Posts Tagged ‘patient-centered care’

Now Reading: Adolescent Access to Online Health Services: Perils and Promise

February 3rd, 2009 | Popularity: 29%
1 comment

One of the authors of the article and former colleague from Group Health Cooperative, David Grossman, MD, tipped me off to its publication, and I’m glad he did.

This piece adds to a growing volume of work that doesn’t ask “why?” patients should have online access, but work that asks “why not?” for patient online access. Unfortunately, the peer reviewed literature lags significantly behind what is known in the world about patient online services – it points to some of the deficiencies of peer review in a Web 2.0 world that I an others have written about previously.

One disclosure is that I am an acknolwedgee and was one of the individuals interviewed by the author, although I was not involved in any significant way in the content or conclusions reached by the author.

The article covers online patient access for a vulnerable population, teens, and the author makes an astute observation about their vulnerability in today’s health system, which parallels their vulnerability in online health systems:

Adolescents, as a group, do not typically advocate on behalf of their own health care needs, and generally are not the primary subscribers on health insurance plans. As a result, teen needs may not be among a health care organization’s highest priorities.

From my experience, many of the online programs that exist for adolescents are there because of the support of a handful of dedicated pediatricians and family physicians as well as their nursing and allied health colleagues who care for this group. That’s changing, though, as parents who enjoy this access for themselves are asking how their entire family can participate.

There’s a very nice table in the article about what, specifically, leading edge organizations are doing to provide teen access. This table alone should serve as a guide to understand what conventional limitations are. However, I would stress the word “conventional,” because as the authors point out, much more should be possible in the care of adolescents, so organizations out there looking to implement teen access hopefully would use this information to provide even more service – this is the foundation of innovation after all!

In addition to the useful summaries of potential beneficial uses of teen access, the article includes a fairly good review of the benefits of personal health records in general.

The other thing I liked (and like in any article like this) falls into the category of what I call “myth explosion,” which is where a critical eye is applied to assumptions made about how things might work if some thing new is tried. (In my LEAN work, I used to say, “not everything has been tried before.”) This includes concerns about parents coercing teens to provide passwords to their online health information, which is successfully challenged as a concern, in my opinion. Beyond thoughtful analyses like this, I think patients and their families are the best at myth explosion and do it quite readily. With that in mind, a great follow-on to this article might be one written about the experiences of teens and parents involved in the adolescent access programs now underway.

The one other idea that comes to mind is the fact that the recent HIPAA guidance put out by the Department of Health and Human Services has no information in it regarding adolescent access. I think it might be useful for the next chapter of that guidance to include this group, to make something that seems difficult to so many not seem so.

Thanks to Megan Moreno, MD, for her work to change the question from “should we?” to “how and when?” Hopefully, soon. If there are any teens or parents out there using this access or want to use it, please feel free to comment on your experience as it is or as you would like it to be.

In Front of the Counter with the Innovation Learning Network

September 25th, 2008 | Popularity: 24%
0 comments | Leave a reply

One of the (many) groups I am excited to participate with in my new role is the Innovation Learning Network , which “brings together the most innovative healthcare organizations in the country to share the joys and pains of innovation.” Kaiser Permanente is a member, of course, as are many other leading edge American health organizations.

In learning about the Network, I spoke with Scott Heisler, RN, MBA, who works with the Kaiser Permanente Innovation Consultancy. He walked me through the innovation approach used by the consultancy (which by coincidence I read and blogged about right here), and then presented a concept that really interested me – the “in front of the counter / behind the counter” sensation that we sometimes have in health care.

I did a little looking on line and found this on McDonald’s Corporate Responsibility blog:

I couldn’t help but think about the challenges that all of our businesses have – regardless of our industry or size of operations – making the connection with our customers on the environmental improvements we have, and continue, to make. So much of our innovation happens “behind the counter”, so it’s almost invisible to our customers if we don’t proactively communicate it.

I think this is a useful way to think about things, especially when we talk about involving patients. Are we thinking about the front-counter experience in everything we do? Are there times when we inappropriately ask people who are part of the care team (nurses, allied health, other physicians, patients and their families) to be in front of the counter when they should be assisting behind the counter? Or should we change the front of the counter experience in such a way that people don’t have to come behind the counter to support a safe, affordable, high quality care experience?

I then remembered what’s happening with New York City restaurants, and one in particular: when more information was provided to consumers, Le Pain Quotidien learned that this was better business for all of their stores (including Washington, DC) and adjusted things behind the counter to support it.

It’s interesting to think about how working from the front of the counter can create improvement…..Either way, I’m looking forward to following the work of the ILN, and encourage readers from innovative organizations to think about doing the same.

Hello Health Launch Party 7.31.08 – a set on Flickr

August 4th, 2008 | Popularity: 22%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Hello Health Launch Party 7.31.08 – a set on Flickr

Thanks to Jen McCabe Gorman for sharing. The party looks like a lot of fun, and let us hope it helps patients and their families and communities become more involved and engaged in their health. Congrats to Jay & Myca.

