Posts Tagged ‘relevance_of_peer_review’

Health Care Renewal: JAMA Editors Try Attacking the Messenger

April 1st, 2009 | Popularity: 19%
2 comments

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.

Health Affairs Blog: Mark Leavitt “not magical just practical”

August 22nd, 2008 | Popularity: 27%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Health Affairs Blog: Health IT Initiatives: Not Magical, Just Practical

Thoughtful quasi-blogpost* from Mark Leavitt, MD, who is also the Chair of the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT). In the post, Mark very nicely acknolwedges the number of dedicated volunteers in the CCHIT process – I know from experience that this group is working hard and is very talented (way more than I am).

*the quasi part is that I notice that the Health Affairs blog appears (to me anyway) as more of a Web 1.0 publication with comments, than a blog in the spirit of blogs. It might be nice to tweak the HTML title tags a bit for easier embedding into other blogs, and maybe shorter, more personal posts, in the spirit of blogging. I think Health Affairs has been on the leading edge to adopt the blog format in the first place to be sure, now perhaps they could go a little farther to support interaction with the people in health policy in a more behind the curtain way…

Upend(ing) the Cozy World of Medical Publishing?

August 1st, 2008 | Popularity: 26%
6 comments

I am always delighted to meet other physician bloggers, and such was the case with Bob Wachter, MD, who’s a physician that blogs, and from within academia. That’s rare, and welcomed, by me for sure.

He recently wrote this piece, Will Knols and Blogs Upend the Cozy World of Medical Publishing?, which echoes several ideas I have been having since I started blogging, especially around the idea of, as he calls it, “the democratization of peer review.” (I’m focusing on the comments about medical publishing – the world of Knols appears to be experiencing a rocky ride)

As I occasionally get requests to write for peer reviewed journals or books or I consider writing for them, I have been pausing to ask, “why?”

This is especially when the difference is between instant access and feedback to the people I serve, versus a smaller group of individuals with (potentially) limited experience in the ideas I’m writing about, and the medium I use to write them in. I say this without any predjudice to the publishing community – I am just not sure where physicians in my generation will fit in moving forward, unless the model is changed.

Bob refers to the difference between “Having an article peer reviewed by 3 experts is different than having 17 Joe Six-packs;” however, I’m not sure what the difference is, depending on the issue, between those two constituencies – what’s an expert in if she/he isn’t a person “just like me?” Also, what’s the value of a single (relatively speaking), private, review, that will be locked in time and space, forever? Robert Scoble speaks well to this in the post “Scoble Defends Blogging (Again), and He’s Right (Again).”

I do not work in academia, where people are incentivized/rewarded for the number of peer-reviewed publications with their names on them. I think a deeper question that should be asked, is, “What’s the best way, in this millennium, to produce portable knowledge that can be used by others?” I have talked with innovators in academia who have not shared their knowledge because of the effort required to publish to medical journals. That’s unfortunate.

How could the reward/incentive system in academia be reconfigured to respect the many different ways people can share knowledge, and put them to use to help people? I think it could be, and in turn a lot of great ideas could be unleashed.

Bob mentions in his post that he submitted his piece to two medical journals, who rejected it. However, we still get to read it thanks to Web 2.0.

I’m not even going to try with this one. And I sort of don’t have to.

Challenging Peer Review (on several fronts); Consumerism in Health Survey 2007; Accepting suggestions from Customers using Web 2.0 at Starbucks

March 30th, 2008 | Popularity: 77%
10 comments

March 28th through March 29th:

  • WordPress ? Search and Replace « WordPress Plugins – Wordpress 2.5 is out. I have a feeling this plugin will be useful to have handy
  • JAMA — Preserving Confidentiality in the Peer Review Process, March 24, 2008, DeAngelis and Thornton 0 (2008): 299.16.jed80000 – With tremendous respect for Catherine DeAngelis’ leadership during a tough situation. I am left wondering if the best place to hide is out in the open – if peer review became more Web2.0 like. What would happen in a situation like this?
  • Findings From the 2007 EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Survey – EBRI – About 2 percent of the population is enrolled in a consumer directed health plans. Significant points for me: (1) almost half of the population with a chronic condition reports not filling medications or skipping doses or delaying care due to cost. Sobering reminder that patients can and do choose to do what we doctors prescribe. (2) “There have been no significant gains int he provision of information on provider cost and quality by any health plan type over the three years of the survey. There has been no increase in the share of CDHP or HDHP enrollees who say their health plans provide them with quality and cost information about their providers, and they remain no more likely to receive such information than enrollees in more comprehensive plans.” Okay, one more point – they did not ask about the impact of involvement in care in choosing a health plan – no mention of medical records access or involvement in information sharing at the level of the encounter.
  • My Starbucks Idea – How about doing this for a health care org?
  • Bronson Beta – Mail.appetizer – Nice Mail notification tool, Leopard

History of Airline Marketing; Going Pharma-free for CME; Closed-Journal Publishing

February 21st, 2008 | Popularity: 43%
0 comments | Leave a reply

February 15th through February 16th:

The first few links are from the history of diversity in various industries’ and their impact on quality, affordability, and safety.

Blogs and/or Peer Review, how will they co-exist?

November 5th, 2007 | Popularity: 14%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Of late there has been discussion in the role of blogs in communication, both for relaying information, and stimulating action. Much of the discussion in my environment about this is generated by the fact that I am blogging most of what I am doing, and intentionally so (such is the life of a change agent/leader type).

On the micro level, it has been interesting and great to explain to the organizations and people that I meet that I am blogging what I see/do (with the exception of any personally identifiable information of patients). The reactions are varied, as one might expect and there isn’t really a lot of time to explain everything there is to about Web 2.0 because people are busy just doing what they do.

On a macro level, I have a prepared talk that I have given about blogs and their role in change management / communication. I think they have a huge one now and into the future, especially in a learning organization.

At the same time, I think about the value of peer review in describing what I’m doing. What is it?

When I look at the communication revolution that is happening with Web 2.0, I’m unsure that MEDLINE citations are the most important standard for creating portable knowledge in health care, especially in the areas I am working with, Informatics and process management and improvement (LEAN and Toyota Management System).

As it was pointed out to me last week by our advisors, the Medical Home movement came from a PDF on a Web site, and I would call that piece pretty transformative. A lot of the data I have used in patient centered health information technology has been very robustly compiled by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, also very transformative.
» Read more: Blogs and/or Peer Review, how will they co-exist?