Blog

Posts Tagged healthcare

Simple Patient-Centered Design

At Wellpepper, we work hard to make sure our software is intuitive, including working with external academic researchers on randomized control trials for people who may have cognitive or other disabilities. This is both to make sure our software is easy-to-use for all abilities, and to overcome a frequent bias we hear about older people not being able to use applications, and also to provide valuable feedback. We’ve found from these studies, the results of which will be published shortly in peer-reviewed journals, that software can be designed for long-term adherence, and this adherence to programs can lead to clinically-meaningful patient outcome improvements.

User-centered design relies on three principles, all of which can be practiced easily, but require continual discipline to practice. It’s easy to assume you know how your users or patients will react either based on your own experiences, or based on prior knowledge. There’s really no substitute for direct experience though. When we practice user-centered design, we think about things from three aspects:

Immersion

Place ourselves in the full experience through the eyes of the user. This is possibly the most powerful way to impact user-centered design, but sometimes the most difficult. Virtual reality is proving to be a great way to experience immersion. At the Kaiser Permanente Center For Total Health in Washington, DC, participants experience a virtual reality tour by a homeless man showing where he sleeps and spends his days. It’s very powerful to be right there with him. While this is definitely a deep-dive immersion experience, there are other ways like these physical therapy students who learned what it was like to age through simple simulations like braces, and crutches. Changing the font size on your screens can be a really easy way to see whether your solution is useable by those with less than 20/20 vision. With many technology solutions being built by young teams, immersion can be a very powerful tool for usable and accessible software.

Observation

Carefully watch and examine what people are actually doing. It can be really difficult to do this without jumping in and explaining how to use your solution. An interesting way to get started with observation is to start before you start building a solution: go and visit your end-user’s environment and take notes, video, and pictures.

Understanding what is around them when they are using your solution may give you much greater insight. When possible we try to visit the clinic before a deployment of Wellpepper. Simple things like whether wifi is available, how busy the waiting room is, and who is initiating conversations with patients can help us understand how to better build administrative tools that fit into the clinician’s workflow. Once you’ve started with observing your users where they will use your solution, the next step is to have them test what you’ve built. Again, it doesn’t have to be complicated. Starting with asking them how they think they would use paper wireframes or voice interface testing with Wizard of Oz scenarios can get you early feedback before you become too attached to your creations.

Conversation

Accurately capture conversations and personal stories. The personal stories will give you insight into what’s important to your users, and also uncover things that you can’t possibly know just by looking at usage data. Conversations can help you with this. The great thing about conversations is that they are an easy way to share feedback with team members who can’t be there, and personal stories help your team converge around personas. We’ve found personal stories to be really helpful in thinking about software design, in particular understanding how to capture those personal stories from patients right in the software by letting them set and track progress against their own personal goals.

Doctor’s often talk about how becoming a patient or becoming a care-giver for a loved one changes their experiences of healthcare and makes them better doctors. This is truly user-centered design, but deeply personal experience is not the only way to learn.

To learn more:

Check out the work Bon Ku, MD is doing at Jefferson University Hospital teaching design to physicians.

Visit the Kaiser Permanente Innovation Center.

Learn about our research with Boston University and Harvard to show patient adherence and outcome improvements.

Read these books from physicians who became patients.
In Shock: My Journey from Death to Recovery and the Redemptive Power of Hope, Rana Adwish, MD
When Breath Becomes Air Paul Kalanithi, MD

Posted in: Adherence, Aging, Behavior Change, Clinical Research, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, patient engagement, Patient Satisfaction, Research

Leave a Comment (1) →

T2 Telehealth aka ATA 2017 aka ATA 23: Part 2, How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going?

This was my second trip to Orange County Convention Center this year, so it was hard not to compare and contrast the annual American Telemedicine conference to HIMSS, the biggest health IT conference. As well, it was my third time at the ATA conference, back after skipping in 2016, and the gap made it easier to reflect on previous years as well.

The ATA annual is almost 10 times smaller than HIMSS, which makes it a lot less exhausting and easier to focus. There’s not a feeling that for every second you’re talking to someone you’re missing out on talking to someone else equally as interesting and valuable. (There is no shortage of interesting people, just a more manageable group.) The size also makes it a bit easier to talk to people as they’re not rushing off to walk a few miles across the convention center to the next session.

The first year I attended, 2014, the tradeshow floor was full of integrated hardware and software solutions, and Rubbermaid was even a vendor selling telemedicine carts. It was almost as though the iPad hadn’t been invented.  It was the year that Mercy Virtual launched their services as a provider of telestroke and telemonitoring for other health systems. A provider as a vendor caused a bit of a stir on the tradeshow floor.

By the next year, the integrated hardware and software vendors were dwindling, but talks were largely still given by academics and were focused on pilot projects that while showed success, talks often ended with a plea for thoughts on how to scale the program.

ATA evolved out of an academic conference and that’s still quite prevalent in the presenters who are often from academic medical centers, and reporting on studies rather than implementation. Data was important in all sessions, but measurement of value was inconsistent. In addition to academic medical centers, most leaders in telehealth seemed to be faith-based not-for-profits, like Mercy and Dignity, and as well as rural organizations where the value was clear.

That said, a welcome addition to this year’s content was two new tracks on Transformation and Value. I spoke in the Value track at ATA, along with Reflexion Health and Hartford Healthcare about the value of telerehab in total joint replacement, and we were able to share data points from real patient implementations, in addition to clinical studies. (If you’re interested, in the Wellpepper segment, get in touch.)

Although, harkening back to the day 1 keynote, the definition of value depended on the business model of the telemedicine platform being implemented. There’s no question that telestroke and neurology programs, and telebehavior programs deliver value especially in rural areas without direct access. At Wellpepper, we’ve seen definite results in post-acute care, both in recovery speed and readmissions.

In other sessions the value was not as clear and no one was able to fully refute the study that when offered the choice, patients used telemedicine in addition to in-person visits, thus driving up costs. In fact, the director of telemedicine for a prominent healthcare organization confirmed that patients were using televisits for surgical prep when they could have just read the instructions given to them. (Or interacted with a digital care plan like Wellpepper.)

As with every technology conference the voice of the patient was absent, with the exception of head of Mercy Virtual Randall Moore, MD who started all his presentations by introducing us to patient Naomi who was able to live out her life at home, attend bingo, and enjoy herself due to the benefits of the wrap-around telemedicine program that Mercy put In place. Oh, and it cost a lot less than the path of hospital admissions she’d been on previously. Sounds like triple aim, and what we all need to aspire to.

