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!

AMA Hopes To Drive Healthcare AI

Posted on July 6, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Last month, the AMA adopted a new policy setting standards for its approach to the use of AI. Now, the question is how much leverage it will actually have on the use in the practice of medicine.

In its policy statement, the trade group said it would work to set standards on how AI can improve patient outcomes and physicians’ professional satisfaction. It also hopes to see that physicians get a say-so in the development, design, validation implementation of healthcare AI tools.

More specifically, the AMA said it would promote the development of well-designed, clinically-validated standards for healthcare AI, including that they:

  • Are designed and evaluated using best-practices user-centered design
  • Address bias and avoid introducing or exacerbating healthcare disparities when testing or deploying new AI tools
  • Safeguard patients’ and other individuals’ privacy and preserve security and integrity of personal information

That being said, I find myself wondering whether the AMA will have the chance to play a significant role in the evolution of AI tools. It certainly has a fair amount of competition.

It’s certainly worth noting that the organization is knee-deep in the development of digital health solutions. Its ventures include the MATTER incubator, which brings physicians and entrepreneurs together to solve healthcare problems; biotech incubator Sling Health, which is run by medical students; Health2047, which brings helps healthcare organizations and entrepreneurs work together and Xcertia, an AMA-backed non-profit which has developed a mobile health app framework.

On the other hand, the group certainly has a lot of competition for doctors’ attention. Over the last year or two, the use of AI in healthcare has gone from a nifty idea to a practical one, and many health systems are deploying platforms that integrate AI features. These platforms include tools helping doctors collaborate with care teams, avoid errors and identify oncoming crises within the patient population.

If you’re wondering why I’m bringing all this up, here’s why. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t bother to discuss an AMA policy statement — some of them are less interesting than watching grass grow — but in this case, it’s worth thinking about for a bit.

When you look at the big picture, it matters who drive the train when it comes to healthcare AI. If physicians take the lead, as the AMA would obviously prefer, we may be able to avoid the deployment of user-hostile platforms like many of the first-generation EHRs.

If hospitals end up dictating how physicians use AI technology, it might mean that we see another round of kludgy interfaces, lousy decision-support options and time-consuming documentation extras which will give physicians an unwanted feeling of deja-vu. Not to mention doctors who refuse to use it and try to upend efforts to use AI in healthcare.

Of course, some hospitals will have learned from their mistakes, but I’m guessing that many may not, and things could go downhill from there. Regardless, let’s hope that AI tools don’t become the next albatross hung around doctors’ necks.

Competition Heating Up For AI-Based Disease Management Players

Posted on May 21, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Working in collaboration with a company offering personal electrocardiograms to consumers, researchers with the Mayo Clinic have developed a technology that detects a dangerous heart arrhythmia. In so doing, the two are joining the race to improve disease management using AI technology, a contest which should pay the winner off handsomely.

At the recent Heart Rhythm Scientific Sessions conference, Mayo and vendor AliveCor shared research showing that by augmenting AI with deep neural networks, they can successfully identify patients with congenital Long QT Syndrome even if their ECG is normal. The results were accomplished by applying AI from lead one of a 12-lead ECG.

While Mayo needs no introduction, AliveCor might. While it started out selling a heart rhythm product available to consumers, AliveCor describes itself as an AI company. Its products include KardiaMobile and KardiaBand, which are designed to detect atrial fibrillation and normal sinus rhythms on the spot.

In their statement, the partners noted that as many as 50% of patients with genetically-confirmed LQTS have a normal QT interval on standard ECG. It’s important to recognize underlying LQTS, as such patients are at increased risk of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. They also note that that the inherited form affects 160,000 people in the US and causes 3,000 to 4,000 sudden deaths in children and young adults every year. So obviously, if this technology works as promised, it could be a big deal.

Aside from its medical value, what’s interesting about this announcement is that Mayo and AliveCor’s efforts seem to be part of a growing trend. For example, the FDA recently approved a product known as IDx-DR, the first AI technology capable of independently detecting diabetic retinopathy. The software can make basic recommendations without any physician involvement, which sounds pretty neat.

