Categories

Tag: The Insider’s Guide To Health Care

A Safety Checklist for Patients

Far too many patients are harmed rather than helped from their interactions with the health care system. While reducing this harm has proven to be devilishly difficult, we have found that checklists help. Checklists help to reduce ambiguity about what to do, to prioritize what is most important, and to clarify the behaviors that are most helpful.

The use of checklists helped to reduce central-line associated bloodstream infections at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, in hospitals throughout Michigan, and now across the United States. Clinicians have begun to develop, implement and evaluate checklists for a variety of other diagnoses and procedures.

Patients can also use checklists to defend themselves against the major causes of preventable harm. Here are a few you can use:

Health care-associated infections

  • Ask about your hospital’s rates of central-line associated bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. The best hospitals use the definitions provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and have rates less than one infection per 1,000 catheter days. A rate above three should cause concern.
  • Whenever clinicians enter your room, ask if they have washed their hands. Request that visitors also wash their hands often. Washing can be with alcohol gel or soap and water.
  • If you have any type of catheter, ask every day if that catheter can be removed.

Continue reading…

If You Feel OK, Maybe You Are OK

Early diagnosis has become one of the most fundamental precepts of modern medicine. It goes something like this: The best way to keep people healthy is to find out if they have (pick one) heart disease, autism, glaucoma, diabetes, vascular problems, osteoporosis or, of course, cancer — early. And the way to find these conditions early is through screening.

It is a precept that resonates with the intuition of the general public: obviously it’s better to catch and deal with problems as soon as possible. A study published with much fanfare in The New England Journal of Medicine last week contained what researchers called the best evidence yet that colonoscopies reduce deaths from colon cancer.

Recently, however, there have been rumblings within the medical profession that suggest that the enthusiasm for early diagnosis may be waning. Most prominent are recommendations against prostate cancer screening for healthy men and for reducing the frequency of breast and cervical cancer screening. Some experts even cautioned against the recent colonoscopy results, pointing out that the study participants were probably much healthier than the general population, which would make them less likely to die of colon cancer. In addition there is a concern about too much detection and treatment of early diabetes, a growing appreciation that autism has been too broadly defined and skepticism toward new guidelines for universal cholesterol screening of children.

The basic strategy behind early diagnosis is to encourage the well to get examined — to determine if they are not, in fact, sick. But is looking hard for things to be wrong a good way to promote health? The truth is, the fastest way to get heart disease, autism, glaucoma, diabetes, vascular problems, osteoporosis or cancer … is to be screened for it. In other words, the problem is overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Continue reading…

Another Devastating Diagnosis to Face

I have stomach cancer and will undergo surgery to remove part or all of my stomach today.

While a truly expert blogger would have documented the facts and his perceptions from the moment of discovery, I have been preoccupied with absorbing the shock, weighing my options and managing the logistics. I have been short on insight, long on anxiety.

But I have regained some composure since finalizing the plan for my immediate future, so I thought I’d try to capture some of my observations about this wild period this time around. After all, I listen all the time to people talk about how they experience these few weeks between a serious diagnosis and the beginning of treatment and, having gone through it repeatedly myself, I have a lot to compare it to.

A little background: This is my fourth different cancer-related diagnosis. My stomach cancer was discovered due to the vigilance of my primary care doctor who treats adult survivors of childhood cancer and who leaves no symptom – regardless of how minor – unexplored. I had dismissed my insignificant symptom once it disappeared after a few days. However, my doctor didn’t, and it turned out to be a small gastric tumor, probably a result of the high doses of radiation that were the standard of treatment for my stage of Hodgkin’s disease in the early 1970s. The tumor will be removed Monday, along with as much of my stomach as is necessary to prevent its recurrence. While the size of the tumor and its staging leave me optimistic that I won’t need chemotherapy and radiation, I won’t know for certain until a week after surgery.

Continue reading…

Important: Input on consumer ‘Meaningful Use’ requested and required, Apr 20

Josh Seidman, now running the meaningful use program at ONC, but formerly of the Center for Ix Therapy writes with an important request:

The Meaningful Use Workgroup of the Health IT Policy/federal advisory committee that advises ONC) is holding a hearing on Tuesday, April 20 in Washington (open to the public in person and virtually) on patient/family engagement. This testimony and other public input will be critically important in laying out the foundational steps for the evolution of Stages 2 & 3 definitions of MU for patient/family engagement.

In addition to the hearing itself, we are now inviting public input in advance of the hearing and follow-up to it on the FACA Blog, and we’d love to get as much thoughtful input as possible.