So, based on the keynotes, the sessions, and the show floor, I’d characterize this year’s conference as a world in flux, like what’s going on elsewhere. There was a sense of relief that the ACA had not been repealed. HIMSS took place before the proposed repeal and replace plan died, and there was a lot more fear and uncertainty. Vendors and providers alike are looking to strengthen the value chain. Unlike HIMSS, there was a lot less hype. Machine learning and AI were barely mentioned except in keynotes possibly because telemedicine is still largely a world of real-time visits, and extracting meaning from video is a lot harder than from records. We see promise, people want to do the right thing, but it’s not clear which direction will help us ride out the storm.

 

Still trying to figure out what this has to do with Telemedicine. Look better on realtime visits?

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Technology, M-health, Prehabilitation, Rehabilitation Business, Telemedicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

T2 Telehealth aka ATA 2017 aka ATA 23: Part 1, The Eye of the Hurricane

While there is a focus on transformation, value, and outcomes going on, if the keynotes are any indication it may be a rough road ahead for telemedicine.

“It’s the 23rd year for the American Telemedicine Association conference, why are we still talking about how to get paid?”, admonished Pamela Peele, PhD economist and Chief Analytics Officer of UPMC during the opening keynote of the annual conference of the American Telemedicine Association.

Pamela Peele at ATA2017

Pamela Peele at ATA2017

“Especially since, as this audience knows, telemedicine is the best thing since sliced bread?

Why indeed? Well, it’s complicated. The problem is that each person in the value chain, the payer, the physician, the healthcare organization, the patient, and the patient’s closest adult daughter (aka primary caregiver), only see the value of one slice of that loaf of bread, and we collectively as purveyors of telemedicine have to sell the entire loaf. There’s no clear solution to this problem. However, with unsustainable costs of healthcare, and increasing consumerization we have got to figure it out. The taxpayer is bearing the brunt of the costs right now, and Peele characterized the shift of baby boomers to skilled nursing facilities as a hurricane we are unprepared for. One way out is to keep people at home, and for that we need Medicare to fund a cross-state multi-facility study to determine efficacy, value, and best practices. Fragmentation of trials is keeping us from wide scale adoption.

The Adaptation Curve

The Adaptation Curve

“We have got to figure it out” was also the theme of best-selling author and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman’s keynote promoting his new book “Thank-You For Being Late.” Friedman claimed to be more right than the rightest Republican and suggested abolishing corporate taxes and at the same time more left than the leftist Bernie Sander’s supporter suggesting we need an adaptable safety net. His major thesis is that we are undergoing 3 climate changes right now: globalization, climate, and technological. To survive and thrive in this new world, we need to adapt and evolve, and take our cues from Mother Nature, not from some sort of top-down regulation. Like Peele on the previous day, Friedman also sees a hurricane coming and suggests that the only way to survive is to find the eye of the storm not by building a wall.

Adapting and evolving will come in handy with the harder times for healthcare investment ahead predicted by the venture investing panel in the day 3 keynote. Tom Rodgers of McKesson Ventures, and Rob Coppedge of the newly formed Echo Health Ventures pulled no punches, as they tossed of tweet worthy statements like “Don’t tell me you’re the SnapChat of healthcare” and “it seems like there are only 3 business models for telemedicine.” The later was Coppedge’s comment on walking the tradeshow floor. (The models are direct to consumer, platform, and as a combined technology and service.) Rodgers had no love for direct to consumer models or anything that targeted millennials who he deemed low and inconsistent users of services. Platform vendors were advised to surround themselves with services: video was seen as a commodity.

So where does that leave us? Value, value, value. The challenge is that the value is different depending on the intervention, the patient, the payer, and the provider. Preventing readmissions, aging at home, decreasing travel costs, all provide benefits to one or more of the key stake holders. Can we figure out how to reimburse based on slices of value? How do we get together to realize that value? And how do we do it before the hurricane hits?

Posted in: Behavior Change, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Research, Healthcare transformation, Telemedicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Disneyfication or Consumerization of Healthcare

I had the privilege of participating in my second panel hosted by Curtis Kopf, Senior VP of Customer Experience at Premera, at the recent Washington State of Reform Health Policy Conference. Curtis was formerly of Alaska Airlines and is new enough to healthcare to be able to point out idiosyncrasies of healthcare, and he led the audience, my fellow panelists, Elizabeth Fleming, VP of Group Health Cooperative, Tabitha Dunn, VP of Customer Experience at Concur, and me on a rollicking discussion of who excels in customer service, how to emulate consumer organizations, and how not to emulate consumer organizations.

I enjoy panels as they afford the opportunity to evaluate my own perspective based on the insights of others usually in extremely different roles. This panel was unique as we represented payer, provider, employer, and digital health/technology: practically a cross-section of the industry.

Both over coffee prior to the panel and on the panel, we talked a lot about the influence and guiding principles of Disney as the quintessential consumer experience focused organization. Tabitha had just returned from a holiday trip with her family, and Curtis had the opportunity to attend the Disney Institute for customer service training during his time at Alaska airlines.

Before getting into the takeaways from our experiences and thinking about what to take away from Disney, we started the panel by discussing why consumerization was a topic in healthcare at all.

A number of factors have converged to drive consumer or patient-centric approach we now see in healthcare:

  • 20M newly insured people offered an opportunity that brought new players, like Walgreens, Walmart, Medical One, and Zoom+ into primary and urgent care market
  • On demand services like Uber and constant communication through messaging apps, and the ubiquity of smart phones created an expectation of healthcare on demand.
  • High-deductibles made consumers evaluate more closely how they were spending their healthcare dollars
  • Getting over the hump of initial EMR integration made physicians ask why they couldn’t have consumer-quality tools to do their jobs

Regardless of what happens with the ACA with the incoming administration, we don’t expect many of these things to change, although there may be more competition in primary care as these new players put pressure on incumbents.

How do you react when there is more competition? A customer-centric approach is a good place to start, which brings us back to Disney. As a child, I did a school project on Walt and his empire, but have to admit I didn’t know as much about them as my fellow panelists.

