Posts Tagged ‘patient-empowerment’

Meaningful Meaningful Use

June 26th, 2009 | Popularity: 7%
7 comments

A little while ago, I wrote about the experience of a patient, Fred Holliday, whose wife Regina Holliday stimulated a discussion about patient access to recorded health information. Fred Holliday died on June 17, 2009 .

On June 16, 2009, the HIT Policy Committee produced its first recommendations of what Meaningful Use should be. I of course am looking at the proposal from the perspective of patient and family involvement in care, and I think in many ways it is impressive.

It’s useful to think about the HIT Policy Committee recommendation in the context of what the law as written says, which is as follows (page 355-356):

‘(2) MEANINGFUL EHR USER.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of paragraph (1), an eligible professional shall be treated as a meaningful EHR user for an EHR reporting period for a payment year (or, for purposes of subsection (a)(7), for an EHR reporting period under such subsection for a year) if each of the following requirements is met: ‘‘(i) MEANINGFUL USE OF CERTIFIED EHR TECHNOLOGY.—The eligible professional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph (C)(i), that during such period the profes- sional is using certified EHR technology in a meaning- ful manner, which shall include the use of electronic prescribing as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. ‘‘(ii) INFORMATIONEXCHANGE.—The eligible profes- sional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph (C)(i), that during such period such certified EHR technology is connected in a manner that provides, in accordance with law and standards applicable to the exchange of information, for the electronic exchange of health information to improve the quality of health care, such as pro- moting care coordination. ‘‘(iii) REPORTING ON MEASURES USINGE HR.—Subject to subparagraph (B)(ii) and using such certified EHR technology, the eligible professional submits information for such period, in a form and manner specified by the Secretary, on such clinical quality measures and such other measures as selected by the Secretary under subparagraph (B)(i).

That’s the complete definition in the law.

With that in mind, the thinking of the HIT Policy Committee is inclusive of a policy priority they call “Engage patients and families,” with a fairly reasonable (based on what I know the technology can do) set of objectives and measures for 2011-2015. The way I interpret the thinking in this set, it is that in 2011, patients will begin to read their records online, in 2013 they will begin to write their records online, including via secure messaging with their providers, and in 2015, there will be full real-time access to a personal health record populated with their data.

The measures in 2011 include the use of an after visit summary, which I’ve written about previously, and is relatively easy to measure (and produce, in my opinion).

I think the measures are a nice compromise between what leading edge health care systems can do today versus where all health care systems should be in the future. I’ll also say that this component of meaningful use is likely to help all of the other components be more successful, because they will cause health care systems and providers to see the impact of what they do, through patient reaction. To the patients out there, what do you think?

“We Will All be Patients Someday” – Health 2.0 meets Information Therapy, Boston, MA

April 27th, 2009 | Popularity: 27%
10 comments

I am back from the spring Health 2.0 Conference in Boston, MA, this time combined with Information Therapy, which in my opinion was both a great thing to do in terms of participants, and in terms of bridging the Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 worlds.

Photos below, click on any to enlarge

Some of my favorite health care leaders were in attendance of course, including Holly Potter, Kate Christensen, MD, Paulanne Balch, MD, Anna-Lisa Silvestre, Diane Gage Lofgren, James Hereford, ePatientDave, Trisha Torrey, Susannah Fox, Gilles Frydman, Dan Hoch, MD, Alan Greene, MD, Danny Sands, MD, Jay Parkinson, MD, Jane Sarashohn-Kahn, Lygeia Riccardi, as well was excellent co-hosts Matthew and Indu from Health 2.0, and Josh Seidman, from The Center for Information Therapy.

(Is this dangerous? Attempting to list all of your favorite people on a blog post? I suppose I could just link to my Twitter friends list – I hope everyone remembers what I said on stage about loving everyone and that you’ll add a comment if I’ve forgotten..)

My bias in coming to Health 2.0 is to look for connections and innovations for the established health care system, and I think the combination here supported that, beginning with a debate entitled, “Ix and Health 2.0 – Synergies and Tensions?” moderated by Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, probably one of the few humans alive who can moderate this many energetic people at once. Regardless of the outcome, though, the mere fact of the conversation is evidence that we all need each other, because when we are patients, we are going to need everything we can get to help us be successful.

The Patient Takes Center Stage, from the balcony

Twitter - SusannahFox- @epatientdave should be on ... (20090427)

The moment of most impact for me was when I was on stage, following a short demonstration of

kp.org (see tomorrow’s post), when the topic of ePatientDave’s work with Google Health and Beth Israel Deaconness (well represented by Roni Zieger, MD, and John Halamka, MD) was mentioned ( start here if you want to get up to speed on this great story ) .

Here’s what happened : When the topic was first brought up, and there were a few audio problems, we heard “Speak up!” coming from the balcony on the right. I turned to fellow panelist and said, “Voice of the patient!” Next, as the discussion was unfolding, with Roni and John describing what they had done in partnership with Dave, I noticed this tweet on the monitor in front of me: “@epatientdave should be on stage too #health2con“.

As Dave got up, in the balcony, to begin talking about his experience, I reflected on the tweet and motioned him to come down, but instead, a really interesting thing happened. Dave stayed up on the balcony, microphone in hand, and spoke to the entire audience below. It was a perfect moment at a perfect time for me (and I think for the rest of the room), when a room of health care leaders looked up to our patients, physically as well as emotionally. I don’t know if there’s a photograph out there of this scene, but it’s gotta be priceless. Even though I could not find one for this post, I like this description of things from Susan Carr.






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.

How Business Pays for its View of Human Nature

September 29th, 2008 | Popularity: 17%
2 comments

As I just got done finished reading the column in Businessweek with the title of this post, I received the following link from Hilary Worthen, MD, about the value of good customer service:

Writing – Cooking – Life » Blog Archive » I Heart Zappos

These ideas must be on the minds of a lot of people these days, as Jack and Suzy Welch also wrote about it in their column “The Importance of Being Sticky.”

The best companies understand that a relationship of trust and engagement pays off handsomely, and this includes empowering staff closest to customers with abilities to correct errors and manage inconveniences.

Think about the analogies we use in health care without even thinking about it….

I recently had the experience of an editor doing a really great job improving an article I am writing for a peer-reviewed publication. One of the suggested edits, though, started with the sentence, “Armed with information, the doctor can….” They gladly accepted my re-edit and commentary that we are not war with our patients, we are at peace with them.

What is our view of human nature within the health care system and should we change it?