Healthcare Disruption

Archive for Healthcare Disruption

Reading for Healthcare Disrupters: In Shock, by Rana Awdish, MD

May 13-15, I’m heading to the Patient Experience Conference at Cleveland Clinic where Dr. Jonathan Bean, our research partner from Harvard Medical School will be presenting the results of a study using Wellpepper to deliver an interactive care plan for people between 65 and 85 who are at risk of adverse events. We’re excited about the positive clinical outcomes he saw, but more importantly, about the ability for technology to deliver empathy in patient care.

in shock book coverThe ultimate in empathy is to “walk a mile in someone’s shoes.” While this is often not physically possible, if you can emotionally understand someone else’s view this is the beginning of empathy. Research shows that reading fiction increases empathy, but I can imagine that non-fiction like Dr Rana Awdish’s compelling and gripping “In Shock” would do the same. Dr Awdish chronicles her near-death experience and subsequent recovery at the hospital where she practices. By becoming a patient with the mind of a doctor, she is able to deeply experience and understand both sides of a situation: the doctor who sees a case, and the patient who is so much more than a collection of symptoms. As a patient she experiences incorrect diagnoses, not being believed or listened to, arrogance, and condescension. As a physician, she struggles with her training to not get involved emotionally involved with patients and to shrug off traumatic events with her newfound understanding that experiencing pain is the only way to really empathize and connect with each other, and the only thing that will enable physicians to truly deliver care.

The book can be read as case study of experiences from both sides of the equation as Dr. Awdish struggles to make sense of her experiences, and learn how well-meaning instructions can result in the wrong outcome. For example, Dr Awdish reflects on her medical school and residency training and how it was designed to search for diagnosis not for meaning.

“We weren’t trained to listen. We were trained to ask questions that steered people to a destination”

When she’s taken to emergency and immediately steered to OB despite her protestations that the problem is not the pregnancy it’s something else, she directly experiences the impact of this training.

When Awdish is admitted to the hospital for bed rest during later pregnancy, her room becomes a defacto support group for medical professionals who need somewhere to properly process and sometimes grieve patient outcomes. This community defies their training which was to shrug off the emotions, and it’s during this period that Awdish comes to her hypothesis that switching communication may have the most powerful impact of all.

“This way of questioning, this recommendation built on empathy and a patient-centered narrative has the potential to heal everyone involved.”

Awdish is full of hope that the medical community can change. She’s a frequent lecturer and has won awards for building empathy and communication programs. The book also includes a study guide, and is being included in medical school curriculum.

You can hear Dr Awdish read from her book in this clip, or follow her on twitter @RanaAwdish

If you’re looking for more great reads check out these recommendations from our blog. Or, if podcasts are more your style, we’ve got those too.

Posted in: Behavior Change, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Research, physician burnout, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Healthcare of the Future: Equity and Access

If the sold-out “Healthcare of the Future” event presented by Puget Sound Business Journal, is any indication, Seattle is ready for healthcare transformation. Last week’s event at the Fairmont Olympic featured prominent local healthcare leaders discussing equity and access to care, and why Seattle is the right community to deliver.

Healthcare of the Future

Interesting, the panel discussion started with a definition of access, framed as not just being able to receive care, but also to navigate and understand care. Speakers mentioned that in the transition from uninsured to insured, people might now have access to care but not enough health literacy to receive care. This was exemplified when one of the panelists, a physician herself talked about a recent experience with getting care for her son where she navigated multiple providers and care settings, and all the while had a firm handle on who she was talking to, why her concerns were important, and the eventual diagnosis.

You can see examples of this everyday on #medtwitter when physicians or other healthcare professionals talk about how hard it was for them to navigate the system as caregivers for their families. Now, just imagine that you’ve never had healthcare coverage before. How do you know what your options are, how much you may have to pay, or when and where to see a doctor?

Panelists also felt that in addition to access, health equity needed to include helping patients make decisions based on their own values, not the values of the system. Again, a difficult situation to navigate for someone new to the system, or potentially being intimidated by the ‘white coat.’ Equity also looks at whether anyone is being left behind in the system, which could be from a myriad of reasons: language, cultural, or even geographical barriers. Given the problems of staffing rural clinics and hospitals, are people in remote areas able to receive the same level of care as those in the cities?

Unsurprisingly, panelists were bullish on Seattle’s ability to deliver, both from the collaborative nature of the healthcare organizations in the region, and from our stronghold of technology. Tech and healthcare partnerships were cited as the best opportunity to shorten the 17 year cycle from research to clinical practice, with technology disruption in the areas of big data, AI, and cloud infrastructure from local tech giants Microsoft and Amazon pushing the healthcare industry forward. (Let’s hope they can also solve the interoperability of data problems, as one speaker equated having the largest Epic installation at Providence as being a substitute for data portability and interoperability.)

All in all, this was a great event, and discussions at my table ranged from best practices for oncology care, especially with patient-facing tools outside the clinic, to how smart hospital room design includes sensors in the furniture to predict patient falls. That the room was buzzing before 7:30 on a Friday morning shows that we have a lot of great momentum for solving hard problems in healthcare in Seattle.

Posted in: Healthcare costs, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Engaging Patients and Impact to Clinical Workflow

One of our goals at Wellpepper is to enable patients to self-manage and we know that if given the right tools, they will do so. While we strive for that exceptional patient experience, we also put a lot of effort into streamlining clinical workflow for onboarding and monitoring patients.

Patient Onboarding

The process for inviting a patient is meant to be simple with a minimal impact to clinical workflow. Capturing basic patient demographics and assigning the appropriate care plan(s); a process that takes 30 seconds to complete. Typically, a scheduler, navigator or health coach will invite patients when they have been identified for an interactive care plan. Ideally, this is done prior to the patient coming into the clinic, but depending on the care plan, this can place at the front desk or in the patient’s room. EMR integration is another way Wellpepper can help streamline this process. You can read a bit more about some of our EMR Integration options in my post about deployment options (here).

Patient Monitoring

Our professional services team will work with your clinical teams to understand all the scenarios where you want to know what your patients are doing when they’re not in the clinic. Using Alerts & Notifications and Machine Learning, we can help make sure that you’re focusing your time on the patients that need help.