Here are my key takeaways from the discussion:

  • Disney is extremely consistent, which provides autonomy for their staff to make good decisions within the 4 values that Disney holds. Although you may think that the brand is the highest value, it is actually safety. A Disney cast member is allowed to break character only when safety is at risk. Consider this as you think about the healthcare experience: safety and good experience are not mutually exclusive.
  • If you’re going to try to emulate an experience from another industry, make sure you fully understand that company’s or industries core values. The that resulted when executives managed to the HCHAPS survey: Nurses were given scripts to follow rather than making decisions, which is the exact opposite of how Disney actually operates. Nurses should have been given autonomy to work within the values of the health system and the needs of the patient.
  • Disney has an entire underground operations center that supports what guests experience above ground. This supports both the safety but also the experience of the park. Curtis toured this facility while at the Disney Institute. What struck me the most about this was the realization that the hospital has no back-office. We’ve met with administrators in their offices that are converted hospital rooms. First, think how uninspiring this is for employees as an office. Second, these are usually on active hospital floors, so patients experience random water cooler conversation as they are in care.

As an outsider to healthcare, it took me a while to get used to going to the hospital to have meetings, and it still makes me uncomfortable to pass patients waiting in hospital beds in the hallway while I’m going to negotiate a contract. This lack of a “back-office” impacts patients and staff alike, and really extends to every patient interaction. The EMR is essentially back-office software. Why hospitals run their patient-facing experience from this essentially line of business technology is beyond me.

Although at Wellpepper our client is the health system, our most important user is the patient. We want to ensure that the patient experience is as good or better than any popular-patient facing applications, and represents how the patient understands their care. As a result, we are able to enable patients to participate, and self-manage, and still deliver valuable information to help the internal health system operations center be more effective, which is why I’m always happy to talk about the consumer experience in healthcare.

 

Posted in: Behavior Change, Patient Advocacy, Patient Satisfaction, Seattle

Leave a Comment (0) →

Seattle Business Magazine’s 2017 Leaders in Health Care Awards

Among many individuals and organizations leading the charge in Washington’s world-class health care industry, we are elated to be listed as a finalist in Seattle Business magazine’s 2017 Leaders in Health Care Awards. It is truly a privilege to be nominated as well as to serve as a member of Seattle’s innovative community.

We are very excited for Seattle Business’ gala awards ceremony on March 2nd.

Posted in: Seattle

Leave a Comment (1) →

Wellpepper Top Healthcare Blog Posts of 2016

We had a terrific year at Wellpepper and are anticipating great things in 2017. We’re looking forward to further improvement in the efficacy and effectiveness of mobile health and telehealth as well as advancement of new business models, value-based care, and interoperability between EMRs.

As we move forward, we’d like to take a moment to reflect and recap some of our most popular blog posts of 2016. In order of popularity they are:

Wellpepper Healthcare Christmas Wish List

Given the rush of the holiday season, it was a pleasant surprise to have gotten so many viewers (other than Santa) looking over our healthcare wish list, making it our most popular post of the year.

Not Patient Engagement with Jan Oldenburg

Unsurprisingly, our second most popular blog post happens to discuss a variety of topics ranging from shifting the healthcare mindset to utilizing digital tools to assist physicians, with nationally recognized consumer health information strategy leader Jan Oldenburg in this lively podcast that has listeners eagerly tuning in.

What’s True Now

With the uneasy condition of health systems and polices following the recent changes in leadership after the election, we are glad to see many turning to our blog post for some clarity. Will these factors remain true for the following years to come? We certainly hope so.

Better Living Through Big Data

We love sharing with our readers what we’ve gathered from panels and talks. This summary of our CEO discussing the benefits of collecting big data with the Seattle Health Innovator’s panel made this blog post our fourth most popular.

What Keeps Healthcare CEOs Up at Night

Last but not least, this recap of MATTER’s study about Accenture made our Top 5 by addressing the important values and actions that need to be implemented by healthcare CEOs in order to take a more patient-centered approach.

This next year, we are looking forward to sharing our new discoveries as we continue to tackle the challenges in healthcare and find more ways to improve mobile health and patient-centered technology.

Posted in: Healthcare motivation, Healthcare transformation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Wellpepper’s Healthcare Christmas Wish List

santa

Dear Santa,

This year for Christmas we would like:

  • Real interoperability between EMRs and other systems so that data flows smoothly from patient to provider applications and between organizations. Make sure it comes with APIs and real reference architectures.
  • Modern, scalable, and reliable healthcare technology so CIOs and IT teams can spend more time innovating and bringing new ideas for patients and providers, and less time keeping systems up and running.
  • Patient-centered care where the goals of the patient are the most important outcomes considered. Make sure patients and providers can communicate about these goals and consider their impact on care.
  • Value-based care where cost and outcomes are evaluated to determine the right course of action. Let’s lower costs of care AND improve outcomes.
  • All people to have affordable healthcare regardless of pre-existing conditions. No one should go without healthcare.
  • When you deliver all the presents, please take away all the fax machines!

 

Thanks, Santa!

Good luck on your travels around the world on Christmas Eve.

 

Love, Wellpepper

 

PS We care about your health, so we’re leaving you an apple and some carrots for the reindeer rather than cookies this year.

Posted in: Healthcare motivation, Healthcare transformation, patient engagement

Leave a Comment (0) →

What Keeps Healthcare CEOs Up At Night?

This week I had a double whammy of healthcare value from the comfort of my desk when MATTER Chicago live-streamed their event “What Keeps Healthcare CEOs Up At Night.” In addition to participating online with 40 others and engaging on Twitter on the topic, I’m pretty sure that Accenture charges big bucks to healthcare organizations to present these findings from interviews with over 50 healthcare CEOs. I got great info, some online networking, and no traffic!

So what does keep healthcare CEOs up at night? It seems that there are differing levels of awareness regarding the health of one’s own organization, changes in population health, as well as changes in healthcare in general. Perhaps the only thing keeping them all up at night is the delicate balance in shifting to outcome and value based payments without disrupting today’s revenue streams. It’s a classic innovator’s dilemma, but nonetheless, interviews and research with over 50 healthcare CEOs have shown that only some are effectively straddling these two worlds. Michael Main, managing director at Accenture Strategy, walked the full-house crowd at Matter and 40 of us on the live stream through the research, looking at winners and losers as well as making a few predictions for how the change would happen.

