Blog

Posts Tagged Mayo

Disruptive Innovation, Sparks of Light, or the Evolution of Care: Recap of Mayo Transform Conference

In what has been a roller-coaster year for healthcare legislation, it’s the annual touchstone of the Mayo Clinic Transform Conference provided a welcome opportunity to reflect on where we are. This conference, sponsored by the Mayo Clinic Center for Innovation attracts powerhouse speakers like Andy Slavitt and Clayton Christensen, and yet manages to fly under the radar. This year’s theme was about closing the gap between people and health, so the social determinants of health were a key topic, as was whether disruption alone would solve the problem.

Dr Robert Pearl

This was my third year attending, and second year speaking at the conference, and I’ve noticed a trend: the conference starts by articulating the problem, and building up solutions and creative ways to reshape the problems over the course of the two days. This year the conference was deftly moderated by Elizabeth Rosenthal, MD,Editor-In-Chief of Kaiser Health News and author of “An American Sickness.” Rosenthal, an MD herself, and former NYTimes journalist, peppered her moderation with real-world examples of both waste and inefficiencies and effective programs based on her investigative journalism.

I’ve been wanting to write a blog post for a while that riffs on the theme of “You Are Here” trying to outline where we are in the digital evolution in healthcare, but it’s clear that we don’t know where we are, digital or otherwise: too much is currently in flux. There are points of light with effective programs, and things that seem very broken. The panel I was on, was titled “Disruptive Innovation” and I’m afraid we let the audience down, as while we are doing some very interesting things with health systems, we are not turning every model on its head. We work with providers and patients to help patients outside the clinic. Truly disruptive innovation would work completely outside the system, which leads to the question, can health systems disrupt themselves or will it come from entirely new entrants like say Google, Apple, or Amazon?

Dr. David Feinberg of Geisinger reads from debate opponent Dr. Robert Pearl’s book

Clayton Christensen, the closing keynote speaker, likens hospitals to mainframe computers, and basically says they will be overtaken by smaller more nimble organizations, much like the PC and now smartphone revolution. Organizations like Iora Health who holistically and preventatively manage a Medicare Advantage population are the epitome of these new entrants, and we’ve seen some hospitals struggle this year, but will they go away entirely? The answer to this question may lie in the excellent debate session “Is The US Healthcare System Terminally Broken” hosted by Intelligence Squared and moderated by author and ABC News Correspondent John Donovan.

 

Shannon Brownlee, senior VP of the Lown Institute and visiting scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Robert Pearl, MD, and former CEO of the Permanente Medical group were arguing that the system is broken, vs Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, Senior Fellow Center for American Progress, and David Feinberg, MD, CEO of Geisinger.

While prior to the debate the audience favored the idea that the system is irreparably broken, by the end, they had come around to the idea that it’s not, which would point to the ability for healthcare to disrupt itself. The debate

Is Healthcare Terminally Broken

The final audience vote

was ridiculously fun, partially from the enthusiasm of the debaters, and because the topic was so dear to all attendees. You can listen to the podcast yourself. However, the posing of the question set up an almost impossible challenge for Pearl and Brownlee: they had to argue the patient is terminal, but without any possible solution. No one in the room wanted to hear that, and so when Emmanuel and Feinberg were able to point to innovative programs like the Geisinger Money Back Warranty or Fresh Food Pharmacy that just needed to find scale, the audience latched onto the hope that we can fix things, and we all have to believe in these points of light, to face each new day of challenges.

Posted in: Health Regulations, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation

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) →

Postcards from HIMSS M-Health 2015

HIMSS M-HealthIt’s been a busy couple of weeks at Wellpepper with both the AAKHS annual conference and HIMSS M-Health Summit at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor where Wellpepper was honored to have won the Venture+ Pitch along with CirrusMD. This was our second year attending the conference and we noticed that the hype for digital health is a bit lower and perhaps that represents market maturity. It could also be that organizations are in the thick of implementation and don’t have the success stories to tell yet. We believe in digital health and are rolling up our sleeves so will take this feeling that we are moving to incremental change as a positive sign.

Venture+: The Market Is Maturing

We participated in the Venture+ Pitch last year as well which was won by fellow our fellow Springboard Alumna Prima-Temp. Prima-Temp was the clear winner last year, already raising their Series B. However, there were a ton of startups with only an idea. This year the criteria was that startups have revenue before applying, and the competition was held in two parts, the first an invitation-only session where 11 startups pitched and panelists talked about the market opportunity in general, and then a final round with 4 excellent startups and really tough questions from the judges. We were a bit earlier on our journey than a couple of the other startups in the final pitch so were honored to be recognized along with CirrusMD.Clinic of the Past and Present

Interestingly the startup area on the tradeshow floor was almost entirely made up of a new class of startups. So, while the market for M-Health may be maturing somewhat, there are still new entrants attracted by the promise of disruption.

Incremental Progress and Show Me The Evidence

I was only able to attend Day 1 Keynotes, and I heard that the Day 2 keynotes were great, especially by Shahram Ebadollahi of IBM Watson Healthcare. On Day 1, with the exception of an excellent presentation from Dr. Wood from Mayo Center for Innovation (disclosure: as part of winning the Mayo ThinkBig challenge we have the opportunity to work with CFI for the next year), most of the presentations were quite low-key. The main problem was the voice of the patient was missing: the focus was on initiatives or technology. I timed it. 1.5 hours into the keynote and we heard the first end-user story, and it wasn’t really a patient, it was a blind runner who used FitBit.

Dr. Wood shook everyone out of complacency and called out for a faster adoption of healthcare innovation, pointing out how basic things like patient treatment rooms have not changed dramatically in the last 50 years. He asked the audience to consider going beyond patient-reported outcomes and consider the outcomes that matter to patients. What would the system look like if we paid for health rather than healthcare, and we paid based on people being able to reach their own self-defined goals? Digital health is an enabler of this new system, but really, it’s about taking a patient or people-centered approach to health and to care.

What Patients WantAgain, maybe it’s a sign of market maturity, but the conference this year seemed more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Themes from previous years were expanded on. For example, Judy Murphy of IBM talked about how consumer expectations expectations are fueling demand for m-health. People expect the same level of transparent and always available technology to manage their healthcare as they get from any other consumer experience.

HoneyBee and IPSOs announced the launch of the Global M-Health Survey which also pointed to ubiquity and consumer expectations and desire for M-Health. (The final survey results will be available in Q1.)

In a number of sessions Apple Research Kit was heralded as a major breakthrough for clinical trials. While the speed with which Research Kit was able to sign up study participants is certainly turning traditional research recruits on its head, the same limitations are still there: no HIPAA-compliant server infrastructure and selection-bias for those with more expensive devices. Interestingly, one of the greatest benefits for researchers seems to be the standardization of the informed consent process. (Note that Duke University will be open-sourcing the platform infrastructure they built in recognition that not all organizations have the skills and resources to build something like that.)

Interesting, how what was deemed such a major innovation at the time of release (less than a year ago), also seems a bit incremental. Again, we will take the glass-half full approach and say that we are reaching a market maturity where the gains are more incremental, although at next year’s conference we would really like to see more clinically-validated mobile health applications, and also more patient stories, preferably told by the patients themselves.

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, M-health

Leave a Comment (1) →
Google+