A Research Agenda for Participatory Medicine and the Connected Medical Home

JosephKvedar_2321


Recently, in a blog post published December 22, 2008 in The Health Care Blog entitled  "The Connected Medical Home,” we described the synergy between the efforts of proponents of Participatory Medicine and the Medical Home.  Our main purpose was to suggest that both providers and patients are longing for a synthesis that takes the best features of Health 2.0 as consumer-generated health care, and combines these with a primary care medical home model offering personal relationships with health professionals who understand the power of the Web and are willing to use the Internet to improve patient care. 



Since our earlier writing, which received mostly positive commentary, a new President has been elected and Washington is on fire with talk of health reform and economic stimulus. Health IT and the medical home are primed to take center stage in the evolution of health reform, most observers would agree.  However, there are still many details to be worked out.  It is not entirely clear what constitutes the best uses of health IT inside the medical home model, nor how to hold these uses accountable for improved care and lower cost of care, let alone how to connect these with consumer-based technologies and bring both to market at a reasonable price, certainly a prime consideration during a recession and if we expect efficient widespread use. 



There is significant debate over the process of certification of EHR technology, required by the HITECH Act, in the process of which some observers have pointed out that tools for consumers, such as PHRs from Google and Microsoft, don't fit in any category described within the HITECH Act.   Perhaps most important, our experiences of care coordination and continuity enabled by Web and Internet-connected tools and methods are in their very early stages, with only a few published studies on the effects of patient engagement and a small, although growing, number of anecdotal descriptions. 

We propose that Participatory Medicine and the Connected Medical Home should be considered a new domain frontier, worthy of both conceptualization and research.

Perhaps the future of primary care depends upon the thoroughness and scientific rigor with which we approach this new area of study, and, of course, how quickly and efficiently we are able to apply what we've learned. 

What follows is a draft proposed research agenda for Participatory Medicine and the Connected Medical Home; in essence a set of questions that we think ought to be answered in the next few years as a means of helping to direct health care reform in this country.

1.    What are the limits of self-care?   We acknowledge that most health care is still provided in a "top down" and paternalistic manner, one in which the physician or nurse is the "expert" prescribing to the layperson.  This model is no longer a good fit in our culture where medical literacy is high and growing, and where the Internet and the Web provide easy access to data, information, and knowledge.  

But how do we know when self-care is appropriate, will work better than the status quo, and which technologies are most important for self-care to succeed?  

Here are several more specific questions that lend themselves to investigation:

a.    Can communications and monitoring technologies increase those limits? How, and through what mechanisms?b.    Does it make sense for patients with straightforward chronic conditions such as hypertension to be making some of their own medication dosage and titration decisions (aided by remotely monitored data)?  As an example, the management of uncomplicated hypertension is algorithmic in nature. Could we equip patients with some of those algorithms and monitor their progress online?   If this is successful with hypertension, what other chronic illnesses might also be amenable to self-care with IT support?


2.    What are the components of monitoring for Participatory Medicine that are most impactful in moving patients to healthier behaviors and in encouraging persistence?  We, at the Center for Connected Health, recently completed a trial showing that daily contact with an avatar coach resulted in steady state adherence to an activity regimen, whereas individuals who did not have access to the coach had a significantly lower adherence to the program.   What are the right circumstances to employ non-human coaches? What other technologies (text messaging, interactive voice response, software and games) can be employed in this manner?
3.    How do we segment populations in order to know which interventions are most appropriate for them?  The corollary is how do we find people who are completely disengaged in their health and move them to at least ‘sign up’ for an engagement program? Can participatory medicine tools help?  Perhaps this is the place where the tools of behavioral economics and choice architecture intersect with participatory medicine.