According to presenter Michael Main and the Accenture team’s analysis, only 5 out of these 50 CEOs were actually successfully making the shift to value based care, and of the rest, only 15 were capable of making that shift.

screen-shot

See full report on Accenture here

To make the shift, Main identified some key criteria:

  • The CEO must have a strong passion for what healthcare can be, not what it is today. He or she must have vision and be motivated to make his or her system the #1 or #2 in their area.
  • The shift from volume to value needs to also include a shift back to volume but with the volume being serving a larger population base, not doing more to each patient. The only way to do this is to really understand a health system’s catchment area and the population. Main used the example of the 1,500 data points that Experian, the credit check company, has on each person and compared that to how few data points health systems have.
  • Care must move from being physician-centered to patient centered, but there must be strong physician leaders on board.

Main also identified barriers to change today:

  • Perverse incentives that reward for doing more to a patient rather than what’s actually best for the patient. Here, Main provided a couple of personal examples, including his father who was admitted to the hospital for 48 hours because of protocol when he would have been better at home waiting for test results.
  • People being worried about their own jobs. Main mentioned working with a nurse’s union on a patient-centered medical home project. Everything was positive until they realized the model would require fewer nurses than first expected. Demonstrating the basic adage that you can’t get someone to believe in something if their own livelihood depends on them not believing it.
  • Too much gray hair in the C-suite. Main believes that many hospital CEOs are too close to retirement to want to tackle the risk. They are looking to ride out the current fee for service world, and hand over the reins when the real change needs to be implemented. Most CEOs estimated the change will take another 7-10 years so they had time to wrap up their retirement packages. (Shades of physicians retiring around the deadlines for implementing electronic medical records.)

As you can imagine, there will be winners and losers in this new world of capitated and value-based payments. Basically, aside from the 20 CEOs that Main identified as either already changing or capable of it, the rest he felt were in the loser category. As care is pushed to the lowest cost delivery, hospitals could lose out if they don’t build integrated networks with primary care and urgent care in addition to emergency and inpatient. Smart CEOs are looking at consolidation by buying the best systems or smaller organizations instead of looking for bargains. They know that those bargain competitors will end up out of business. Winners will figure out how to incubate models that will cannibalize their own business rather that fending off upstarts who are looking to do it to them.

screen-shot1

Winners will have the right leaders who can take a patient-centered approach: both in aggregate and for individuals. In aggregate, they will better understand the patient base they serve in their geography and they will look at treatments that are outcome-driven and patient centered as well as looking at treatments that will impact each individual rather than the standard protocols like what Main described with his father’s treatment.

The Accenture research definitely pointed to answers in the transformation. Unfortunately, it seems like a number of CEOs today aren’t even asking the right questions. And of course, as with every healthcare event for the next while, with the looming threat to repeal the ACA, there are even more questions we need to be asking.

Posted in: Healthcare motivation, Healthcare transformation, Patient Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Not Patient Engagement with Jan Oldenburg

When it comes to talking about patient engagement, nationally recognized consumer health information strategy leader Jan Oldenburg of Participatory Health Consulting chooses to delve deeper into what it means to engage patients in healthcare. With her wide range of experience, she focuses on helping organizations create and implement strategies related to patient/provider engagement and activation with a focus on digital health technology.

In this podcast, Ms. Oldenburg addresses a variety of topics ranging from shifting the healthcare mindset to utilizing digital tools to assist physicians.

Also check out more of Jan Oldenburg’s webinars: “Patient Engagement: Creating Digital Programs that Work.”

Posted in: Behavior Change, Healthcare Technology, patient engagement, Patient Satisfaction

Leave a Comment (0) →

MHealth and Big Data Are Catalysts for Personalized Patient Care

Although there are many complexities wrapped around our healthcare system, Stanford University’s 2016 Medicine X Conference starts finding solutions to improving patient care by focusing on increasing patient engagement and transforming how patients are treated in the system.

Wellpepper CTO Mike Van Snellenberg, who spoke at MedX in September with digital health entrepreneur and physician Dr. Ravi Komatireddy, addressed several important aspects of big data collection.

“Collecting big data is like planting trees. You need to plant the seed of the process or tooling,” says Van Snelleberg. “Over time, this matures and produces data.”

Mr. Van Snellenberg, who has collected and analyzed patient data at Wellpepper, discovered several key aspects of data collection that could improve care continuity for both patient and providers. He shared this to his MedX audience.

img_5792

“Wellpepper has already uncovered new understandings about which patients are most adherent as well as indicators of readmissions,” says Van Snellenberg. “That’s very valuable information.”

“We’ve discovered that, as you collect patient-generated data, these types of insights as well indications about the effectiveness of certain clinical protocols will be available to you. This will help allow for providers to encourage positive patient behavior,” he stated.

Mr. Van Snellenberg spoke further at an interview in October about collecting and using patient-generated data.

 

Question: What groups can benefit off the collecting of big data?

Snellenberg: Collecting patient-generated data can ultimately produce better outcomes and patient care for hospital and clinics as well as the patients themselves. The more in quantity and detail, the better it is to help produce good results. Data collection has tremendous value that can allow hospitals and clinics to learn more about their patients in between hospital visits, thereby filling in missing gaps in patient information. We also realized that collecting big data can potentially prevent complications or readmissions by identifying warning flags before the patient needs to return to the clinic.

And as mentioned, analyzing big data has provided us insights about which patients are most adherent. For example, we have found that patients with 5-7 tasks are adherent while patients with 8-10 tasks are not.

 

Q: What are some things you have discovered using patient-generated data?

MS: We were able to make observations on the patterns. We also discovered a strong linear correlation between the level of pain and difficulty of patients.

Traditionally, patient data remained in the hospital. This often left big gaps in knowledge about the patient in between hospital visits. By collecting and data in between visits to the hospital, you can discover important correlations that would not have been discoverable without data.

 

Q: What are some possible methods to collect patient data?

MS: Dr. Ravi Komatireddy, who worked in digital health, suggested several programs such as Storyvine and AugMedix.

Usually, data is collected by patients recording symptoms and experiences on a daily basis in a consistent manner and then managed afterwards. For example, patients themselves tend to keep track of their progress in diaries or using the FitBit to record the number of steps and heart rate.

 

Q: What are some of the most unique aspects about this year’s MedX?

MS: One unique aspect about the MedX Conference is that it provided more opportunities for diverse voices to be heard in addition to health professionals – including a mix of health patients, providers, and educators.

The mindset was also encouraged to change. Some of the convention’s most progressive talks on stage happened when phrases such as “How might we…” and “Everybody included” are brought up in the discussion.

The term “Everyone included” came up most often, pushing for more perspectives outside of JUST the physicians. MedX’s solution-oriented focus proves to be heading down a successful route to improving patient care in the healthcare system as well as acting as the initiative to open doors for new voices to be heard.

