Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

Fitting the Failure Glorified IT World Into the Failure Free Healthcare World

As most readers know, I’m a tech person by background (and literally @techguy on Twitter). It’s fair to say that I come from a tech perspective when it comes to dealing with most things in life. However, I think I’m a very reasonable tech person that understands the best solution to a problem and applies it appropriately. I’ve always loved people as much as I’ve loved tech.

I feel lucky that I’m usually able to bridge the divide between the two different worlds quite well. In fact, my favorite compliment I get is when people who’ve read my blog forever meet me in person and learn that I’m not a doctor. I’m definitely not a doctor, but I’ve always tried to write from a physician perspective. However, what is very clear to me is that the IT perspective on the world and the Healthcare perspective on the world are very different. In fact, it’s very much a clash of cultures.

The best example I’ve seen of this is in how each of these worlds (IT and Healthcare) approach failure. In the technology world, there is a culture that glorifies failure. The idea that you tried something and failed means that you’re that much closer to a solution. The tech world doesn’t see it as failure at all. The so called “failure” is just a way to rule out one of the available options. This is even true for tech startup companies. Having a failed tech startup company is almost a badge of honor that will help you get more funding for your next company.

On the other side of the world is the healthcare world which has a culture defined by their efforts to make sure that they never fail. While that’s not achievable, that’s their goal in everything they do. Look at the medical device industry regulation as a simple example of this. Look at how doctors take care of patients. As a patient, I want my doctor to try every way possible to make sure they don’t fail. The cost of failure in healthcare can mean someone loses their life. This is not something to take lightly and I’m glad that most in healthcare don’t take it lightly.

Thus we have this amazing clash of cultures. One that glorifies failure as part of the learning process and another that has deeply embedded that failure is unacceptable. You see this in every large healthcare organization. You see it even more when a young tech startup company tries to enter healthcare. It’s why so many of these young startup health companies fail to gain any traction in hospitals and healthcare.

What’s the solution? There is no easy solution. Changing culture is never a simple or quick process. However, both sides can learn from each other. The key is that we need to move away from an all or nothing approach to failure and move to a much more nuanced view of failure. Healthcare leaders need to realize that not all failure is bad, even in healthcare. Yes, there are some times when failure can never, ever be acceptable. However, there are plenty of other times where failure will not only not do any major damage, but will be an important step towards learning and growing. On the other side of the coin, tech people need to realize when something they’re doing in healthcare can not fail and realize there are plenty of situations where this is a requirement in healthcare.

Much like privacy, it’s not that avoiding failure isn’t important in healthcare. It’s extremely important, but we need to have a more nuanced and sophisticated view of when it’s important. This is not an easy balance, but not doing so will cause us to miss out on so many needed opportunities. The good part is that a great leader will have the tech people pulling for more failure and the medical people pulling for more reliability and security. We just need to bring the two together.

September 2, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Trying to Regulate Twitter

I recently saw a bunch of people tweeting about a conference in Milan which was supposedly trying to regulate the use of Twitter at the medical meeting. It turns out that the post about what you should tweet about at the meeting was mostly a joke and the comments that were highlighted were largely taken out of context. Plus, it wasn’t the organizer of the event that did the post, but just a participant in the conference. Because of the stir up, the post was taken down, but Dr. Bryan Vartabedian captured a piece of the post in his commentary:

The social side of any conference is important, and Twitter, being part of the social media, will naturally show that side. There is, however, a danger that the orchestra’s symphony will be drowned out by foot-shuffling, program brandishing, and a general clucking and chattering.

Ironically, this story ends up being a case of where Twitter can go wrong. It’s easy to misconstrue what people mean in a blog post or on Twitter. I have it happen all the time with the blog posts I write. I’m often amazed at people’s responses to my blog post since they either miss the point of my post or they think I’m making a point which is definitely not the case. Over time I think I’ve gotten better at this, but with thousands of readers over thousands of blog posts there’s bound to be a miscommunication. The great thing is that once I engage them, there’s usually clarity. But I digress…

Regardless of the particular situation at the medical meetings in Milan, the discussion of regulating Twitter (feel free to insert other social media as well) is a really good one. Although, it doesn’t just apply to meetings. I’ve seen many people try and regulate what’s done on all sorts of hashtags or other social media. I find the efforts people make to control other people on social media entertaining.