Alerting & Notifications

Our sophisticated rules engine enables health systems to build out simple or complex alerting scenarios. These alerting scenarios will generate an alert and notify the care team.

Patients reporting a symptom or side effect is the most commonly used alerting scenario. Our analysis has found that in surgical scenarios, patients that report a symptom or side effect within 3 days after surgery are 3 times as likely to readmit within 30 days. By alerting the care team that a patient is experiencing a symptom or side effect, a care team member can take action and possibly prevent a readmission.

Other Alerting scenarios may include things like patients not doing their exercises, or reporting a blood sugar reading out of the target range.

Machine Learning

One of the areas that we apply machine learning to help streamline clinical workflow is in our HIPAA-compliant messaging system, which allows communication between patients and their care team. Our analysis has shown that 98% of the messages that patients send are not urgent, and 70% of them don’t need a response. Our message classifier looks for the 2% that are urgent and escalates those to the care team.

It’s important to understand all of the points where patients may reach out for help and optimize workflow accordingly. This is another area where integrating with the EMR can help.

For more information on how to streamline clinical workflow while still providing a great patient experience, please email me at luke@wellpepper.com.

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, Interoperability, Managing Chronic Disease, patient engagement

Leave a Comment (0) →

The HIMSS Flu

As usual HIMSS was an overwhelming whirlwind of meetings, opportunities, and information. We had a great show at Wellpepper, and were impressed by a few things. First we heard a lot less about wanting the EMR to do everything. People have realized that especially for all of the patient-facing digital experience, that there need to be interoperable solutions, that are designed with the needs of the end-user in mind. Another thing we noticed was less hype that any one technology (AI, blockchain) was going to be the savior of healthcare. It seems like the market is maturing and there’s an understanding that technology is a key underpinning but only when it’s solving real problems for patients and clinicians. John Moore from Chilmark, who was attending his 11th HIMSS has a great take on this.

Each year, we come away from HIMSS with something we didn’t expect. While it’s usually new leads, partnerships, or competitive intelligence, this year for me, it was the HIMSS flu. Being in a conference center full of technology to diagnose, manage, connect with, and treat sick people, made it seem like a solution should be close by. Ironically, I had meetings with a number of physicians who said that it looked like I had the flu, but couldn’t treat me because they weren’t licensed in Florida. Also, my primary care physician couldn’t help me for this reason as well.

After seeing CirrusMD tweet at my friend and fellow patient-centered care advocate Jan Oldenburg with an offer of a consult, I thought that telemedicine might be the answer.

MDLive came through with a visit code, and I signed up. The sign-up process was pretty painless although an option to clarify where I was physically versus where I lived might have been helpful.

Once I signed up, the app told me it would notify me when it found a physician. This was the slightly confusing part, as when I exited the app and opened it again there was no record that I was in a queue for an appointment, so I started trying to sign up again. Eventually, a video visit came through while I was trying to re-register.

My doctor looked like she was taking calls from home, from the video. Unfortunately, video didn’t work very well from the HIMSS floor—not surprising given the status of the network, so we switched to phone. After a 10 minute conversation, she concluded I had the flu (she was right), and prescribed Tamiflu.

As Jan also found out when she had her asthma attack, the pharmacies near the convention center weren’t actually pharmacies, that is they didn’t offer prescription medication. For Jan it was an expensive Uber to pick up her prescription. For me it was finding a pharmacy that would be open between Orlando and Tampa where were were headed for customer meetings on Friday. By the time I got the prescription, it was 7 hours later, and with Tamiflu the timing matters.

While I was thankful to get care, here are a number of points of friction that made it more difficult than it needed to be, and also show how healthcare really hasn’t adapted to the needs of people:

  • State-based licensure makes telemedicine prohibitive. It also means that you can’t get care from your primary care or other specialists if you’re traveling. Kind of ridiculous that because the patient is physically in Florida suddenly the physician is not licensed to practice.
  • Pharmacies need more delivery options. Even locally, I’ve ended up at pharmacies that don’t take my insurance. Driving around when you’re sick is annoying, and showing up in person when you’ve got the flu is unhelpful for everyone else there.

On the licensure, it’s slow going, but states are starting to have agreements to solve this. On the delivery options, Amazon-drone delivery can’t come fast enough. Overall, the experience wasn’t terrible, and the technology worked but it certainly wasn’t seamless or convenient, and I probably infected a bunch of people while trying to get care. I’d like to apologize to anyone I may have passed the flu along to. I’m not the type to work when sick, but when you’re on the road it’s hard not to.

Also, we’d like HIMSS and all conferences to consider pop-up urgent care. The bandaids in the first-aid room weren’t enough.

Posted in: Healthcare costs, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, HIMSS, M-health, patient engagement, Telemedicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

See you at HIMSS19

HIMSS19 is a couple weeks away and we have a lot to be excited for!

Stop by and see us in the Personalized Health Experience, Booth 888-96. Alongside our great partners at Ensocare, we will be showcasing our latest product updates, discussing ROI for patient engagement platforms, promoting care plans based on Mayo Clinic best practices, and sharing our vision for the future of patient engagement.

We have a long list of booths to visit and sessions to attend. Below are some of the topics that we’re particularly interested in this year:

We can’t wait to connect with friends, partners, colleagues and industry leaders to continue the journey towards an amazing patient experience. Hope to see you there!

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, M-health, Outcomes, patient engagement

Leave a Comment (0) →

Voice, Podcasts, Partnerships, and Amazon: Wellpepper’s most popular blog posts of 2018

Looking back over the past year, at our most popular blog posts, we suspect that these topics will remain popular in 2019 as well. New technologies and approaches to consumer and digital health have still not reached their full potential, and there’s still lots to learn.

Not surprisingly, a few of our most popular blog posts related to Amazon. In talking with regular people, healthcare organizations, and digital health folks, we find that they are split on whether they want the retail and cloud services giant to get into healthcare, but whatever side of the fence you’re on, there’s no denying they could have a big impact. Right Alexa?

Wellpepper 2018 Blog, Most Viewed Posts

Voice.Health Shows The Promise of Conversational Interfaces

Voice First or Voice And? Dispatches from Voice Summit

This post was actually from 2017, but our CTO’s take on why AWS Lambda serverless architecture is going to be really important for healthcare IT remains a popular topic.