Hypertension, Health 2.0, and Indirect Costs, Now it’s Getting Interesting

May 20th, 2008 | Popularity: 41%
1 comment

In my fielding of this data to various people, this part of the analysis has been by far the most controversial. Let’s first start with indirect costs added on top of direct costs, from the societal perspective, just for California. By indirect costs, we mean lost time from work (absence and short term disability), presenteeism (impairment while at work, to avoid being absent), and caregiving (21 million working men and women are caregivers in the US)


direct and indirect costs societal perspective

The indirect cost data is only for employed persons reporting the condition, which means it is a subset of the population (doesn’t include indirect costs for the non-employed, doesn’t include costs for the undiagnosed). The graph above is therefore a little bit off, because the medical cost is for all people, productivity costs just for employment related losses.

Now, a different look at the data, which averages costs across the entire employee population, from the employer perspective.


hypertension total costs

This is different because it takes into account prevalence, and spreads that cost over all employees, whether they report the condition or not. My explanation for the different way this data looks is that the medical cost per person for hypertensive employees is far less than for heart disease, but there are many more hypertensive patients in a population. In the employee samples used to derive this data, there’s a factor of 2 difference compared to heart disease (12.4 % vs 6.4 %).

The sources for this data are the same as previous charts (formatted for Zotero, below).

I have already been asked, “Ted, how can high blood pressure cause presenteeism at all?” and I welcome the skepticism. I reviewed the study below, which defined the term for our profession, and it includes a combination of employee studies, some done quite well, that ask about employee impairment and absences due to multiple conditions. This includes things like side effects of medications (which are a cornerstone of hypertension therapy). Questions, based on the study, were things like whether an employee performance was reduced by ‘losing concentration, repeating a job, working more slowly than usual, feeling fatigued, or generally “doing nothing”‘. The authors specifically chose tools that measured multiple conditions at once, so that comparisons could be made.

One novel study worth mentioning specifically is one by Bank One, that used administrative and computerized productivity records of its employees to explicitly measure productivity losses, in addition to using a health risk appraisal and claims data to come up with estimates. For hypertension, the estimate was 0.4 % in this one, which was right in the middle.

Based on my reading of the paper, I am accepting the methodology as supportive. As a student of LEAN, though, I know that the facts are best obtained on the factory floor, so my next interest is in working with an employer, and ultimately and employee, who experiences these conditions first hand. And I do mean on the factory floor, rather than the health system.

After creating this post, I realized that my A3 (coming next) has one inaccuracy. Fixing that, posting it soon.

1. An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease: California. Take a look at the methodology here.

2. Goetzel, Ron Z, Stacey R Long, Ronald J Ozminkowski, Kevin Hawkins, Shaohung Wang, and Wendy Lynch. “Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers.” Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46, no. 4 (April 2004): 398-412.

Comment away, this can only improve with input.

At the Home of Patient and Family Centered Care

March 25th, 2008 | Popularity: 36%
0 comments | Leave a reply

In Augusta, Georgia, a national epicenter for Patient and Family Centered Care, as featured on “The Remaking of American Medicine.” It’s a really impressive place. I’ll be blogging more about it soon. Nothing provides more energy than patient empowerment.

A CIO that embraces 2.0; Walmart going into the EHR business?; The Superfriends

February 18th, 2008 | Popularity: 39%
0 comments | Leave a reply

February 10th through February 14th:

Now Reading: Articles about communicating significant diagnoses and “Beneficient Deception”

February 13th, 2008 | Popularity: 27%
0 comments | Leave a reply
Kirk Et Al - 2004 - What Do Patients Receiving Palliative Care For Can

Peter Kirk, Ingrid Kirk, and Linda J Kristjanson, “What do patients receiving palliative care for cancer and their families want to be told? A Canadian and Australian qualitative study,” BMJ 328, no. 7452 (June 5, 2004): 1343.

714034066 Content

Connie Ulrich and Christine Grady, “Beneficent Deception: Whose Best Interests Are We Serving?,” The American Journal of Bioethics 4, no. 4 (2004): 76.

Since I have been writing and discussing the topic of transparency lately (specifically with regard to patient medical records), these two articles came to my attention following a discussion that occurred after my presentation at Johns Hopkins Medicine. We talked about when and how we inform patients about aspects of their care, and what the conditions might be for “beneficient deception.”

The first article, which deals with communication between care teams and patients with terminal diagnoses, talks about the importance of good communication not just at prognosis, but throughout the course of treatment. This quote caught my eye:

Many participants reported dissatisfaction with the communication process, especially at disclosure of the initial diagnosis. Six attributes were identified to be important in communicating information: playing it straight, staying the course, giving time, showing you care, making it clear, and pacing information.

We put a high price on the accuracy and compassion that should come with an initial diagnosis, clearly. In the work I am doing, it becomes more and more likely that this information may come in an asynchronous fashion, i.e. the patient may see the result at the same time, or even before their doctor does. In discussions to date, it has seemed that the focus has been on this custom – “doctor gets the information before the patient.” I think the focus instead should be on the factors cited above and our ability to “enhance decision making and keep control.” It’s not clear that the current custom absolutely supports that.

The second article is about the concept of “beneficient deception.” The context, though, is not exactly what I was thinking of, but I am citing it here anyway. It refers to the idea that a physician may adjust or misrepresent a diagnosis to ensure coverage for treatment. In the patient-physician communication world, my assumption is that it might be used to provide hope and a sense of control. I am tempted to agree with the authors of this article, that I find this hard to justify in the long term. Instead, I think about the physician leadership role in making this activity unnecessary. Our patients can guide us on the best way to be accurate and direct, and I think we will all benefit from these conversations.

Of course, your comments are welcome.