I’m sure this says a lot about me, but when someone tries to regulate what’s said or done on a hashtag on Twitter (meeting or otherwise), it just makes me want to do the opposite. While I have that innate need to not be controlled (some might call it rebellion), the reality is that I take a much more pragmatic approach to people’s suggestions about what should be said or done with a hashtag. I use a simple measure: “Will their suggestion make me a better part of the community?” (Yes, communities come together around hashtags) If I think that someone’s suggestion is a good one that will make me a better part of that community, then I usually listen. If I don’t think their suggestion matters or actually detracts from the community, then I ignore. Do I make mistakes? Absolutely, but this is my approach to it.

My personal approach aside, the reality is that even if you want to control what happens on Twitter and with certain hashtags, you can’t! If someone wants to be a bad actor in a hashtag community, then they’re going to do it. Bad community actors aren’t usually listening to the other people in the community anyway. So, trying to police it usually just leaves you dirtying the conversation stream even more.

Personally, I love the diversity and freedom that’s seen by participants in a Twitter stream. It tells me a lot about the person or company. Plus, I like the human elements of Twitter as well. I love to see that someone’s excited about a conference, their puppy, a great meal, a certain vendor, etc. Those that only talk about these things I can easily block if needed, but the reality is that a tweet is so easily consumed I can skip over any that don’t interest me.

I know many people hate when a Twitter stream is overwhelmed with vendor tweets at a conference as well. This doesn’t bother me much. It tells me a lot about the vendor as well. If they don’t care enough to be thoughtful in their tweeting, do they also not care enough about their product? Plus, if they’re spamming the stream with sales tweets, is that how I’ll be treated as a customer? This is good for me to know and so I don’t mind seeing their true form on Twitter.

With that said, I have found that the quality of a hashtag Twitter stream is directly proportional to the number of humans that are tweeting on that hashtag. Social media is about connecting people and so it makes sense that when more people (as opposed to no personality companies) are participating, then it’s a better experience.

I’m sure many will still try and influence what’s done on a Twitter stream. More power to them, but it’s a losing battle. Instead of trying to regulate Twitter, I think we’re better served encouraging and promoting those people and tweets that are adding value to the hashtag community. Plus, we can contribute value to the stream ourselves. There are bad actors in every community in the world. However, if enough good people are on board adding value, then the bad actors fade into the background.

August 26, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Health IT Gets Into the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

The ALS ice bucket challenge has finally made its way to heatlhcare IT companies. I’m sure at some point I’ll get tired of seeing these videos, but it hasn’t happened yet. There’s something really enjoyable about watching someone get a bucket of ice water dumped on them. Especially people you wouldn’t expect to do it.

Here are two of the latest Health IT people to take part in the challenge.

Neal Patterson, CEO of Cerner accepts the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

Neal challenges John Glaser, CEO of Siemens Health Services, and he accepted

John Glaser has nominated the whole Simens Health Services employees to take the challenge. So, there are more videos to come. What could bring a company together more than all dumping a bucket of ice on each other?

What an amazing effort for ALS too. The ALS site just noted that donations have reached $53 million. I want to see Judy Faulkner take part.

August 22, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Digital Health: How to Make Every Clinician the Smartest in the Room

The following is a guest blog post by Dr. Mike Zalis, practicing MGH Radiologist and co-founder of QPID Health.
Zalis Headshot
Remember the “World Wide Web” before search engines? Less than two decades ago, you had to know exactly what you were looking for and where it was located in order to access information. There was no Google—no search engine that would find the needle in the haystack for you. Curated directories of URLs were a start, but very quickly failed to keep up with the explosion in growth of the Web. Now our expectation is that we will be led down the path of discovery by simply entering what’s on our mind into a search box. Ill-formed, half-baked questions quickly crystalize into a line of intelligent inquiry. Technology assists us by bringing the experience of others right to our screens.

Like the Internet, EHRs are a much-needed Web of information whose time has come. For a long time, experts preached the need to migrate from a paper-based documentation systems – aka old school charts—to electronic records. Hats off to the innovators and the federal government who’ve made this migration a reality. We’ve officially arrived: the age of electronic records is here. A recent report in Health Affairs showed that 58.9% of hospital have now adopted either a basic or comprehensive EHR—this is a four-fold increase since 2010 and the number of adoptions is still growing. So, EHRs are here to stay. Now, we’re now left to answer the question of what’s next? How can we make this data usable in a timely, efficient way?

