I came across Susannah Fox’s recent blog entry: (e-patients: Flashback to 2001) where she uploaded a PDF of the American Medical Association’s Press Release of Resolutions for 2001 (you can link to it directly here), which included a resolution to “trust your doctor, not a chat room.”

She said she posted it by the popular demand (of one), but I also was glad she posted it (so increase the count to two, Susannah!), and followed the link to another blog post that was critical of her presentation at the Health 2.0 conference. In that post, the author said, “is Fox actually disagreeing with those who think it wiser to seek advice from physicians than to take seriously medical advice received from anonymous strangers in internet chat rooms?” and I wanted to comment on this as someone sitting in the audience (and who got to catch up with Susannah shortly before she went on stage - ok, so I am disclosing that I am a fan).

I think what Susannah was responding to, and somewhat verified in David Rothman’s post is the binary-ness of the argument, that it’s either your doctor or the Internet, not both. The first question I ask when I wonder about behavior is (in true LEAN tradition) “why?” Why would a patient access information outside of their physician relationship? We can guess at many reasons, including that they don’t have access to a doctor, or the doctor they do have access to has not given them the information they are looking for. At some level, there is a trust issue involved, and if we use the Edelman Trust Barometer as one piece of data, it is that patients are more likely to trust “someone like me” than their doctor. It’s impressive that we’ve come to this.

Rothman goes on to discuss the virtues of Medline Plus as a place to get authoritative information and “I do not believe that online resources collaboratively created by patients will solve the problems and dangers of healthcare misinformation online.” Again, I think it is the “it is or it isn’t” aspect that we have to be careful of. To Rothman’s comment, I would say, “Is that true 100% of the time?” And I thought about this a bit more as I pulled out a study I have been waiting to read for some time:

Williamson IG, Rumsby K, Benge S, Moore M, Smith PW, Cross M, et al. Antibiotics and Topical Nasal Steroid for Treatment of Acute Maxillary Sinusitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial [Internet]. JAMA. 2007 Dec 5;298(21):2487-2496.[cited 2008 Mar 13 ]

The study is, I would say, on the incredible side. It challenges one of the most commonly held notions in primary care, that sinus symptoms should result in antibiotic treatment, and shows that prescribing amoxicillin for the most commonly used criteria to diagnose sinusitis was no better than a placebo (sugar pill). I imagine the signficance of this, considering that the average physician may see at least one case of these symptoms each week and the antibiotic cost yearly is $2.4 billion in the U.S. Not to mention that these antibiotics are now in our water supply.

So I next went to Medline Plus, to the Sinusitis topic, to look for the information that says that antibiotics have no effect on the condition in most cases, and that diagnosis itself is questionable.

Sinusitis [Internet]. [cited 2008 Mar 13 ]

No such mention. Is this surprising considering that the average piece of research takes 17 years to find its way into medical practice? I won’t go into why that is here; however, the point is that even the most infallible official resources can be fallible. All that this means is that we should always as “why?” and support our patients asking “why?” also. Of interest, I found out about this peer-reviewed study in the blogosphere, not on PubMed or Medline. We should leave the door open to the idea that patients may just help us reflect on better ways to treat them that are less costly and less harmful to themselves and the environment. It’s a continuous spectrum, not a binary switch.

What about American Medical Association 2001?

I also wanted to comment on Susannah’s use of the press release, which is very important and useful. We have to know where we came from so we can move ahead together. The same year that the press release came out, the American Medical Association also published another piece, “Geraghty K. Historical Postmortem, March 2001 (The Telephone). Jama 2001. (link fixed 03/13/08)” In that piece, my profession’s history with the telephone was discussed - it took 80 years for the telephone to become accepted in modern medicine. But it’s accepted now. And one day, the Internet will be, too. We’re really only 8 years into Internet-enabled health care (using my own organization as the example).

What Susannah presented was what it was: American Medical Association 2001. That’s not the same as American Medical Association 2008. Organizations grow and change. I’m confident that the medical profession will grow and change and use the best tools out there to help our patients. We came from barbers, after all. And I’ve never met a physician that wanted to provide bad health care to their patients.

Scribemedia and the organizers of the Health 2.0 Conference have put the videos that they showed from the conference online. They’re terrific.

My favorites : A patient with reflex sympathetic dystrophy:, A patient with multiple sclerosis who can dance every night in Second Life

I think they’re moving from a patient, provider, and health system leader perspective. I especially enjoyed the one about chronic pain. We are taught in residency to support patients with pain by encouraging them to document their symptoms over time. Then we don’t give them tools to do it. Then we wonder why they didn’t document their symptoms. Then we ask them to document their symptoms. In the video I got the sense that bearing witness to one’s own symptoms is therapeutic in and of itself. Would I want this information brought into a consultation with a patient? Is it more important than asking if prescribed drugs were effective? Absolutely. See what you think.

Video will help the patient and consumer voice be heard in ways not thought possible before. Better health care will result.

Yesterday, I wrote a post about my visit to Sonoma, California, and the health care that MiVia is enabling. Heidi Stovall then gave me a tour of the application, and allowed me to take screen shots of it to post here. All of the information in the screen shots are not from real patients, so there is no personal health information being displayed.

Let’s take these one by one. And here are the images that go with the tour. Click on any to see full size.

1. This is the patient login, and includes their identification screen. Notice the LAC. That’s a “Limited Access Code” and allows a selected person access to the information, for example a care provider in an emergency.
2. A chart note. This allows a provider to document right into the patient’s personal health record. An interesting paradigm - the customer of this system is the patient, not the provider (sort of how I think these systems should be designed). Important to remember that these patients typically do not have medical records in other EHRs.
3. The printable ID card. I mentioned yesterday that this is not an actual ID, but to the users, it signifies “belonging” to something. At the same time, it can be given to a provider to signify that “there is a place you can go to learn about my medical and dental history.” It’s worth noting that my health plan offers this, but via a telephone service, not through the Web (I can access my own information, but I do not have an access code I can give to someone to do it for me).
4. A medical summary report. A easy place to find out about a person’s medical and dental conditions.
5. Sharing preferences. The patient can automatically add their record to the roster of a participating provider. If they do not add this, the provider can also add the patient by getting access code information. Again, the heritage of a patient-centered application is apparent. I think this looks very simple and understandable.
6. Pain and symptom diary. What’s significant here is that the patient-centered nature of this record means that patients can document in it as much as providers can. It’s a basic interface to be sure, but physicians know that a cornerstone of pain management is for patients to document what they are feeling.
7. Dental Records. Again, a basic interface, but it’s a bit of a breakthrough in my experience to combine oral health and general health in one place. From the patient perspective this makes total sense. From the physician perspective, we are used to segregating “medical” and “dental.” Why? Tradition? Because we went to different professional schools? I think the patient’s way is the best way.
8. CCR Export. I think this is one of the most promising features. It’s clear that this is a group of patients that are unlikely to be served by a health system with a tethered PHR, and one of our findings is that a tethered PHR is not the only way to serve patients. What if this subset of the community could upload their record to a tethered system, for example, if they receive care in a tertiary care hospital, or if they obtain a specialty consult in a system that has an EHR? In this case, they will still use MiVia as their portal. The idea is that the specialty care provider could either document here (copy their note), or send a CCR export to MiVia.

Here are some thoughts:
Read the rest of this entry »