4. What is the power of the social network as a coaching tool and for which patient segments?

a.    We (JKvedar and colleagues) recently published a  HYPERLINK "http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/145/1/46" paper showing that psoriasis patients who were part of online social support groups had a self-reported higher quality of life.  Others, including  HYPERLINK "http://www.patientslikeme.com/"PatientsLikeMe have made a number of claims and observations regarding the power of social networks as tools for behavior change and improved care.

b.    Can one's Facebook friends, in aggregate, be one’s health coach? I.e. If we were to publish your health physiologic information on Facebook along with your goals, would your network encourage you to do better and would that make a difference? Can this sort of coaching replace traditional outbound phone calling of disease management type?

c. How much can we push this phenomenon?  When, truly, is the wisdom of crowds more effective than the wisdom of an individual provider? Is a social network where an MD is ‘in residence’ and participating in the discussion more powerful than one that is non- MDs only?  Will having the expert in attendance be viewed as a benefit (trusted resource) or an inhibitor (lurker/stalker)?

        d.  What is the best way to represent the coaching power of a social network in the electronic medical record?  In the PHR?

There will undoubtedly be follow on research questions as we sort out the answers to those above. However, we feel that substantial progress on these questions will move the field forward and give providers more comfort in the utility of participatory medicine as a tool to help them manage populations of patients.  

Let us know what you think. Are there critical research questions we missed? Who will fund this research agenda?

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as:

15
Leave a Reply

15 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
SidCareyAdam SigelmanAdrian Gropper MDDavid C. Kibbe, MD MBA Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Sid
Guest
Sid

The medical home is a no brainer. Of COURSE we need to make care more accessible at bedside. Of COURSE technology plays a role. I look forward to the future.

David C. Kibbe, MD MBA
Guest
David C. Kibbe, MD MBA

I’d like to address Adam Sigelman’s question. Adam, you make a singularly important point: interoperability among different EMRs and EHR technologies is critical not only for data exchange, coordination, and continuity — it is a requirement for quality and performance measurement. Actually, the solution to your problem is already available. The CCR standard is capable of unambiguous structured data output from any EHR technology such that data aggregation for reporting and analysis can be carried out effectively and efficiently, for any population of patients and for any condition or diagnosis. There is still upfront work to be done at the… Read more »

Carey
Guest

Great discussion and a slew of important questions worth fleshing out, thanks! I am both intrigued yet cautious of the participatory and “e” movements, among other recent innovations in part because of the ways it can both empower (but empower to what end) as well as silence a host of other important voices that need to be part of these discussions. Furthermore, does more participation, more EMRS, and “more” care equal better care? And finally, what exactly are we trying to achieve with a participatory agenda??

Adam Sigelman
Guest
Adam Sigelman

Drs. Kibbe and Kvedar: I applaud your post and would like to suggest another line of investigation. I am a consultant currently managing a project for a group of rural health centers with the goal of aligning their common EMR implementation with the goals of the medical home. For the medical home to suceed, it is not enough to have consumer generated care. Provider organizations need to build a robust and accurate clinical and operational data set that they can leverage to provide proactive care to their patients, especially those patients who are less motivated to take their health into… Read more »

Adrian Gropper MD
Guest

This is a wonderful post. I am particularly interested in a discussion around Michael Kane’s recent comment. How do we conceive “the medical home” or any other workspace shared by the patient and a PCP to avoid the conflict of interest that Michael’s comment implies?

David C. Kibbe, MD MBA
Guest
David C. Kibbe, MD MBA

Dear Colleagues: One of the things I most like about blogging at this particular time is that people respond with their thoughts, and we’re less and less afraid of being completely honest about our feelings. Margalit puts it all in perspective, and I like the way she does it. The conversation is a “symphony.” We’re making music! I hear so many doctors today with the same opinion as jrossi, and I am fully of his/her world view. But Dr. Kvedar and I are also addressing an audience that is interested in basic clinical research about the effectiveness of care using… Read more »

Dr. Michael Kane
Guest

Let’s face it. The medical home model is simply just a gatekeeper system with lipstick on it. It’s just another way for primary care docs to get more control again and increase their incomes. The fact that it has a new name will not change the realities of how cost ineffective and wildy unpopular it was in the past.