4 Reasons Why the Future of Health IT is Serverless (AWS re:Invent 2017 wrap-up)

We’re also seeing more and more interest in a continuum of care approach: technologies and experiences that span the patient experience, and really help patients and care-givers self-manage, so our announcement of our partnership with Ensocare was also a very popular post.

Ensocare and Wellpepper Streamline Patient Discharge and Engagement

Continual learning is something both technology folks and healthcare folks share, so it comes as no surprise that our round-up of great podcasts for healthcare transformation enthusiasts, was also a popular post.

Podcasts for Healthcare Transformation Enthusiasts

 

 

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Social Media, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, M-health, Voice

Leave a Comment (0) →

Podcasts for Healthcare Transformation Enthusiasts

If you like to nerd out about healthcare, we’ve got a cornucopia of great podcasts for you to choose from in no particular order. Happy listening!

White Coat Black Art

This long-running podcast from CBC radio in Canada is hosted by Brian Goldman, MD, and does not shy away from tough topics like assisted suicide, medical errors, or the health impacts of legalizing marijuana.

 

A Healthy Dose

Steve Kraus of Bessemer Partners and Trevor Price of Oxeon partners interview a who’s who of health tech pioneers and entrepreneurs. Their conversation with AthenaHealth founder Jonathan Bush on cold medicine is not to be missed.

 

 

Inside Health

This BBC podcast hosted by Mark Porter, MD, explores fact and fiction for common health issues, and the state of the National Health System in the UK. It’s worth listening both for the medical advice and for insight into a different system of care.

 

 

Tech Tonics

Tech Tonics David Shaywitz, MD, PhD, and Venture Valkyrie, Lisa Suennen weigh in on unicorns and reality, and interview physicians and founders in this health tech focused podcast.

 

 

 

This Week In Healthcare IT

This Week In Health ITFormer hospital CIO current expert in cloud computing for healthcare, Bill Russell interviews health IT experts, with a heavy emphasis on hospital healthcare IT experts on topics like security, interoperability, and the shift to the cloud.

 

 

Well Connected

Innovation veteran, Joe Kvedar, MD from Partners Health interviews peers and colleagues on both current and new technologies.

 

Outcomes Rocket


This podcast from Saul Marquez delivers with a focus on outcomes, value, and cost-savings in healthcare.

 

 

 

Voice First Health

Alexa enthusiast, and Canadian physician, Teri Fisher, MD is bullish on the potential for voice interactions in healthcare.

Posted in: Healthcare costs, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Social Media, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Voice Tech In Healthcare

Voice tech is a hot topic in healthcare, and for good reason. Healthcare is built on personal interactions, and voice technology can replicate and even replace the human interviewing experience. Voice has other valuable benefits in healthcare like being hands-free—for someone who is recovering from surgery and mobility challenged this might mean being able to get information without getting up. In the hospital setting, the hands-free interface has obvious benefits for hygiene.

At Wellpepper we first started experimenting with voice-enabling our interactive care plans in early 2017, and dug deeper into the topic, prototyping voice powered devices and testing with real people as part of our winning entry in the Alexa Diabetes Challenge. I’ll be talking more about this at the Voice Summit July 24-26, 2018 in Newark.

However, voice experiences in healthcare are not new. This week the Seattle Design for Healthcare meetup Ilana Shalowitz, Voice Design UI Manager, from EMMI Systems (part of Wolters-Kluwer) talking about best practices for voice design based her work on their interactive voice response system. This system effectively does outreach through “robocalls” to help influence people’s behavior, like getting them to schedule general health primary care visits, or get a flu shot. The pathways are designed to guide the patient through specific material, ensuring a basic understanding of the topic, and moving to take action (although not actually taking action), since that was not possible in the interface.

While they have been effective at changing patient behavior, the talk got me thinking about the differences between the interaction model for more traditional, non-AI based interactive voice response and the voice assistants like Alexa and Okay Google popping up in the home, the challenges of each, and the opportunities in healthcare.

Interactive voice response (IVR) can provide a structured pathway, which could be akin to an intake form or an interview. However, it doesn’t allow for an end-user driven experience. In her session, Shalowitz talked about designing a path to give the end user the illusion of control, where a yes or no answer to a knowledge question actually ended up in the same place. Compare that to the home voice experiences where the end user can drive any experience. The upside of this experience is that the end-user is in control, which is often not the case in healthcare, and can drive the direction of the conversation.

Here’s a common experience interacting with a Wellpepper care plan.”

Person: “Alexa, tell Wellpepper I have pain.”
Alexa: “Okay, what is your pain on scale of 0-10 where 0 is no pain, and 10 is the worst pain imaginable.”
Person: “Four”
Alexa: “Okay, I’ve recorded your pain as 4 out of ten. Is that correct?”
Person: “Yes.”
Alexa: “Anything else?”

The difference between this and a typical IVR communication is that the end-user is the initiator. However, the drawback with this type of scenario is that the end-user needs to know what they want to do. This is a notorious problem with headless interfaces like voice. In fact, each week, I get an email from the Alexa team that tells me what new thing I can do with Alexa, essentially a print-guide for the voice interface. Discoverability, context, and capabilities remain problems with these interactions even while they put the end-user at the center.

However, the benefits of these new consumer tools is that, they are designed to not anticipate each pathway in advance, and rather than the pre-recorded prompts of traditional IVR, they are learning systems where continual improvement can be made by examining successful and failed intents. We saw this is in our testing when a patient told Alexa he was “ready when you are.”

I’m excited to be heading to the Voice Summit this coming week, where we’ll talk about what we learned in the Alexa Diabetes challenge, and how we’re applying voice to all our patient experiences at Wellpepper. It’s still early days, but we see a lot of promise, and patients love it.

“Voice gives the feeling someone cares. Nudges you in the right direction.”
Test patient with Type 2 diabetes

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, patient engagement, Voice

Leave a Comment (0) →

Digital Transformation in Pharma: Digital Pharma West

Like the rest of the healthcare industry, the pharma industry is also grappling with lots of data, disconnects from end-users, and shifting to a digital-first experience while grappling with ongoing regulatory and privacy challenges. Actually it’s pretty much what every industry is grappling with, so the good news is that no one is getting left behind in this digital revolution.

