Things are busy around here. We are hosting our first Advisory Group meeting this week, and then heading to community #2, Boston, Massachusetts.
While there, we will be observing practices at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, who operate MyHealth Online, Partners Healthcare, who operate Patient Gateway, and East Boston Neighborhood Health Center.
How do we set these up and what do we do? First, we establish contact with the appropriate leader in the organization who is willing to let Josh Seidman and/or myself observe the process of care. In the case of this community, we’ve really been helped by Joe Kimura, MD from Harvard Vanguard/Atrius Health, Jonathan Wald, MD from Partners Healthcare, and Frances Kuebler, MD, from East Boston Neighborhood Health Center. Even with an introduction from a leader in the organization, there is still some relationship building that needs to happen with busy clinicians, and I will typically do that on the spot. In the case of Harvard Vanguard, I have already met the clinicians who are allowing me to watch the process of care.
Speaking of naming names, Neil Calman, MD asked me a provocative question, about the naming of individuals I shadow (not the patients, their experience is always protected). I have always assumed in a public space like this that not everyone wants to be explicitly named. On the other hand, I haven’t minded being named in another person’s blog as long as the reference is accurate.
So, with this trip, I am going to ask the question about attribution to those who I work with, as a little informal poll.
To the readers of this blog - what do you think - is it useful to the story to hear specifics about the practitioners we work with? Thanks for the input.
2 Responses
Neil Calman MD
October 31st, 2007 at 6:52 am
1Hi Ted:
Can I answer my own question? My most recent blog on the state of managed care in the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp was picked up by them - perhaps through a search under the name of their President who I had called. He responded with a very articulate explanation of the reasons behind their change in policy. This added much to the intelligence of the discussion. One point about names is that it is a way for people to find what is written that concerns them and be able to respond.
I also think that peoples’ good work should be attributed to them.
Ted Eytan
October 31st, 2007 at 8:25 am
2Of course, and I noticed! I thought it was pretty impressive, and as a reader I thought very informative and real. I have been telling folks in some circles that writing an organization to provide feedback is OUT. Blogging about it so they pick it up on a Google search is IN.
I am going to go with your guidance on this and see how it goes. One big PDCA cycle. We’ll adjust as we go. Look for the changes as we head to Boston next week. Thanks for continuing to lead!
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Recent Comments
Popular: October
Recent Links
Bookmarks
Meta
Calendar
Photographing Now
Reading Now
Doing Now
Tags
adoption Advisory Group airlines AMA Apple apple_in_the_enterprise blogs Boston California California Healthcare Founcation CCHIT ccr chcf chcfp cmio CMS costs DC disparities disruption diversity eClinicalWorks eCW ehr employer Employers employment enterprise2.0 GenX GenY Georgia google health2.0 health2con health_plans HIT_before_HIE hoshin_kanri hr hypertension Informatics innovation Institute for Family Health iPhone Kaiser Permanente Kaiser_Permanente Leadership leadership_blogs LEAN macintosh media medical_education medical_home medications Microsoft music my own cio New York npr optimism participation participatory medicine participatory_medicine patient access Patient and Family Centered Care patient_access patient_centered_care patient_empowerment patient_voice PCHIT Personas Photos phr physicians presentations prevention privacy purchasers reimbursement RHIO safety safety net Seattle Small Practices Software standards toyota transparency Twitter walking Web2.0 wordpress
Archives
Categories