It goes without saying, but I’m going to say it again anyway, that Josh’s shepherding of the meaningful use criteria plus his earlier lobbying of the process from the outside HHS was very instrumental in making the consumer such a big part of phase 1 of the meaningful use criteria. However, you can be assured that there are lots of people wanting to put the brakes on any expansion of the consumer-facing meaningful use criteria.

We’ve just come back form Europe where the Danes showed us that all their citizens already have access to everything we’re talking about in stages 2–3 of meaningful use. So I believe that we should be shooting for the stars here.

BUT unless the Health 2.0 crowd, the ePatients, and the consumer gets into the commenting mix, there are no guarantees. So please take the opportunity to get involved virtually and in reality if you’re in DC next week.

Myths and Facts About Health Reform

This is the first in a series of posts that will try to pierce the myths and reveal the facts about the reform legislation. This first post focuses on the impact that reform will have on the private insurance industry–and on the industry’s customers.

MYTH # 1: Health Care Reform represents a “boon” for private insurers.

FACT It is true that, beginning in 2014, virtually all Americans will be required to buy insurance, or pay a fine. But while insurers will pick up a boatload of new customers, many will be refugees who have been battered by a health care system that rationed care according to ability to pay. Think of the boat as a life raft. These could be very expensive customers.

Moreover, between now and 2014, insurers will face some serious financial hits. These new rules will  make our health care system fairer and more affordable  But the rules also suggest that for-profit health insurance may not be a viable business unless insurers learn far more about what is best for patients.Continue reading…

Are We Adequately Securing Personal Health Information?

In a discussion about electronic health records (EHRs) a couple weeks ago, one of the Human Resource team members at a prospective client said, “I don’t believe it’s possible to secure electronic health data. It’s always an accident waiting to happen.”

There is some truth to that. More and more, our Personal Health Information (PHI) is in electronic formats that allow it to be exchanged with professionals and organizations throughout the health care continuum. It is highly unlikely that each contact point has the protections to wrap that data up tightly, away from those who would exploit it.

Of course, PHI is among the richest examples of personal data, often with all the key ingredients prized by identify thieves: social security number, birthday, phone numbers, address, and even credit card information. This should give health care organizations considerable pause.

Then consider that, while paper charts contain the same information, electronic files often aggregate hundreds of thousands or even millions of records, information treasures troves for someone really focused on acquiring, mining and making use of the data.

Continue reading…

Andy Wiesenthal, Kaiser Permanente

Those of you with really long memories may remember that Kaiser had a little kerfuffle with a guy named Justen Deal. As part of that incident, I did a rather unorthodox interview with Andy Wiesenthal from The Permanente Group in 2006 which is still a hell of a read—mostly about the history of how KP got to the Epic decision and where it was in the middle of the installation process.

Fast forward the better part of 5 years. HealthConnect is done. And the pain and not inconsiderable expense is somewhat forgotten. But now it is done, what happens next? A long and somewhat philosophical interview. But a very interesting discussion.

RememberItNow! and Prezi

RememberItNow! is a feisty little start-up that’s aiming at the medication reminder/management space. I like the feature set and the approach, and I hope the Pam Swigley the engaging CEO gets some traction. It’s launching officially on Friday

But what I really like is their use of this cool presentation software called Prezi to give their demo. So to kill 2 birdies with one stone, here it is — click the arrow and enjoy.

Health 2.0: Beneath the Hype, There’s Cause for Real Hope

Health 2.0 is a trend accompanied by both buzz and buzzwords. That worries some advocates for the poor, under-served and just plain old and sick. Will those groups be left behind in the latest information revolution?

The potential positives of the Web-as-health-care platform for interactive health care services could be seen in two full days of presentations and discussions at a recent meeting in San Francisco, called the Health 2.0 Conference. Still, a certain Silicon Valley sensibility remained: widgets for weight control were much more likely to target the calorie count of cappuccinos than corn dogs.

Yet the real question is not whether Health 2.0 arrives clothed in hype; of course it does. The capitalistic ritual of “new and improved” is similar for software and soapsuds. The important issue is whether the substance of Health 2.0 can help deliver health care services significantly more efficiently and effectively while reducing disparities. Look beneath the hype and you can see it’s already starting to do so.Continue reading…

Rating or Narrating, that is the question.

This April 6–7, the Health 2.0 Europe conference will feature the many ways in which Web 2.0 tools are providing innovative solutions to, amongst others, our fundamental need for self-expression, known more recently as “user-generated content”.