In pharma though, the division between commercial and R&D creates both delays and lags in implementing new technology and the regulatory challenges cause specific issues in communication with both providers and patients.

Last week, I was invited to speak at Digital Pharma West about our work in voice-enabling care plans for people with Type 2 diabetes, and also how our participation in the Alexa Diabetes Challenge enabled us to engage with pharma. It was my first ‘pharma-only’ conference, so it was interesting to contrast with the provider and healthcare IT world.

If you think that there are a lot of constituents who care about digital health in provider organizations, pharma rivals that. For example, there was a discussion about the value of patient-facing digital tools in clinical trials. While everyone agreed there could be real value in both efficiencies of collecting data, and engaging patients and keeping them enrolled in trials, a couple of real barriers came up.

First the question of the impact of the digital tools on the trial. Would they create an intended impact on the outcomes, for example a placebo effect? Depending on how the “usual care condition” is delivered in a control group, it might not even be possible to use digital tools in both cohorts, which could definitely impact outcomes.

Another challenge with digital technology in randomized control trials is that technology and interfaces can change much faster than drug clinical trials. Considering that elapsed time between Phase 1 and Phase 3 trials can be years, also consider that the technology that accompanies the drug could change dramatically during that period. Even technology companies that are not “moving fast and breaking things” may do hundreds of updates in that period.

Another challenge is that technology may advance or come on the market after the initial IRB is approved, and while the technology may be a perfect fit for the study, principle investigators are hesitant to mess with study design after IRB approval.

Interestingly, while in the patient-provider world the number of channels of communication are increasing significantly with mobile, texting, web, and voice options, the number of touch points in pharma is decreasing. Pharma’s touchpoints with providers are decreasing 10% per year. While some may say that this is good due to past overreach, it does make it difficult to reach one of their constituents.

At the same time, regulations on approved content for both providers and patients means that when content has had regulatory approval, like what you might find in brochures, on websites, and in commercials, the easiest thing to do is reuse this content. However, new delivery channels like chatbots and voice don’t lend themselves well to static marketing or information content. The costs of developing new experiences may be high but the costs of delivering content that is not context or end-user aware can be even higher.

At the same time, these real-time interactive experiences create new risks and responsibilities for adverse event reporting for organizations. Interestingly, as we talk with pharma companies about delivering interactive content through the new Wellpepper Marketplace, these concerns surface, and yet at the same time, when we ask the difference between a patient calling a 1-800 line with a problem and texting with a problem there doesn’t seem to be a difference. The only possible difference is a potential increase in adverse event reporting due to ease of reporting, which could cause problems in the short term, but in the long term seems both inevitable and like a win. Many of the discussions and sessions at the conference were about social media listening programs for both patient and provider feedback, so there is definitely a desire to get and make sense of more information.

Like everyone in healthcare, digital pharma also seems to be at an inflection point, and creativity thinking about audiences, channels, and how to meet people where they are and when you need them is key.

Posted in: Adherence, Clinical Research, Data Protection, Health Regulations, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Social Media, Healthcare Technology, HIPAA, M-health, Outcomes, pharma, Voice

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Challenge of Challenges: Determining When To Participate

There’s an explosion of innovation in healthcare and with that comes a plethora of incubators, accelerators, pitches, challenges, prizes, awards, and competitions. Trying to sort through which ones are worth paying attention to can be a full-time job. At Wellpepper we’ve tried to be selective about which ones we enter. A recent post by Sara Holoubeck, CEO and founder of Luminary Labs about the outcomes of challenges got me thinking about the cost/benefit analysis of entering challenges. Both costs and benefits come in hard and soft varieties.

If you want to be scientific, you can assign a score to each of the costs and the benefits, and use it to decide whether to throw your hat in the ring. (For the purposes of this blog post, we’ll use the term “challenge” to refer broadly to all of these opportunities.)

Costs

  • Time: How many hours will your team need to put into this challenge? How much of your team needs to be involved?
  • Focus: Does the focus on this challenge distract your team from core customer or revenue priorities?
  • Financial: Is there an entry fee to participate? What other costs, like travel, may you need to incur to deliver on the challenge?
  • Strategy: Is this challenge aligned with your
  • IP: Do you have to give up intellectual property rights as part of this challenge? Do you have to give away any confidential information that you are not yet ready to share publically?

Benefits

  • Financial: Is there prize money? Does it cover your expected costs? Could you actually profit from entering? If winner receives funding who decides the terms? Is this an organization that would be beneficial to have on your cap table?
  • Focus: Does this challenge provide the team with a forcing function to deliver innovation in an area that is aligned with your overall strategy?
  • Innovation: Does this challenge take your team in stretch direction or enable you to demonstrate a direction on your roadmap that you may otherwise not immediately approach due to market issues?
  • Publicity: Where will the winner be announced? Is there a PR strategy for the entire process or just the winner? Does it help your organization to be aligned with the content or sponsors of this challenge?
  • Introductions: Who will this challenge help you meet that can further your business goals?

It’s up to you to consider the cost/benefit analysis. Both may not have to be high, but when they are the opportunity can be high if you have the ability to put in the effort. You may also consider your chances of winning if it’s defined as a competition, and whether there is any drawback to losing, or if just participating provides enough benefit.

Here are a few examples from our own history that may help illustrate the tradeoffs.

Low cost/medium benefit

We entered a local pitch event for a national organization. The effort to pitch was minimal: we had case studies and examples that fit the thesis directly. The event was nearby and there was no cost to enter. The pitch was short. We won this pitch and got some local awareness and leads. However, when we were offered to go to the national conference and pitch for an even shorter period in a showcase heHIMSS Venture+ Winnersld simultaneously with other conference activities and with no actual competition, we declined as the cost/benefit was not there.

Medium cost/medium benefit

Each year HIMSS has a venture competition at the annual conference. We won this event in 2015, and received PR as well as in-kind benefits at HIMSS conferences including booth space. The effort to prepare was medium: any startup should be prepared for an onstage venture pitch, and the audience was exactly right. As a follow on from this event we’ve been involved in panels showcasing our progress.

High cost/migh benefit

Both the Mayo Clinic ThinkBIG challenge, and the Alexa Diabetes Challenge had a relatively high effort and opportunity cost to participate and high rewards, but both were aligned with directions our company had already embarked on, and both resulted in deeper connections for us with the sponsoring organizations, positive press, validation of our company and solution, and financial support.