My career as a radiologist spanned a similar, prior infrastructure change and has provided perspective on what many practitioners need—what I need—to make the move to an all-electronic patient record most useful: the ability to quickly get my hands on the patient’s current status and relevant past history at the point-of-care and apply this intelligence to make the best decision possible. In addition to their transactional functions (e.g., order creation), EHRs are terrific repositories of information and they’ve created the means but not the end. But today’s EHRs are just that—repositories. They’re designed for storage, not discovery.

20 years ago, we radiologists went through a similar transition of infrastructure in the move to the PACS systems that now form the core of all modern medical imaging. Initially, these highly engineered systems attempted to replicate the storage, display, and annotation functions that radiologists had until then performed on film. Initially, they were clunky and in many ways, inefficient to use. And it wasn’t until several years after that initial digital transition that technological improvements yielded the value-adding capabilities that have since dramatically improved capability, efficiency, and value of imaging services.

Something similar is happening to clinicians practicing in the age of EHRs. Publications from NEJM through InformationWeek have covered the issues of lack of usability, and increased administrative burden. The next frontier in Digital Health is for systems to find and deliver what you didn’t even know you were looking for. Systems that allow doctors to merge clinical experience with the technology, which is tireless and leaves no stone unturned. Further, technology that lets the less-experienced clinician benefit from the know-how of the more experienced.

To me, Digital Health means making every clinician the smartest in the room. It’s filtering the right information—organized fluidly according to the clinical concepts and complex guidelines that organize best practice—to empower clinicians to best serve our patients. Further, when Digital Health matures, the technology won’t make us think less—it allows us to think more, by thinking alongside us. For the foreseeable future, human experience, intuition and judgment will remain pillars of excellent clinical practice. Digital tools that permit us to exercise those uniquely human capabilities more effectively and efficiently are key to delivering a financially sustainable, high quality care at scale.

At MGH, our team of clinical and software experts took it upon ourselves some 7 years ago to make our EHR more useful in the clinical trench. The first application we launched reduced utilization of radiology studies by making clinicians aware of prior exams. Saving time and money for the system and avoiding unnecessary exposure for patients. Our solution also permitted a novel, powerful search across the entirety of a patient’s electronic health record and this capability “went viral”—starting in MGH, the application moved across departments and divisions of the hospital. Basic EHR search is a commodity, and our system has evolved well beyond its early capabilities to become an intelligent concept service platform, empowering workflow improvements all across a health care enterprise.

Now, when my colleagues move to other hospitals, they speak to how impossible it is to practice medicine without EHR intelligence—like suddenly being forced to navigate the Internet without Google again. Today at QPID Health, we are pushing the envelope to make it easy to find the Little Data about the patient that is essential to good care. Helping clinicians work smarter, not harder.

The reason I chose to become a physician was to help solve problems and deliver quality care—it’s immensely gratifying to contribute to a solution that allows physicians to do just that.

Dr. Mike Zalis is Co-founder and Chief Medical Officer of QPID Health, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, and a board certified Radiologist serving part-time at Massachusetts General Hospital in Interventional Radiology. Mike’s deep knowledge of what clinicians need to practice most effectively and his ability to translate those needs into software solutions inform QPID’s development efforts. QPID software uses a scalable cloud-based architecture and leverages advanced concept-based natural language processing to extract patient insights from data stored in EHRs. QPID’s applciations support decision making at the point of care as well as population health and revenue cycle needs.

August 21, 2014 I Written By

An Image Worth 1000 Words Offers a Great Healthcare Perspective

I have no idea where this picture comes from, but it’s a pretty interesting look into some of the history of medicine. As @notasmedicina points out, it’s pretty disturbing to see them working on someone without gloves. Take a look below to see what I mean.

As I saw this, I thought about how far we’ve come with EHR software. I wonder if 20-30 years from now we’ll look at a picture of a paper chart and feel disturbed. I imagine my children will look at it and wonder how a doctor could practice medicine with a paper chart.

August 20, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Could Population Health Be Considered Discrimination?