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

This series of posts is like a symphony. Dr. Kibbe and Dr. Kvedar with the visionary outlook to where we need to go: medical homes coordinating care, educated patients that contribute to their own health care and everybody is using the latest technology to achieve quality of care and better outcomes. And then there’s rbar with a sobering view of actual patient capability and maybe even desire. Do we really want to make our own hard decisions when it comes to serious illness? Is there a certain level of comfort in deferring to a trusted expert in time of need?… Read more »

inchoate but earnest
Guest
inchoate but earnest

rbar wrote: “what I encounter much more often are misinformed or misguided patients, and even more often, after discussing options and asking the patient how he/she wants to proceed, the question: Well, what would YOU do in my place? Given the massive problems facing US healthcare, I think these efforts are rather marginal. Like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic … or wondering whether you’d rather communicate about the impending doom by twitter of facebook.” “Misinformed & misguided” describes how life is generally lived by most people, most of the time. Emerging communications methods make that abundantly clear; one… Read more »

jrossi
Guest
jrossi

I am a rural family doctor, in the game for 19 years. After reading around on a few HC blogs, I have come to the conclusion that HC bloggers like Dr. Kibbe live in a different universe from me. In my universe, there is a huge primary care shortage. There are not enough warm medical bodies to staff the medical home and jocky the sophisticated EHRs. There is no one who wants to make sure that all the guideline-based preventive care is done, because it’s just too much damn work for too little damn money. Better to go into derm… Read more »

Don Nease, MD
Guest
Don Nease, MD

From my perspective as an academic family physician and spare time software guy, there’s a lot to like in what you have to say. In my mind, having grown up in a rural state, there is a real analogy here between primary care and the family farm. For years our nation’s farm policy has disadvantaged the family farm to the extent that they almost became extinct. The revitalization I see coming in our area is the family farm being reborn through direct connection to the consumer via farmer’s markets and the locavorious movement. Primary care could benefit just as well… Read more »

rbar
Guest
rbar

As I have said in the previous discussion of this topic, think you are hyping a phenomenon that may work for a minority only. These smart patients do exist (although, as a side note, they rarely end up with physicians who embody the paternalistic approach), but what I encounter in in actual practice (in my service area with a very high rate of private insurance and college education) is usually either 1) patient passivity or 2) misguided participatory medicine: 1) one has to remember that we live in a society in which people are un- or misinformed about basic policy… Read more »

Jane Sarasohn-Kahn
Guest

Drs. Kibbe and Kvedar, Your logic is sound and smart. There is a growing cadre of people who demand participation and a co-creation model of health with providers and coaches. Another lens on this in a post-Obama health era is to consider some of this research in the context of comparative effectiveness: we’ve analyzed medical procedures this way (e.g., minimally invasive surgery vs. traditional techniques). Why not compare people managing diabetes with web 2.0-enabled tools, health coaching, etc. vs. a less-engaged population of diabetics? The Connected Medical Home model can, I believe, help mitigate the future-factors of scarce clinician supply… Read more »

Healthcare Guru
Guest

David, “It is not entirely clear what constitutes the best uses of health IT inside the medical home model, nor how to hold these uses accountable for improved care and lower cost of care,….” I am not sure why would you think that. Care is care under any setting. As we moved towards personalized care, the HIT would and should have the same role in hospitals, outclinics, homes, yards…..whereever you go. The question is not what role it should have…the question is how to ensure it does play the right role. Same goes with accountability- if one is designing a… Read more »

Privacy concerns
Guest

My apology for hijacking this thread but I hope someone very smart reviews yesterdays article in the New York Times (link on my sig) Realage (aka Dr. Oz and Oprha) have been selling patients private health information to drug companies is going to set back both PHR’s and any national health information network about a year. 27 million people have taken the test, and 9 million have signed up as members. Online Age Quiz Is a Window for Drug Makers Pharmaceutical companies pay RealAge to compile test results of RealAge members and send them marketing messages by e-mail. The drug… Read more »