thing," and "The Thing on the Fourble Board."

Chatterbox's second annual live Halloween performance on 91.1 WKNO FM. The first half of this terrifying anthology show features the stories "In the Rainbow Room," "Boil," and "The Download."

A Southern retelling of James Joyce's classic story "The Dead." In early-20th-century Memphis, an insecure schoolteacher struggles to navigate the social currents at his aunts' holiday party. But before the night is over, several unexpected encounters and one stunning revelation will change the way he views his family, his friends, and himself.

I couldn't resist. In addition to a great interview with Bob Arnold and Kyle Hadley of Chatterbox Audio Theater, I put up another one of their shows, “In the Penal Colony” by Franz Kafka. A foreigner is brought to see the “wonders” of a remote penal colony, where the operator of a diabolical machine still […] The post Episode 98: A Kafkaesque Turn, and Chatter from the Chatterboxers appeared first on Radio Drama Revival.