Posted in: Clinical Research, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Technology, Outcomes, patient engagement, Research, Seattle

Leave a Comment (0) →

A CJR Primer

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a CJR Bootcamp put on by the Healthcare Education Associates in Miami, Florida. The boot camp setting was intimate, collegial, and well targeted. With the exception of a trio of cardio folks who wanted to get ahead of their bundles, all attendees were directly responsible for implementing bundles at their health systems . The two days were jam-packed with information ranging from understanding the legislation to influencing surgeon behavior to assembling a great team to implement CJR. I recommend that if you’re on the hook for bundles in your organization that you check out this or a similar training yourself.

There is too much to recap in a single blog post, so I’ll share some high-level takeaways:

Bundles Are Complex

Even advanced organizations had gaps in their knowledge and understanding when it comes to the complexity associated with bundles. CMS continues to evolve the requirements and guidelines, causing some implementation approaches to have to rely on predicting what’s going to stick.

For example, the original PRO guidelines were for HOOS and KOOS, which have now been changed to HOOSJR and KOOSJR. If you’re concerned about requirements changing, consider adopting requirements that will benefit you even if they change. Organizations that started tracking HOOS and KOOS have a leg (or knee or hip) up because they have historical outcome data and have hopefully streamlined their processes.

Bundles Require Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Organizational Teams

Within an organization, you’ll need a multi-disciplinary team that includes clinical, administrative, operational and finance, technology, procurement and so on. You’ll also require an executive sponsor who will make sure senior leadership is aware of and supporting your initiative.

A recommended working group looks like this:

  1. Executive Sponsor(s)
  2. Physician Lead
  3. Project Manager(s)
  4. Care Navigator/Care Coordination Lead
  5. HER/IT Lead
  6. Data Analytics & Quality Leads
  7. Compliance Lead
  8. Legal Lead
  9. Communications Lead
  10. Gainsharing Program Support

You’ll need to be skilled in both project management as well as the ability to influence change. Consider all the stakeholders that need to be influenced – who are the best people to influence them and how?

Think about the rhythm of communication to different stakeholders. Too much and you overwhelm. Too little and people aren’t part of the process.

 Influencing Surgeons

One of the sessions focused on how to change behavior of surgeons. It was presented by Claudette Lajam, M.D. Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery Chief Safety Officer at NYU Langone Orthopedics, who had the task of decreasing costs for implants and improving quality by getting Langone’s to use the right selection criteria. Dr. Lajam studied behavior change theory to implement the change, but it came down to understanding surgeon behavior. She presented them with data, and encouraged competition: each surgeon was able to see in a weekly report where they stood with respect to costs and quality against everyone else in the department.

img_0095

In the new model, hospitals are responsible for gain sharing with both upstream and downstream partners where they have less influence and insight. Understanding your top performing orthopedic and skilled nursing partners is key to a successful bundle. In some areas, this risk-and-gain sharing is causing consolidation where orthopedic groups are joining hospitals.

Note that with CJR, different from BPCI, conveners are not allowed. That is, hospitals can only share risk with orthopedic groups and skilled nursing facilities. Organizations that offer to manage your program and share the risk are not allowed to participate in any gain sharing.

Bundles Need Data: But People Don’t Have It

If you need to improve outcomes and lower costs, you need to know where you’re starting from.  To know where you’re starting from, you will need lots of data so that the impact of outliers is harmonized. Not many organizations have this level of detail across their entire pathway, either from organizational challenges or challenges of the system.

Sometimes, this is from a variation of care. For example, one surgeon has most of the complex cases, or another surgeon uses a different combination of implants and auxiliary materials.

Sometimes this is from the challenges of inter-organizational communication. For example, the handoffs between hospital and skilled nursing are notoriously bad – usually with hospitals not knowing where their patients ended up and skilled nursing not knowing why they are there.

Add to this that you can’tthis on top of not being able to find out if a patient is even in the CJR bundle for a period until the CMS data comes back.

So, you’ve got a complex challenge, with large and heterogeneous teams and organizations, and a lack of data. What do you do? Give up? Of course not.

First, attend a boot camp like this one.

Then, treat every patient like they are in a bundle and work on improving outcomes.

Finally, take a look at your position, risk, and low hanging fruit. Even if you only have a few patients in the bundle today, the private payers and self-insured employers are monitoring this closely.

There is Low Hanging Fruit

There are a few areas that have been identified as opportunities to lower costs without impacting quality:

  • Inpatient rehab has been targeted, and often cut. Patients need to get moving soon after surgery, but they may not need as many sessions with a PT directly. We have patients who are following their PT care plan through Wellpepper even in an inpatient setting.
  • Standardization and optimization of implants. Often the implant companies charge separately for each component for the implant and try to upsell on items like screws. Negotiating a standardized bundle can decrease costs here, as can evaluating patients for the best joint for their situation rather than using the surgeon’s favorite. (This was the project undertaken at NYU Langone.)
  • Decreasing the length of inpatient and skilled nursing stay. Equipping patients to be more self-sufficient with joint camps, educational materials, and mobile care plans can enable them to go home faster.

You are Here

Possibly because it’s early days and people are still figuring this out, there isn’t a consistent, phased approach to rolling out the CJR bundle. In fact, you can start anywhere. Or maybe you don’t have to.

First off, make sure you’re in one of the X areas where the bundle is being rolled out. If you are, find out who else is in your region. Your cost accountability is for the average for your region. If there are big spenders in your region, you may already be delivering total joints more effectively than others and may not need to change much besides starting to collect PROs.

Also, take a look at your Medicare population for joint replacement. If it’s low, you may only have a few patients that qualify for the bundle each year – which doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t strive to improve, but it may impact the amount of effort you put in initially.

Figure out where you are today and plan your efforts accordingly. Don’t try to do everything at once and understand that both your process and the information available will continue to improve.

Good luck!

Posted in: Behavior Change, Clinical Research, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Research

Leave a Comment (0) →

Finding Change and Honesty at Mayo Transform Conference 2016

mayo-clinic-logoAlthough the theme of this year’s Mayo Transform conference was “Change,” it might as well have been dubbed “Honesty.”

From keynotes to breakout sessions, there was a raw sense of honesty and acceptance of the fact that change is hard, and we’ve reached a point where the evolution in healthcare doesn’t seem to be happening fast enough.