Long time reader of my site, Lou Galterio with the SunCoast RHIO, sent me a really great email with a fascinating question:

Are only the big hospitals who can afford the very expensive analytics pop health programs going to be allowed to play because only they can afford to and what does that do to the small hospital and clinic market?

I think this is a really challenging question. Let’s assume for a moment that population health programs are indeed a great way to improve the healthcare we provide a patient and also are an effective way to lower the cost of healthcare. Unfortunately, Lou is right that many of these population health programs require a big investment in technology and processes to make them a reality. Does that mean that as these population health programs progress, that by their nature these programs discriminate against the smaller hospitals who don’t have the money to invest in such programs?

I think the simple answer is that it depends. We’re quickly moving to a reimbursement model (ACOs) which I consider to be a form of population health management. Depending on how those programs evolve it could make it almost impossible for the small hospital or small practice to survive. Although, the laws could take this into account and make room for the smaller hospitals. Plus, most smaller hospitals and healthcare organizations can see this coming and realize that they need to align themselves to survive.

The other side of the discrimination coin comes when you start talking about the patient populations that organizations want to include as one of their “covered lives.” When the government talks about population health, they mean the entire population. When you start paying organizations based on the health of their patient population, it changes the dynamic of who you want to include in your patient population. Another possible opportunity for discrimination.

Certainly there are ways to avoid this discrimination. However, if we’re not thoughtful in our approach to how we design these population health and ACO programs, we could run into these problems. The first step is to realize the potential issues. Now, hopefully we can think about them going forward.

August 19, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Could Clinicians Create Better HIE Tools?

The following is a guest blog post by Andy Oram.His post reminds me of when I asked “Is Full Healthcare Interoperability a Pipe Dream?

A tense and flustered discussion took place on Monday, August 11 during a routine meeting of the HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup, a subcommittee set up by the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), which takes responsibility for U.S. government efforts to support new IT initiatives in the health care field. The subject of their uncomfortable phone call was the interoperability of electronic health records (EHRs), the leading issue of health IT. A number of “user experience” reports from the field revealed that the situation is not good.

We have to look at the depth of the problem before hoping to shed light on a solution.

An interoperability showcase literally takes the center of the major health IT conference each year, HIMSS. When I have attended, they physically arranged their sessions around a large pavilion filled with booths and computer screens. But the material on display at the showcase is not the whiz-bang features and glossy displays found at most IT coventions (those appear on the exhibition floor at HIMSS), but just demonstrations of document exchange among EHR vendors.

The hoopla over interoperability at HIMSS suggests its importance to the health care industry. The ability to share coordination of care documents is the focus of current government incentives (Meaningful Use), anchoring Stage 2 and destined to be even more important (if Meaningful Use lasts) in Stage 3.

And for good reason: every time we see a specialist, or our parent moves from a hospital to a rehab facility, or our doctor even moves to another practice (an event that recently threw my wife’s medical records into exasperating limbo), we need record exchange. If we ever expect to track epidemics better or run analytics that can lower health case costs, interoperability will matter even more.

But take a look at extensive testing done by a team for the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, recently summarized in a posting by health IT expert Brian Ahier. When they dug into the documents being exchanged, researchers found that many vendors inserted the wrong codes for diagnoses or drugs, placed results in the wrong fields (leaving them inaccessible to recipients), and failed to include relevant data. You don’t have to be an XML programmer or standards expert to get the gist from a list of sample errors included with the study.

And that list covers only the problems found in the 19 organizations who showed enough politeness and concern for the public interest to submit samples–what about the many who ignored the researchers’ request?

A slightly different list of complaints came up at the HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup meeting, although along similar lines. The participants in the call were concerned with errors, but also pointed out the woeful inadequacy of the EHR implementations in representing the complexities and variety of patient care. Some called for changes I find of questionable ethics (such as the ability to exclude certain information from the data exchange while leaving it in the doctor’s records) and complained that the documents exchanged were not easy for patients to read, a goal that was not part of the original requirements.

However, it’s worth pointing out that documents exchange would fall far short of true coordinated care, even if everything worked as the standards called for. Continuity of care documents, the most common format in current health information exchange, have only a superficial sliver of diagnoses, treatments, and other immediate concerns, but do not have space for patient histories. Data that patients can now collect, either through fitness devices or self-reporting, has no place to be recorded. This is why many health reformers call for adopting an entire new standard, FHIR, a suggestion recognized by the ONC as valid but postponed indefinitely because it’s such a big change. The failure to adopt current formats seems to become the justification for keeping on the same path.