In the case of the Mayo Clinic ThinkBIG challenge, we received investment on our convertible note for winning, and the challenge afforded us introductions to important clinical and IT contacts at Mayo Clinic. We were also able to showcase our solution to other potential customers live at the annual Transform event.

Our team put in a tremendous effort on our winning entry for the Alexa Diabetes Challenge but the pay-off was worth it in a number of ways. Certainly the prize money and publicity was welcome, but more importantly, we have created new IP and also come to a whole new understanding of how people can move through their daily lives with technology to support them in managing chronic conditions.

Both of these challenges have afforded us ongoing opportunities for engagement and awareness as a result our participation, and our positive outcomes.

One thing to note, none of these challenges I mention had an entry fee. Sometimes nominal entry fees are used to deter casual entries, but for the most part if a challenge is seeking to fund itself by charging the startups to participate, it’s the wrong model.

While you don’t have to be this explicit when making your decisions about entering a challenge, consideration of the costs and opportunity cost of either participating or not, can help you sort through the ever increasing number of grand challenges.

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, Uncategorized, Voice

Leave a Comment (0) →

Dispatches from the Canadian E-Health Conference: The same but different

Bear statue in VancouverThe annual Canadian E-Health Conference was held in Vancouver, BC last week. I had the opportunity to speak about the work we’re doing at Wellpepper in applying machine learning to patient-generated data, and in particular the insights we’ve found from analyzing patient messages, and then applying a machine-learned classifier to alert clinicians when a patient message might indicate an adverse event. Our goal with the application of machine-learning to patient generated data is to help to scale care. Clinicians don’t need to be alerted every time a patient sends a message; however, we don’t want them to miss out if something is really important. If you’d like to learn more about our approach, get in touch.

My session was part of a broader session focused on ‘newer’ technologies like machine-learning and blockchain, and some of the other presenters and topics definitely highlighted key differences between the US and Canadian systems.

Aside from the obvious difference of Canada having universal healthcare, there were subtle differences at this conference as well. While the same words were used, for the most part: interoperability, usability, big data, and of course blockchain and AI, the applications were different and often the approach.

Interoperability: Universal doesn’t mean one

Each province has their own system, and they are not able to share data across provinces. Unlike the UK which has a universal patient identifier, your health records in Canada are specific to the province you live in. As well, apparently data location for health records is sometimes not just required to be in Canada, but in the actual province where you reside and receive care. As for interoperability, last we heard, British Columbia was doing a broad roll out of Cerner while large systems in Alberta were heading towards EPIC, so Canada may see the same interoperability challenges we see here if people move between provinces.

Privacy: The government is okay, the US is not

What’s interesting is as a US company, is that whenever we talk to health systems in Canada they bring up this requirement, but as soon as you mention that the PIPEDA requirements enable patients and consumers to give an okay for out of Canada data location they agree that it’s possible. Regardless, everyone would rather see the data in Canada.

What was possibly the most striking example of a difference in privacy was from one of my co-presenters in the future technologies session, who presented on a study of homeless people’s acceptance of iris scanning for identification. 190 out of 200 people asked were willing to have their irises scanned as a means of identification. This identification would help them access social services, and healthcare in particular. The presenter, Cheryl Forchuk from the Lawson Health Research Institute said that the people who participated didn’t like to carry wallets as it was a theft target, that they associated fingerprinting with the criminal justice system, and that facial identification was often inaccurate due to changes that diet and other street conditions can make. When I tweeted the 95% acceptance rate stat there were a few incredulous responses, but at the same time, when you understand some of the justifications, it makes sense. Plus, in general Canadians have a favorable view of the government. The presenter did note that a few people thought the iris scan would also be a free eye exam, so there may have been some confusion about the purpose. Regardless, I’m not sure this type of identification would play out the same way in the US.

Reimbursement: It happens, just don’t talk about it

The word you didn’t hear very much was reimbursement or when you did, from a US speaker the audience looked a bit uncomfortable. The funny thing is though, that physicians have billing codes in Canada as well. It’s just that they are less concerned about maximizing billing versus being paid for the treatment provided and sometimes even dissuading people from over-using the system. Budgets were discussed though, and the sad truth that money is not always smartly applied in the system, and in a budget-based system, saving money may decrease someone’s future budget.

Blockchain: It’s not about currency

Probably the biggest difference with respect to Blockchain was the application, and that it was being touted by an academic researcher not a vendor. Edward Brown, PhD from Memorial University suggested that Blockchain (but not ethereum based as it’s too expensive) would be a good way to determine consent to a patient’s record. In many US conferences this is also a topic, but the most common application is on sharing payer coverage information. Not surprisingly this example didn’t come up at all. If you consider that even though it is a distributed ledger, a wide scale rollout of Blockchain capabilities for either identification or access might be more likely to come from a system with a single payer. (That said, remember that Canada does not have a single payer, each province has its own system, even if there is federal funding for healthcare.)

“E” HR

Physician use of portalFor many of the session the “E” in e-health stood for EHR, which while also true in the US, the rollout of wide scale EHRs is still not as advanced. Cerner and EPIC in particular have only just started to make inroads in Canada, where the a telecommunications company is actually the largest EHR vendor. In one session I attended, the presenter had done analysis of physician usage of a portal that provided access to patient labs and records, but they had not rolled out, what he was calling a “transactional” EHR system. Physicians mostly accessed patient history and labs, and felt that if the portal had prescribing information it would be perfect. Interesting to see this level of access and usage, but the claim that they didn’t have an EHR. What was also interesting about this study is that it was conducted by a physician within a health system rather than an academic researcher. It seemed like there was more appetite and funding for this type of work within systems themselves.

Other Voices: Patients!

Patients on the mainstageDuring the interlude between the presentations and judging for the well-attended Hacking Health finals, and on the main stage, presenters interviewed two advocate patients. While they said this was the first time they’d done it, both patients had been at the conference for years. So while the mainstage was new, patient presence was not, and patient advocate and blogger Annette McKinnon pushed attendees to go further when seeking out engaged patients. Noting that retirees are more likely to have the time to participate in events she asked that they make sure to seek out opinions for more than 60 year old white women.