When you’re as successful as Mayo, it might be easy to brush failure under the rug – which made this session, “We Made This Thing, But It Didn’t Go as Planned. Now What?” unique. Now that some of the initial hype for digital health has died down, we are in a phase of realistic optimism where sharing both wins and misses represents a realistic way forward.

This interactive session in three parts by Steve Ommen, MD, Kelli Walvatne, and Amy Wicks unfolded a bit like a mystery. Questions were posed to the audience at each phase for our input on what might have gone right and wrong. Not surprisingly, the attentive audience proved as capable as the presenters, and some of the most valuable insights came from the audience questions.

The case study in this session was a three-year process to develop a new interface and workflow for the cardiology clinic. Dr. Ommen and the other presenters did not tip their hands to whether the project was successful or not, and we had to tease out the wins and losses that occurred during each phase.

The presenters shared stories, but did not show any artifacts of the process such as flow diagrams, screenshots, or personas. This methodology was effective because, instead of getting bogged down in critique of particular elements, we were able to see the bigger picture of challenges that could apply to any innovation or clinical change.

At the end of the session, the presenters summarized their top takeaways as:

  • Not having enough credibility and evidence

Much of the Transformation team were experts in design, but not necessarily the clinical experience for this service line. There were some misunderstandings between what could work in theory and in practice, although the team did identify areas of workflow improvement that saved time regardless of whether the technology was implemented.

  • Change fatigue (or “Agile shouldn’t be rigid”)

The team tried to use a lean or agile methodology with two-week product sprints: iterating on the design and introducing new features as well as interface changes biweekly. This pace was more than what the clinical users – especially the physicians – could handle, but the design aimed to stay true to the agile process. In this situation, the process was not flexible to the needs of the end users and possibly exacerbated the first point of lack of credibility.

  • Cultural resistance

The team lost champions because of the process. It also seemed like they may have spent too much effort convincing skeptics rather than listening to their champions. One physician in the audience wondered aloud whether the way physicians were included in the process had an outsized impact on the feedback the team received about what was working and wasn’t working. From his own experience, he noticed that a physician’s authority is often a barrier to collaboration and brainstorming.

From audience observations, it seemed like there may have been some other challenges such as:

  • Scope/Success Definition

There wasn’t a clear definition of success for the project. While the problem was identified that the current process was clunky and the technology was not adaptive and usable, not all parties had a clear understanding of what constituted success for the project.

Looking back, Dr. Ommen suggested that rather than trying to build a solution that addressed all co-morbidities, they should have chosen one that worked for the most common or “happy path” scenario. The too-broad scope and lack of alignment on goals made it challenging to conclude success.

  • Getting EPIC’ed

When the project started, the team was largely solving for usability problems created by having two instances of Cerner and one of GE used in the clinical workflow. During the course of this three-year project, Mayo made the decision to ink a deal with Epic, rendering the current problem they were solving for obsolete.

Going for a smaller win early on might have delivered value to end users before this massive shift in the underlying medical records software.

So what happened?

You can probably tell from the recap that the project was shelved. However, the team did have some wins, certainly in their understanding of how to better run a project like this in the future as well as in helping the clinical team optimize their workflow.

What should you take away?

Know your users, iterate, and move quickly to deploy quick wins – but not so quickly as to alienate your stakeholders.

Finally, ask your peers: we’re facing similar problems and can learn together.

Posted in: Clinical Research, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Research, Healthcare transformation, Outcomes, Research, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

Health Care Innovators’ Uphill Climb

The Healthcare Innovators Collaborative and Cambia Grove have joined forces to present a series of talks on our evolving healthcare challenges.

img_0087

This series was run out of University of Washington last year, and this year’s sessions, subtitled “Under the Boughs” are held at Cambia Grove – where a new Sasquatch In Residence (SIR) ensures that the patient voice is present in the conversations.

September’s session took off with Dr. Carlos A. Pellegrini, Chief Medical Officer of UW Medicine, discussing the shift to value-based care. Pellegrini defined UW’s transformation as a process with 6 key goals:

  1.  Standardization

Standardization improves efficiency and is key to reducing cost and improving outcomes. Today, surgeons performing surgery at different hospitals may have varying tasks per hospital. Patients may receive different instructions depending on which physician or department they interact with. As a result, it is difficult to compare outcomes or optimize clinical workflow without a form of standardization.

      2. Population Health Management

Using system data to anticipate patient needs before they become major problems can both improve care and lower costs.

       3. Medical Home 

Implementing the medical home model can allow providers to be more aware of all of their patients and manage them proactively in measurable groups.

       4. Clinical Technology

Better use of clinical technical systems and of technology generally will enable more efficient and proactive patient care.

Dr. Pellegrini suggested they need to identify which patient was calling and suggesting the care they needed. For example “It’s Linda Smith, and she’s due for a mammogram.”

       5. Risk Management

“The Healthy You” – Sending better information to clinicians can help keep patients healthy, such as regarding activity level for obese patients.

        6. Smart Innovation

In contrast to standardization, consider opportunities to   customize experience/treatment for patients to deliver personalized and targeted care.

Understanding and measuring outcomes is also seen as key to approaching this evolution. Still, it was pointed out that providers, payers, and patients all understand a positive outcome differently. For example, for a provider the outcome is usually functional, for a payer or employer the outcome is financial, and for the patient it is often quality of life.

Only when these three outcomes are considered at once can we have true value-based experiences.

While Dr. Pellegrini and interview Lee Huntsman lamented the fact that US healthcare is ten times as expensive as other models, like the UK’s system, at present only 3% of UW Medicine’s revenue comes from value-based models, and it costs them $200M per year to maintain EPIC.

With numbers like this, the shift to value-based care has some big uphill battles. Keep fighting the good fight everyone, we know that the burgeoning health community in Seattle and the Cambia Sasquatch will!

Posted in: Healthcare Research, Healthcare transformation, Meaningful Use, Outcomes, Patient Advocacy, Seattle

Leave a Comment (0) →

Patients As Designers Of Their Own Health

Seattle’s grassroots healthcare community continues to gain traction with a new meetup for patient-centered design. Last week’s meeting was generously sponsored by MCG a subsidiary of Hearst Publications who are quite active in the healthcare world with content and education. The panel discussion featured Dana Lewis, a patient-maker who is active in the open source movement for diabetes care and built her own artificial pancreas, Christina Berry-White from the digital health group at Seattle Children’s, and Amy London, Innovation Specialist at Virginia Mason. The group talked about how to effectively get feedback from patients, and how patient hackers like Dana can take poor design into their own hands build tools they need, and ultimately influence large healthcare companies, in this case device manufacturers.