Let’s take a step back. After all those standards, all those certifications, all those interoperability showcases, why does document exchange still fail?

The JAMIA article indicated that failure can be widely spread around. There are rarely villains in health care, only people pursuing business as usual when that is insufficient. Thus:

  • The Consolidated CDA standard itself could have been more precisely defined, indicating what to do for instance when values are missing from the record.

  • Certification tests can look deeper into documents, testing for instance that codes are recorded correctly. Although I don’t know why the interoperability showcase results don’t translate into real-world success, I would find it quite believable that vendors might focus on superficial goals (such as using the Direct protocols to exchange data) without determining whether that data is actually usable.

  • Meaningful Use requirements (already hundreds of pages long) could specify more details. One caller in the HIT Standards Committee session mentioned medication reconciliation as one such area.

The HIT Standards Committee agonized over whether to pursue broad goals, necessarily at a slow pace, or to seek a few achievable improvements in the process right away. In either case, what we have to look forward to is more meetings of committees, longer and more mind-numbing documents, heavier and heavier tests–infrastructure galore.

Meanwhile, the structure facilitating all this bureaucracy is crumbling. Many criticisms of Meaningful Use Stage 2 have been publicly aired–some during the HIT Standards Committee call–and Stage 3 now looks like a faint hope. Some journalists predict a doctor’s revolt. Instead of continuing on a path hated by everybody, including the people laying it out, maybe we need a new approach.

Software developers over the past couple decades have adopted a range of ways to involve the users of software in its design. Sometimes called agile or lean methodologies, these strategies roll out prototypes and even production systems for realistic testing. The strategies call for a whole retooling of the software development process, a change that would not come easily to slow-moving proprietary companies such as those dominating the EHR industry. But how would agile programming look in health care?

Instead of bringing a doctor in from time to time to explain what a clinical workflow looks like or to approve the screens put up by a product, clinicians would be actively designing the screens and the transitions between them as they work. They would discover what needs to be in front of a resident’s eyes as she enters the intensive care ward and what needs to be conveyed to the nurses’ station when an alarm goes off sixty feet away.

Clinicians can ensure that the information transferred is complete and holds value. They would not tolerate, as the products tested by the JAMIA team do, a document that reports a medication without including its dose, timing, and route of administration.

Not being software experts (for the most part), doctors can’t be expected to anticipate all problems, such as changes of data versions. They still need to work closely with standards experts and programmers.

It also should be mentioned that agile methods include rigorous testing, sometimes to the extent that programmers write tests before writing the code they are testing. So the process is by no means lax about programming errors and patient safety.

Finally, modern software teams maintain databases–often open to the users and even the general public–of reported errors. The health care field needs this kind of transparency. Clinicians need to be warned of possible problems with a software module.

What we’re talking about here is a design that creates a product intimately congruent with each site’s needs and workflow. The software is not imported into a clinical environment–much less imposed on one–but grows organically from it, as early developers of the VistA software at the Veterans Administration claimed to have done. Problems with document exchange would be caught immediately during such a process, and the programmers would work out a common format cooperatively–because that’s what the clinicians want them to do.

August 13, 2014 I Written By

4 Health IT and EHR Blogs

As I’ve been putting together these blog posts about other Health IT and EHR bloggers, I’ve been astounded how many former bloggers have stopped blogging. I guess I was write to post one of my first blogger features as “EHR Blogger Attrition.” I imagine many previous bloggers are still sharing content, but have likely moved to other social media which is much easier to sustain. A tweet can be generated much more quickly than a blog post.

With that in mind, I feel grateful that I’m still able to blog and that enough people come and read my blog posts that I can provide for my family with my blogging. While some might define my blogging as micro blogging, I think there’s more value in a blog post than a tweet. You don’t have to dig into subjects in a tweet. People don’t go looking through your old tweets like they do blog posts.

Those musings aside, here are some other Health IT and EHR bloggers you might find interesting:
Health Blawg – David Harlow has a fascinating blog covering many of the various healthcare regulations that encumber our lives. Many lawyers are afraid to blog, but David has overcome that fear and created regular healthcare content that’s well worth following.