There was also an entire track dedicated to First Nations Healthcare. Think of the First Nations Health authority as a VA for the indigenous people of Canada, which incorporates cultural differences and traditional practices of the First Nations people. The track started and concluded with an Elder song and prayer.

Manels

Speaking of diversity, I didn’t witness any manels.

Best Quote

 

Posted in: big data, Clinical Research, Health Regulations, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, Interoperability, M-health, patient-generated data

Leave a Comment (0) →

HIMSS 2018…See you there!

HIMSS17 in Orlando was a great conference for Wellpepper. We’re looking forward to HIMSS18 in Las Vegas even more!

We have a long list of sessions to attend and booths to visit, but below are some places you’re guaranteed to find us:

Monday, March 5th

  • Hear from Tami Deangelis on how our research partners at Boston University engaged patients outside the clinic and improved outcomes using Wellpepper care plans. She is speaking at the “Remote Patient Messaging for Adherence and Engagement” session from 4:05pm-4:25pm at the Patient Engagement & Experience Summit

Tuesday, March 6th

  • Hall G, Innovation Zone: Booth 9900-78 from 9am-6pm
  • CTO, Mike Van Snellenberg will be demonstrating our voice-powered scale and foot scanner, and integrated diabetes care plan at the Industry Showcase at BHI & BSN 2018 https://bhi-bsn.embs.org/2018/industry-showcase/

Wednesday, March 7th

  • Hall G, Innovation Zone: Booth 9900-78 from 9am-6pm
  • CEO, Anne Weiler, will be sharing the Wellpepper Vision and Mission at HIMSS VentureConnect http://www.himssconference.org/education/specialty-programs/venture-connect
  • CEO, Anne Weiler, will be joining other industry leaders to continue the conversation with CMS toward inclusion of patient engagement and outcomes tracking in the MIPS Improvement Activity for provider reimbursement

Thursday, March 8th

  • Hall G, Innovation Zone: Booth 9900-78 from 9am-4:30pm

We can’t wait to connect with friends, partners, colleagues and industry leaders to continue the journey towards an amazing patient experience. Hope to see you there!

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, M-health, Outcomes, patient engagement, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

Alexa, Get Well Soon

The unofficial winner of the Super Bowl ad race this year was “Alexa Loses Her Voice”, an ad that shows celebrities subbing for Alexa when she (anthropomorphic being that she is, comes down with a cold). Both USA Today and YouTube are calling it the most watched ad.

Alexa, who won USA TODAY’s 30th Ad Meter?

“Well, um – me.”

Jeff Bezos looks skeptical that his team can replace Alexa as he should be, since their solution of Gordon Ramsay, CardiB, Rebel Wilson, and Anthony Hopkins is both extremely expensive, (Wellppper CTO Mike Van Snellenberg did the math), and breaks the key trust relationship that people have with Alexa.

Voice is a natural interface, and empathy can be quickly established by the types of utterances and engagement. By default, Alexa apologizes when she doesn’t understand something and it feels genuine. Compare that to Gordon Ramsay insulting his poor hapless user—all the guy wants is a bit of help making some comfort food. What he gets is abuse.

Or, the woman who wants Alexa’s help while she’s in her boudoir presumably getting ready for a date with her love. Instead, Anthony Hopkins insinuates that something horrific has happened to her beau possibly involving a pet peacock.

Cardi B insults a young man’s interest in Mars. Let’s hope she has not squashed his spirit of discovery and his desire to ask questions.

Since this is an all-ages blog, we won’t even mention the response Rebel Wilson gives from her bubble bath to the poor gentleman who asked Alexa to set the mood for a party. He and everyone at his party were fully traumatized.

We get it, Alexa is just better at delivering what people are asking for than real people. Especially real people with attitude like these celebrities.

As we found in our research with people with type 2 diabetes, Alexa has a natural ability that these celebrity Alexa impersonators do not. You can see it in this feedback we received from real people trying to manage Type 2 diabetes.

  • “Voice gives the feeling someone cares. Nudges you in the right direction”
  • “Instructions and voice were very calm, and clear, and easy to understand”

Voice is a natural fit to deliver empathy and care. However, since each one of these people is expecting Alexa, and has no visual indicator that anything has changed, the negative experiences will reflect on Alexa and she’ll have to win back their trust.

While the implied message of the ad spot is that Alexa does a better job of delivering on your needs than any of these celebrity experts we’re still feeling a bit traumatized by the abuse they hurled. For the sequel to this commercial, we’d expect to see Jeff firing the team that replaced Alexa with celebrities, and Alexa as a therapist working through the trust issues that her replacements created. She can do it. We believe in her.

Posted in: Behavior Change, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, Voice

Leave a Comment (0) →

CES 2018 Review: More Consumer Healthcare Disruption Please

CES 2018 Review: More Consumer Healthcare Disruption Please

We went to CES 2018 to understand more about how the consumer technology space was poised to disrupt healthcare. As a digital healthcare company, we sit in many conversations with established healthcare organizations. We know that they are concerned about the consumerization of healthcare and how this could disrupt the very core of their business. Fears about the big-5 technology companies moving into healthcare are themes in many an executive healthcare planning retreat.

So, what did this bold, disruptive vision of consumer-driven, technology-driven healthcare look like? Hundreds of companies selling rip-off activity tracking watches, and connected blood pressure cuffs and scales. The big booths felt depressingly resigned to a future where consumers would somehow want to buy big clunky medical monitoring devices-rebranded-as-consumer-devices, and then maybe sign into a dusty old web portal to view the data. “Requires Internet Explorer 5 or higher” warned one brochure – a browser that was literally released in the 90s. A disruptive consumer story this was not. Nothing to worry about here, big healthcare.

There was some innovation to be seen, of course, including some truly interesting devices in the small 10×10 booths. Products like TytoCare’s tricorder for at-home vitals capture, and healthcare-relevant wearables like those from Sensoria. Also the number of do-it-at-home biological tests like Ellume’s at-home flu and strep tests and food allergen detectors like Nima are of particular interest to my household and our matrix of peanut, tree-nut, gluten, strawberry and peach allergies.