Several panels will refer to these issues, but we will focus in this post on the Hospital and Payers’ panel. Payers want to ensure that their patients are being oriented to good care. Hospitals want to know that they are being considered “justly”. The Health 2.0 panel will include demonstrations by Guide Santé (France) and Patient Opinion (UK), both web 2.0 sites created by physicians concerned by patient satisfaction with hospitals and clinics. Payers like the UK NHS and Big-Direkt from Germany will participate in the conversation and Big-Direkt will also demo their new online tools.

Rating sites in health are high profile in France, especially amongst those who are rated and some early entrants have bit the dust for methodological reasons. Rating sites, however are not all identical and they are certainly not alone in capturing the patient experience. They live alongside online story telling or narrative tools, deployed in a variety of ways on sites that will be featured in Paris from a dozen countries.

How did all of this come about?

A quick review of the world of hospital ratings will remind us that consumers and professionals have long been seeking comparative guides to the quality of hospitals. Twenty years ago, US News and World Report launched its  “best hospitals” special issue, and so the concept of comparative hospital ratings for consumers was born. Such “best of” lists quickly became popular, despite the lack of consensus on the choice of quality indicators. In France, so many of the major national dailies and weeklies provide “best of” lists that new ones come out throughout the year and create a certain level of confusion since the institutions listed are never quite the same.

In the US, the HealthGrades Annual Hospital Quality and Clinical Excellence study examines patient outcomes at all 5,000 nonfederal hospitals in the United States, based on 40 million hospitalization records obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In the most recent HealthGrades study released on Jan 26 2010, “hospitals rated in the top 5% in the nation by HealthGrades have a 29% lower risk-adjusted mortality rate and are improving their clinical quality at a faster pace than other hospitals.”

With the arrival of Web 2.0 technologies, the first generation of hospital comparison tools took the form of rating sites; consumers would express their opinions essentially through response to multiple choice questions regarding their degree of satisfaction. At the same time other  tools made it possible to pursue the narrative approach via the posting of the “patient story.”

According to Wikipedia, Narrative Medicine is actually “a practice of medicine, with narrative competence and marked with an understanding of the highly complex narrative situations among doctors, patients, colleagues, and the public.” Narrative Medicine aims not only the validate the experience of the patient, but also to encourage creativity and self-reflection in the physician. Patient narrative of course, does not necessarily imply the contribution of anyone other than the patient!

Dr Paul Hodgkin, the founder of Patient Opinion is an NHS physician who still practices part-time. He wanted to give patients a place to express their personal stories and to enable the story to reach the managers of the establishment concerned by the story. According to Dr Hodgkin,

“We now understand that the experience of being a patient, far from being peripheral to health care, is actually central to understanding the effectiveness and efficiency of services, and how they can be improved. Because the author is unconstrained by pre-set questions, they may tell their story in ways that suit them, and address whatever they see as important. Sometimes a single story will motivate staff and managers to take immediate action to put something right. And it is often the case that the patient themselves, through their experience, sees clearly how a problem could be avoided or put right. We can now make a contribution – small or large – towards co-creating, with professionals and other patients, better care, better services, and perhaps even better professionals and better policy. And as we do this, we will see the health care system itself slowly shift to becoming more transparent, more responsive.”

As the narrative approach develops in popularity, does this mean that the end is in sight for rating sites? Not really. There are several well-known rating sites in the US and many sites including a rating feature. In France, while firmly in the “rating category” although still including commentary, Guide Santé is the only such site to have experienced significant development to date. Drs Del Bano and Bach of Marseilles, the founders, are former directors of a clinic and public health specialists. Their past experience has helped them from falling into the many pitfalls of rating methodology and policy.

Drs Del Bano and Bach’s goal was to launch a successful hospital comparison web site, based on a mix of user-generated content and government data. They cite three problems that explain the attraction of le Guide Santé.

“The French national health system evaluation data on hospitals is not accessible to consumers.  It does not allow the comparison of establishments on a same criterion. Up until the launch of Le Guide Santé, there was no French survey site where patients could anonymously report on hospital quality. We offer both the right to rate the establishment and to comment on it.”

Le Guide Santé is launching its V2 in the near future and has become the exclusive supplier of benchmarking information for one of France’s key digital and paper properties, “Le Figaro”.

Oh yes, and when asked the question, both sites Patient Opinion and Guide Santé report having published nearly all stories and comments that have been submitted.

We hope you’ll join us for the conversation at Health 2.0 Europe.

Denise Silber of, Basil Strategies is Health 2.0’s European partner. Basil Strategies is based in Paris, where the Health 2.0 Europe Conference will be held on April 6–7.

Registration

Forgotten Password?