The Health Care Blog – While this blog isn’t exclusively health IT, a large portion o the topics are Health IT related. This blog never ceases to amaze me at the number of people they have contributing quality content to their site. It doesn’t have one voice, and that’s what makes the site so great. You might read a post about healthcare analytics and then one on value based contracts. Plus, it has one of the most active communities for comments. In fact, I often find myself more interested in the comments than the post itself.

Phil Baumann – While Phil is an RN by training, he’s more of a healthcare communicator and marketer than anything. Phil’s been doing this long enough that he doesn’t pull any punches. He just says it the way it is and isn’t afraid of saying things others aren’t comfortable saying. That makes for a good blog.

Galen Healthcare Solutions – I always like to feature at least one health IT company that’s creating great blog content. Galen Healthcare Solutions is definitely one of the best out there and they’ve been doing it consistently for a long time. Looks like their first blog post was in July 2008. I’m not sure who’s behind their consistency, but they deserve a lot of credit for the work they’ve done. It’s a great blog.

August 12, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Reputation Management – Doctors and Health IT Professionals

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the challenge of reputation management. In the work I do, reputation management is a really big thing for both doctors and healthcare IT professionals. As part of my Healthcare IT job board and career resources, I wrote about managing your personal brand and the benefits of blogging. Both of them do a good job digging into some of the reasons why and ways you can manage your brand as a healthcare IT professional.

The reality is that many people don’t think of themselves as a brand. Maybe we’re not brands in the purest form, but we all have a profile whether we like it or not. What’s really interesting about the digital age is that our profile, “brand” if you will, is becoming more and more public and much easier for people to find. Plus, the age of social media means that other people are defining your personal brand whether you’re participating in the conversation or not.

Turns out that all of these principles apply to a doctor as well. In fact, there are dozens of companies that are creating online profiles for every doctor out there. They’re gathering hordes of publicly available data about your schooling, your location, your online profiles, your Medicare data, and much much more. Plus, we’re just getting started.

Many of these websites are also asking your patients to rank, rate, and review you. I’ve previously written my thoughts on these ranking and ratings websites. Despite my own views on the lack of value these websites provide, many patients don’t know the difference and so they can be a major driver to or away from your practice.

With all these changes, it’s becoming more and more important that doctors don’t ignore their online reputation. This doesn’t mean that the doctor has to be the one managing their online reputation. Some doctors enjoy doing it and so that’s great. However, this could very well be your office manager or you could even work with an outside company that’s skilled in managing physician’s online reputation. Just be careful on the later that they’re actually doing something to manage your reputation and not just saying they’re doing something.

As in most things in life, this concept isn’t new. We’ve always had to be conscious of what other people saw, said, and thought about us. It’s just the communication tools that people use to spread that information that have changed.

What are you or your organization doing to manage your reputation?

August 5, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.

Social Determinants of Health (#SDOH)

In a recent chat that I think was hosted by HIMSS, they used the hashtag #SDOH. I’ll admit that the hashtag wasn’t familiar to me, so I was glad that they included a link to resources on the HIMSS Future Care website that defined #SDOH as Social Determinants of Health. Had you heard of this hashtag or term before?

I’d never heard of Social Determinants of Health before, but I’d certainly heard of some of the concepts. I think there is a lot to be said about how our social interactions can be used to determine our health. I think the real challenge with it is taking it from a conceptual idea and turn it into a science. Not to mention turning it into a science where technology could be applied.

What I just described is the perfect opportunity for an entrepreneur. Some of the best new companies take something really challenging and make it simple for the end user. I think that’s exactly what will happen with social determinants of health. With the plethora of social signals that are easily available and accessible now, a large mix of entrepreneurs will be able to work on this challenge. That’s really exciting for me.

The real question I have with social determinants of health is whether they’ll just be a consumer based application or whether the healthcare system will embrace these notions as well. My guess is that it will start as a consumer focused application and then as the science of SDOH matures, the rest of the healthcare system will start to accept and use it as well.

Have you seen applications of SDOH? Do you think social signals aren’t very valuable in determining someone’s health? Can they be leveraged reliably? Will we eventually see SDOH in EMR and EHR software?

July 28, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 14 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and Google Plus. Healthcare Scene can be found on Google+ as well.