What’s missing is someone to pull these innovative ideas and devices together and offer a comprehensive vision for what consumer-driven healthcare could look like in a way that consumers would actually want to spend money on. Where’s the LG-OLED-tunnel of consumer health? Even if they didn’t have anything yet – at least sell the vision the way all those car vendors are selling the vision of self-driving cars.

We suspect that, as with self-driving cars (Tesla, Google) and smart phones (Apple), the companies with most complete vision in healthcare maybe just aren’t telling this story at CES. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook: can’t wait to see your consumer healthcare booth when it’s ready, either at CES or some other show.

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption

Leave a Comment (0) →

May You Live In Interesting Times: Wellpepper’s Most Interesting Blog Posts of 2017

Who would have predicted 2017? As soon as the election results were in, we knew there would be trouble for the Affordable Care Act no one could have predicted the path through repeal with no replacement to claw backs in a tax bill that no one has read. It’s been a crazy ride in healthcare and otherwise. As we look ahead to 2018, we’ve found that a good place to start is by looking back at what was popular in 2017.

Looking back over the past year’s top blog posts, we also believe trends that started in 2017, but will even stronger in 2018. These four themes bubbled up to the top in our most-read blog posts of 2017:

Shift to the cloud

We’ve noticed a much wider spread acceptance of cloud technologies in healthcare, and the big cloud platform vendors have definitely taken an interest in the space. Wellpepper CTO Mike Van Snellenberg’s comprehensive primer on using AWS with HIPAA protected data was one of our most read posts. Since he wrote it, even more AWS services have become HIPAA-eligible.

Using AWS with HIPAA-Protected Data – A Practical Primer

Consumerization of healthcare

Consumer expectations for efficient online interactions have been driven by high-deductible plans and an expectation from consumer technology and industries like retail and banking that customer service should be personalized, interactive, and real-time. These two posts about the consumerization of healthcare were among the most popular.

The Disneyfication or Consumerization of Healthcare

Consumerization Is Not A Bad Word

Value of patient-generated data

In 2017 we saw a real acceptance of patient-generated data. Our customers started asking about putting certain data in the EMR, and our analysis of the data we collect showed interesting trends in patient adherence and predictors of readmission. This was reflected in the large readership of these two blog posts focused on the clinical and business value of collecting and analyzing patient-generated data.

In Defense of Patient-Generated Data

Realizing Value In Patient Engagement

Power of voice technology

Voice technology definitely had a moment this year. Okay Google, and Alexa were asked to play music, turn on lights, and more importantly questions about healthcare. As winners of the Alexa Diabetes Challenge, we saw the power of voice firsthand when testing voice with people newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. The emotional connection to voice is stronger than mobile, and it’s such a natural interaction in people-powered healthcare. Our blog posts on the Alexa Diabetes Challenge, and developing a voice solution were definitely in the top 10 most read.

Introducing Sugarpod by Wellpepper, a comprehensive diabetes care plan

Building a Voice Experience for People with Type 2 Diabetes

Ready When You Are: Voice Interfaces for Patient Engagement

Since these themes are still evolving we think 2018 will present a shift from investigation to action, from consideration to deployment and possibly insights. Machine-learning and AI will probably remain high in the hype cycle, and certainly the trends of horizontal and vertical healthcare mergers will continue. We also expect a big move from one of the large technology companies who have all been increasing their focus in healthcare, which in turn will accelerate the shift to a consumer-focus in healthcare.

There’s a saying “may you live in interesting times.” We expect 2018 to be at least as interesting as 2017. Onwards!

Note: There was one additional post that hit the most popular list. Interestingly, it was a post from 2014 on whether SMART or MEANINGFUL goals are better for patients. We’re not sure why it resurfaced, but based on analysis we’ve done of patient-directed goals, we think there’s a third approach.

Posted in: Behavior Change, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, HIPAA, patient engagement, patient-generated data, Voice

Leave a Comment (0) →

Pointing Fingers at Healthcare Problems

I’m only halfway through Elizabeth Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back” which means that I haven’t gotten to the “what you can do about the problem” part. It’s a slow read, not because it’s not compelling but because it’s too compelling, and if like the current President, you were surprised at how complicated healthcare is, this book will do nothing to dissuade you. It’s really really complicated.

So far, I have two main takeaways from the book, that are easily illustrated through my recent experience of breaking and dislocating my finger: a simple, non-life-threatening problem, that unearthed a couple of key dysfunctions and unintended consequences.

My first takeaway is that everyone is complicit, and yet seem to manage to finger point at everyone else. Rosenthal spares no punches in unearthing decisions that are not made with the best interest in of the patient at heart. Providers, healthcare organizations, payers, pharma, and employers all are complicit in the mess that is our current healthcare system.

This past fall, I broke and dislocated my finger. It wasn’t a big deal, but because it happened on a Saturday night, my only option for care was at the ER. Last week I received a letter in the mail from my insurance company, that according to the envelope required my urgent reply. In the letter, the insurance company suggested that perhaps someone other than them may be on the hook for my ER bill. While I understand they wanted to make sure this wasn’t a worker’s compensation claim, the form was basically for me to tell them whose fault my injury was so that they could go after another insurance company to pay. This was a sports injury in a game of Ultimate Frisbee, a game so granola-like that there are no referees: players call fouls on themselves. . No one was at fault, and even if they were, I would never have considered suing. However, the form didn’t give me that option: only gave me the option of saying whether I had settled my claim. I created a new box that said “NA” and checked it.

When I received the letter, I couldn’t help but think back to Rosenthal’s book, and also consider the amount of effort and cost that was going into finding someone else to blame and pay. Just imagine what this effort and cost would have been if there were legal action….

The second takeaway is that the original intention of a decision always has much farther reaching implications than anyone who agreed on what seemed like a reasonable decision though. Again with the finger, I was asked a number of times if I wanted a prescription for OxyContin. I did not. As has been well publicized we have an opioid addiction problem in North America. While my finger hurt, aside from morphine during inpatient for an appendectomy, I hadn’t had opioids, and really didn’t think that it was necessary, which I explained to the physician. It wasn’t. Tylenol worked fine—however, it seemed that it was very important that I be the one to make this call, not the physician.