600_452599813

Dana, Christina, and Amy, photo credit Alina Serebryany

The panel had great advice for understanding and developing products and improving processes for patients, as well as for soliciting feedback from patients. Here are a few of my takeaways.

Tips for developing products and process

  • Understand patient’s goals and desires. Often the goals of the hospital or health system are not the same as the patient’s. After meeting with a group of patient advocates one Virginia Mason surgeon realized that the only outcome that really mattered was whether the patient had a positive experience.
  • Let patients customize their views and experiences. Amy talked about a particular chart where she wanted to see the graph rising to show increasing blood sugar and another user she talked to wanted to see the graph lowering to show insulin lowering and a need for intervention. Amy was confused by this view but created her open source artificial pancreas interface to enables people to choose their own view, and the result was that people who had diabetes looked at it the same way Amy did and parent-caregivers of diabetic children wanted the second view. Which brings us to the next point–
  • Differentiate between users. Patients often have different requirements than their caregivers, whether that’s parents caring for a child or teen, or adult children caring for a parent. As well, the clinical workflow shouldn’t dictate the patient experience.
  • Get feedback early. Amy mentioned meeting with a device manufacturer who showed her an almost ready for release glucometer that was intended to fit in the pocket. She quipped “you obviously didn’t test this with women’s pockets.”

Tips for collecting feedback

  • Build it into the product. Christina from Children’s mentioned that when they switched from reams of paper to an iPad-based tool for patient on-boarding forms the physicians wanted to stop using it because it did not immediately integrate with the EMR. Luckily the tool had a feature to survey users on whether they preferred using it to paper, and the answer from parents was overwhelmingly yes. The digital health team showed these results to the physicians, and the tool stayed in place.
  • Be creative when soliciting feedback. Children’s knew from experience that parents and patients were reluctant to give them negative feedback after a lifesaving experience like an organ transplant, so they used techniques that are often used in brand market research: analogies. For example, they asked teens to describe a digital tool as a car, and found out that their tool was like a pick-up truck to them: useful but utilitarian.
  • Use patients to collect feedback. Patients are also often intimidated to provide direct feedback to healthcare professionals as they see them as authority figures. At Virginia Mason patients who have already had a successful joint replacement visit post-surgical patients to find out how they are doing, and talk about their own experiences. Patients are a lot more candid with each other, and Virginia Mason was able to benefit from understanding the questions they asked the peer ambassadors and incorporate that information into formal programs.
  • Ask the questions at the right time. If you want to understand post-operative experiences ask within a few weeks of the actual experience, not 6 months later.
  • Be aware of selection bias. Patients who volunteer for focus groups are often those who have the time and money to be able to do so. Your feedback may be skewed towards retired patients, and those who are not hourly workers. Consider how you will cast a wide net.

Lots of great advice at this event, much of which we already incorporate into our processes and products at Wellpepper, although I definitely got some new ideas and it’s great to see the community coming together to share best practices. My only disappointment with the event was that with a title of Patients as Designers, I expected to see more patients on the panel. While there was a last minute cancellation of a patient-maker, it would have been amazing to have Children’s and Virginia Mason bring one of their patient-designers to be on the panel. Maybe next time?

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, Lean Healthcare, Research, Seattle

Leave a Comment (0) →

Every Patient Has a Story

I have just returned from my first Beryl Institute Patient Experience Conference 2016 (PX2016), and I’m inspired. At Wellpepper, we are focused on empowering the patient to feel ownership and accountability to participate in their healthcare journey. The Beryl Institute and their members are doing the same and it was great to connect with so many like-minded people. The PX2016 conference is just one way they bring together this community.

PX2016 is 6 years young and attended by mostly caregivers, nurses, doctors, regular people who were touched by a personal health experience and now are in the field, and patients. With only 1000 attendees, it’s possible to form relationships. There was lots of hugging, sharing, pictures and overall excitement to be in Dallas. I met several newbies and like me, they were inspired too.

The conference opened up with a real life patient story. Les, a heart attack survivor, told his story of how he was participating in a sculling exercise and went into cardiac arrest in the middle of the water. The following chain of events happened that allowed him to be standing in front of us to tell his story. A retired nurse was on board and jumped into action to do CPR (she was filling in for her friend who couldn’t make it), the bowman had his cell phone to call 911 (typically he doesn’t bring it on the boat), another rower in his own boat happened to be near the dock gate and had a key to unlock the gate (usually locked because it was 5:30AM) which allowed the paramedics to get to Les. If there was one break in that chain, Les would not be with us. He went on to share his experience about his care at UCLA Medical Center and how every touch point from the people on the boat, to paramedics, to the care team made a difference in his recovery. By this time, there was not a dry eye in the place. It was all about why we in this profession of healthcare really do want to make a difference in the patient experience.

This lead to the theme that every patient has a story. From the other keynotes to the sessions I attended, this theme was pervasive. The focus of PX 2016 is to share stories, best practices and ideas on how to bring together interactions, culture and perceptions across the continuum of care.

In the session, Removing Complexity from the Post-Acute Care Patient (one of our passions at Wellpepper), it became clear that the long term care model needs to be reinvented for simplicity. True simplicity comes from matching the patient’s experience with the patient’s expectations. As an example, The New Jewish Home is renaming its post-acute rehabilitation to The Rapid Recovering Center which supports setting a different tone for the patient and ultimately in their experience. When a patient is sent to a post-acute rehabilitation center it can suggest a long and difficult recovery. But, naming it the Rapid Recovery Center aligns with the patient’s expectation of wanting to get better as soon as possible.

Another session that hit close to Wellpepper’s core values was how University of Chicago puts family and patients first in their patient experience strategy. Enhancing Patient Experience and Engagement through Technology Innovation by Sue Murphy, RN, Executive Director- Patient Experience and Engagement Program and Dr. Alison Tothy, Associate CMO – Patient Experience and Engagement Program at University of Chicago suggest the ability to capture real-time opportunities for engaging patients in their care and in their service expectations with innovative technology and techniques can lead to overall happier patients. Such technologies like rounding, discharge call centers and interactive patient care have led to substantial outcome improvements. However, just implementing technology did not solve the patient experience challenge. A culture shift in the staff was required which inspired them focus on individualized care for each patient. Combining a culture shift with innovative technology has allowed the University of Chicago to increase patient satisfaction scores, reduce readmission rates and improve outcomes. Furthermore, leadership is engaged and excited about the power of technology to improve the patient experience.