Before approving the software, the FDA reviewed data from parent company IDx, which performed a clinical study of 900 patients with diabetes across 10 primary care sites. The software accurately identified the presence of diabetic retinopathy 87.4% of the time and correctly identified those without the disease 89.5% of the time. I imagine an experienced ophthalmologist could beat that performance, but even virtuosos can’t get much higher than 90%.

And I shouldn’t forget the 1,000-ton presence of Google, which according to analyst firm CBInsights is making big bets that the future of healthcare will be structured data and AI. Among other things, Google is focusing on disease detection, including projects targeting diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease, among other conditions. (The research firm notes that Google has actually started a limited commercial rollout of its diabetes management program.)

I don’t know about you, but I find this stuff fascinating. Still, the AI future is still fuzzy. Clearly, it may do some great things for healthcare, but even Google is still the experimental stage. Don’t worry, though. If you’re following AI developments in healthcare you’ll have something new to read every day.

Cloud-Based EHRs With Analytics Options Popular With Larger Physician Groups

Posted on April 20, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Ever wonder what large medical practices want from the EHRs these days? According to one study, the answer is “cloud-based systems with all the bells and whistles.”

Black Book Research just completed a six-month client satisfaction poll questioning members of large practices about their EHR preferences. The survey collected data from roughly 19,000 EHR users.

According to the survey, 30% of practices with more than 11 clinicians expect to replace their current EHR by 2021, primarily because they want a more customizable system. It’s not clear whether they are sure yet which vendors offer the best customization options, though it’s likely we’ll hear more about this soon enough.

Among groups planning an EHR replacement, what appealed to them most (with 93% ranking it as their preferred option) was cloud-based mobile solutions offering an array of analytical options. They’re looking for on-demand data and actionable insights into financial performance, compliance tracking and tools to manage contractual quality goals. Other popular features included telehealth/virtual support (87%) and speech recognition solutions for hands-free data entry (82%).

Among those practices that weren’t prepared for an EHR replacement, it seems that some are waiting to see how internal changes within Practice Fusion and eClinicalWorks play out. That’s not surprising given that both vendors boasted an over 93% customer loyalty level for Q1 2018.

The picture for practices with less than six or fewer physicians is considerably different, which shouldn’t surprise anybody given their lack of capital and staff time.  In many cases, these smaller practices haven’t optimized the EHRs they have in place, with many failing to use secure messaging, decision support and electronic data sharing or leverage tools that increase patient engagement.

Large practices and smaller ones do have a few things in common. Ninety-three percent of all sized medical and surgical practices using an installed, functional EHR system are using three basic EHR tools either frequently or always, specifically data repositories, order entry and results review.

On the other hand, few small to midsize groups use advanced features such as electronic messaging, clinical decision support, data sharing, patient engagement tools or interoperability support. Again, this is a world apart from the higher-end IT options the larger practices crave.

For the time being, the smaller practices may be able to hold their own. That being said, other surveys by Black Book suggest that the less-digitalized practices won’t be able to stay that way for long, at least if they want to keep the practice thriving.

A related 2018 Black Book survey of healthcare consumers concluded that 91% of patients under 50 prefer to work with digitally-based practices, especially practices that offer conductivity with other providers and modern portals giving them easy access to the health data via both phones and other devices.

Patients Expect Retail-Style Digital Health Experiences

Posted on March 30, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

The retail industry has been pretty successful in integrating digital tools into their business. All major retailers have customized apps of their own, many if not all retail sites offer chatbots to answer questions and virtually all have spent countless millions on their e-commerce websites.

Healthcare organizations, on the other hand, are far behind when judged by these standards. That’s particularly true in the case of medical practices, few of which offer much in the way of digital sophistication. In fact, in most cases the most patients can hope for is a basic portal offering data, scheduling and bill payment options. (Ok, at times, bigger offices may toss in a kiosk or two, but that’s not a huge service upgrade.)