One of the unintended consequences of patient satisfaction scores may be the over prescription of pain medication, as many of the questions on the HCAHPS are about whether the patient’s pain was well managed. In Rosenthal’s book, I was also surprised to learn that a finger fracture where an opioid is prescribed has a different billing code than if it is not prescribed, and that with the fracture plus opioid billing code, hospitals get paid more. Now, if you are wondering how this may be the case, if you think about it, a fracture that requires an opioid must be more severe than one that doesn’t and therefore the billing code reflects the severity. This is exactly where the unintended consequences of billing codes can result in exactly the wrong behavior for patient care and safety.

It’s quite possible that the physicians on duty were not aware of either of these two drivers for prescribing, especially the billing code one. They may have just been told “this is our standard of care” and were following guidelines.

If a simple finger fracture and dislocation can shine a light on two key problems in our healthcare system, just imagine what else is out there. Actually, you don’t have to, just get a copy of Elizabeth’s book yourself, and let’s compare notes when I get to the part about what the fix is. It’s going to take all of us.

Posted in: Health Regulations, Healthcare costs, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare transformation, Opioids

Leave a Comment (0) →

Healthcare + A.I. Northwest

The Xconomy Healthcare + A.I. Northwest Conference at Cambia Grove featured speakers and panels discussing the opportunities and prospects for applying machine learning and artificial intelligence to find solutions for health care. The consensus was that we are no longer held back by a lack of technological understanding and ability. A.I. and M.L. models can be learned at a large scale by harnessing the power of the cloud and advances in data science. According to the panelists, today’s challenges to incorporating A.I. into healthcare include abundant, but inadequate data and resistance from health systems and providers.

Many researchers have found insufficient data to be an unexpected challenge. As keynote speaker Peter Lee of Microsoft Research pointed out, the more data we have, the better our machine learned models can be. He used an analogy to a speech identifier trained on multiple languages such that the model predicted English better after learning French to illustrate that improvements can be made with large sets of unstructured data. Unfortunately, because we are not capturing enough of the right kind of data for researchers, much patient data is getting lost in the “health data funnel” due to PHI and quality concerns. Lee called for more data sharing and data transparency at every level.

Physician researchers on multiple panels were concerned about a lack of suitable data. Soheil Meshinchi, a pediatric oncologist from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, is engaged in collecting data specific to children. He discussed his research on Acute Myeloid Leukemia on the panel titled, ‘Will A.I. Help Discover and Personalize the Next Breakthrough Therapy?’. While there is a large body of research on AML in adults, he has found that the disease behaves much differently at a genomic level in children. He also expressed distrust in some published research because studies are rarely reproduced and often a researcher who presents results contrary to existing research faces headwinds at journals who are reticent to publish “negative data”. His focus at this point is gathering as much data as he can.

Matthew Thompson, a physician researcher at the University of Washington School of Medicine, argued on the “Innovations for the Over-Worked Physician” panel that technology has made patient interaction demonstrably worse, but that these problems can and should be solved innovatively with artificial intelligence. His specific complaints include both inputting and extracting data from health system EHRs, as well as an overall glut of raw patient data, often generated by the patient himself, and far too much published research for clinicians to digest.

Both keynote speakers, Microsoft’s Lee and Oren Etzioni of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, referenced the large numbers of research papers published every year. According to Etzioni, the number of scientific papers published has doubled every nine years since World War II. Lee referenced a statistic that 4000 studies on precision cancer treatments are published each year. They are both relying on innovative machine reading techniques to analyze and categorize research papers to make them more available to physicians (and other scientists). Dr. Etzioni’s team has developed SemanticScholar.org to combat the common challenges facing those who look for research papers. He aims to reduce the number of citations they must follow while also identifying the most relevant and up-to-date research available. One of the advantages of taking this approach to patient data

is that scientific texts have no PHI concerns. Lee’s team is marrying patient data and machine reading to match potential research subjects with appropriate NIH studies.

Dr. Thompson was concerned that too much data is presented to the medical staff and very few of the “predictive rules” used by ER personnel are both ‘accurate and safe’. When reviewing patient outcomes and observations to predict the severity of an infection, he found that patients or their caregivers would provide ample information, but often clinicians would disregard certain details as noise because they were atypical symptoms. The amount of data that providers have to observe for a patient is massive, but machine learned models may be utilized to distill that data into the most relevant and actionable signals.

Before data is gathered and interpreted, it must be collected. Like Dr. Thompson, Harjinder Sandhu of Saykara sees ponderous, physician-driven data entry via EHR as significant barrier to efficient data collection. Sandhu notes that healthcare is the only industry where the highest-paid teammember is performing this onerous task and his company is using artificial intelligence to ease that burden on the physician.

Once patient data has been aggregated and processed into models, the challenge is getting the information in front of providers. This requires buy-in from the health system, physician, and, occasionally, the patient and his caregivers. Mary Haggard of Providence Health and Services spoke on the “Tech Entrepreneurs Journey into Healthcare” panel and stated that the biggest problem for entrepreneurs is defining the correct problem to solve. During the “Investment Perspective” panel, Matt Holman of Echo Health Ventures recommended tech startups emphasize an understanding of the context of the problem within a health system.

One of the most important and difficult hurdles for health technology companies is working into clinical workflow. Mike McSherry from Xealth has found that physician champions who know how they want to use technology help with integrating into a health system or physicians group. Lynn McGrath of Eigen Healthcare believes physicians want their data to be defined, quick to assess, condensed, and actionable, while Shelly Fitz points out that providers are not used to all the data they are receiving and they don’t yet know how to use it all. These are all issues that can and will be solved as healthcare technology continues to become more intelligent.

As Wellpepper’s CTO, Mike Van Snellenberg pointed out, health systems and doctors are resistant to “shiny new things”, for good reason. When approaching a health system, in addition to engaging the administration, clinicians need to understand why the machine learned model is recommending a given course of treatment. After integration, patients will also want to understand why a given course of treatment is being recommended. Applying artificial intelligence solutions to medicine must take into account the human element, as well.

The exciting possibilities of artificial intelligence and machine learning are hindered more by human constraints in health systems and data collection than by available technology. “Patients are throwing off all kinds of data when they’re not in the clinic,” according to our CTO. Wellpepper’s tools for capturing patient-generated data provide a pathway for providers to access actionable analysis.

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, patient engagement

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 6 12345...»
Google+