To bring it to a close, we were inspired by another personal patient story from Kelly Corrigan. She is a New York Times best-selling author who shares her most personal stories, including her health challenges. She has had more than her share of health encounters between herself and her family. She read an excerpt from her book, The Middle Place, where her and her Dad where both diagnosed with cancer in the same year. It was a compassionate and funny rendition of when she just starting her chemotherapy sessions and her Dad came across country for support. She talked about how in the middle of crisis, magnificent can happen. She was amazed to witness how all the people around her, including herself, able to conform into the new reality – cancer. Although a happy ending for her, not so much for her father. He passed away last year. She emphasized how at the end of her father’s journey, she made a point to thank all the caregivers for they really did make a difference in a very difficult time. Then looking out at all of us in the audience at that moment, almost with a tone of authority, she challenged us to hold on to the feelings of why we went into healthcare.

For some of us, it was a personal experience. For others, it was the opportunity to make a difference. Regardless, as Kelly so eloquently put it, people want to feel as if they have been felt and be a good listener because every patient has a story.

Posted in: Behavior Change, chronic disease, Healthcare transformation, Managing Chronic Disease, patient engagement, Patient Satisfaction

Leave a Comment (1) →

ResearchKit: The Tip of the Iceberg

In March, during the much-anticipated Apple Watch keynote, Apple carved out a few minutes to announce ResearchKit, a system to enable faster and easier healthcare research. The announcement was received positively, some even saying that the announcement was bigger news than the Apple Watch itself! Within a week, one of the early apps, MyHeart Counts, had enrolled 11,000-patients, an enrollment pace and efficiency unheard of in the healthcare community. Without a doubt, Apple has the opportunity to bring the power of numbers to healthcare.

What It Is

ResearchKit is an SDK (Software Development Kit) containing presentation logic and user interface components for gathering healthcare research data on an iPhone. It can gain informed patient consent, present surveys (whether existing clinically-validated surveys, or novel surveys for a particular study), and also use the sensors on the device to do things like measure vocal tremor, conduct a 6-minute talk test, and measure motor reaction time.

Building a new research app with ResearchKit-powered is a fairly standard mobile app development project. The ResearchKit components certainly accelerate the process, however you will still need an iOS developer, and you will need to follow all the usual software development steps of requirements gathering, design, implementation, stabilization, and then releasing through the App Store. The SDK was recently open-sourced on GitHub. Since most of the SDK relates to the user interface, ResearchKit really only helps with iPhone app development, which some have pointed out may give rise to a sample bias.

Image of an Iceberg

(Original source: National Ocean Service Image Gallery)

 

What It Is Not

More important than the development of the mobile app, though, it all of the infrastructure behind the app that allows the data to be securely transmitted, stored, aggregated, and analyzed by researchers. In systems of this kind, the scale and complexity of the underlying data service layer is usually considerably larger than the user-facing data collection app. This is especially true in healthcare, given the compliance overhead imposed by regulations like HIPAA.

On this dimension, ResearchKit has no immediate answer. Given Apple’s privacy-centric stance on data collection and aggregation and the sensitivity of the data, they are unlikely to build a cloud service offering for ResearchKit. As such, it will be up to individual researchers to build their own systems, at least until other software vendors move in to fill this need.

 

The Iceberg

Much like the proverbial iceberg where only 10% of the whole is visible, Apple’s ResearchKit is a beautiful, if small, slice of user interface that hides a large and complex underlying platform needed to actually deploy healthcare research apps.

 

 

 

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology

Leave a Comment (0) →

What Can We Learn from the UK Health System?

There’s no perfect health system in the world, at least not that we’ve heard of. The US is plagued by high costs and uneven coverage across the country. Other systems like those in Canada and the UK have long wait times and can be glacially slow to adopt new technologies (aka pilotitis). However, taking a closer look into those systems can provide an interesting alternate viewpoint, and yet, so much is strangely familiar especially in the struggle to address the health problems of an unfit and aging population. We’ve recently been turned on to the Inside Health podcast from the BBC where topics range from those of national healthcare administration and benefits to specific health issues. Unlike many health publications, Inside Health frequently features patients talking about their experiences with the system.

Here’s a snapshot of questions posed on recent episodes:

  • Should medical screening with MRIs and CT scans be done proactively? This session talked about the risk of over-screening patients who are not visibly ill. While early detection is key to catch and treat many types of cancer, the screens often catch issues like tumors that would have gone away on their own, and therefore cause undue stress, cost, and discomfort to patients.
  • Should fruit juice be removed from food guidelines? Citing that calories that are drunk rather than eaten are not recognized by the body (aka empty calories) and that most fruit juice has all the fiber (aka the best part of the fruit) removed, the guest argued that fruit juice should not be part of the 5-6 services of fruit and vegetables recommended per day.
  • How should private hospitals be regulated? This story was particularly interesting, as it seems that the many private hospitals that are cropping up to take excess demand from the UK’s National Health Service, are not regulated in the same way as government-run hospitals. In this episode they examined some cases of knee and hip replacements gone wrong due to the lack of proper follow-on care. Since private often denotes more expensive and hopefully better quality it was curious to hear that they were not following standards.
  • Should healthcare professionals be fit? This controversial question was asked about whether healthcare professionals should be held to higher health standards, especially with respect to obesity, to set a good example for patients.
  • Should doctors be paid based on specific quality measures? This segment examined financial incentives for primary care physicians to complete certain tests and concluded that doctors will ignore financial incentives if they don’t believe the tests are in the best interests of the patients. However, in the example they cited, the incentive was $50 for doing a standard depression screening test which might be argued is not enough compensation for the hassle of the additional charting and follow up that the depression screen would have caused, not to mention the impact on patients who might not have actually been depressed.

You may notice a slightly paternalistic (or is that maternalistic?) bent to these topics, which is understandable as the UK has a national health system. However, all of them are topical and relevant to discussion occurring in the US right now. (Remember the uproar over soda sizes in New York?) Segments are short and conversational and feature real patients. Plus they are all delivered with the dulcet tones of the BBC broadcasters so you feel smarter just by listening. If you’re looking for insight, and inquiry in healthcare, this is a great podcast to add to your list.

Posted in: Healthcare motivation, Healthcare transformation

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 2 12
Google+