According to one study, however, consumers are losing patience with this gap. New research by NTT DATA Services has concluded that 59% of US consumers expect their healthcare digital experience to be comparable to their retail digital experience. This is part of a larger trend in which patients are looking for seamless care bringing together diagnosis, treatment, rehab and health promotion, according to Alan Hughes of NTT in a prepared statement.

Some of consumers’ frustrations around mobile options include not being able to accomplish what they wanted to do (62%), feeling that the options offered are not relevant to them (42%) and that entering data into forms took too long to complete (40%). This is not exactly a good report card.

Meanwhile, patients have a long list of services they feel could be improved, including searching for a doctor or specialist (81%), accessing their family health records (80%), making or changing an appointment (79%), accessing test results (76%), paying their bills (75%) and filling a prescription (74%). In other words, consumers see most of the digital services provided by medical practices as subpar. Again, this is not encouraging news.

What’s more, within the general population of consumers, there is one subsection of patients who are particularly demanding, a group NTT has dubbed “explorers.” ITT research found that 78% of explorers say that the digital healthcare experience must improve. Perhaps even more importantly, 50% of these explorers would leave their current doctor if another offered a better digital experience.

If healthcare providers can barely meet the needs of the general population, they’re likely to lose these explorers pretty quickly if they don’t get their act together. Medical practices, in particular, need to step up their digital health game.

Are You Ready for IoT in Healthcare?

Posted on March 19, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Are you worried about how to leverage IoT in your healthcare organization? Do you know what IoT even is?

You may or may not know what it is, but no doubt IoT is part of your life. Here’s the wikipedia definition of IoT or Internet of Things:

The Internet of things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, home appliances and other items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and connectivity which enables these objects to connect and exchange data. Each thing is uniquely identifiable through its embedded computing system but is able to inter-operate within the existing Internet infrastructure.

It’s easy to see how much IoT is impacting our lives. Is there any reason to think that IoT won’t make its way into our healthcare lives as well?

David Chou recently shared an example IoT ecosystem that’s being built along with a number of the players in the space:

To me, this graphic illustrates two important truths about the future of IoT.

First, IoT is happening in a really big way with some really enormous companies driving it forward. Plus, the infrastructure to make it a reality is being built out and it’s going to impact all of our lives even more than it does today.

Second, IoT is a complex beast and so don’t be surprised if it takes healthcare a little while to fully embrace everything that’s possible with IoT. Healthcare is so risk averse that it will wade into the IoT waters very slowly. IoT won’t be disrupting healthcare tomorrow, but it will disrupt healthcare in new and interesting ways.

What do you think of the potential for IoT in healthcare? Do you see any companies bucking the above two observations? Where are you starting to see IoT get implemented today?

Patient Demand For Digital Health Tools May Exceed Providers’ Ability To Deliver

Posted on March 15, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

It’s taken a long time, but it looks like consumers are getting serious about using digital tools to improve their health. According to a new survey by Accenture, in some cases consumers are actually more interested in using such tools than their providers are, researchers found.

Patients are taking advantage of a wide range of digital health options, including mobile tech (46%), accessing electronic health records (38%), social media (35%), wearable technology (33%), smart scales (27%), remote consultations (16%) and remote monitoring (14%). All of these numbers are up from 2017, notably mobile and access to electronic health records, use of which grew 10% and 9% respectively.

The survey also notes that the number of consumers receiving virtual healthcare services has increased since last year, from 21% in 2017 to 25% this year. Seventy-four percent of those accessing virtual care were satisfied with the encounter. Meanwhile, about three-quarters of consumers said they would use virtual care for after-hours appointments, and about two-thirds would choose this option for follow-up appointments after seeing a doctor in person.

Key takeaways for clinicians, meanwhile, include that while patients agree that in-person visits provide quality care, engage patients in their health care decisions and diagnose problems faster, virtual visits offer some significant advantages too. Virtual care benefits they identified include reducing medical costs to patients, accommodating patient schedules and providing timely care, respondents said.

Clinicians should also note that AI-based virtual doctors may someday become the competition. When asked whether they would use an AI virtual doctor provided by their provider, some were doubtful, with 29% saying they prefer visiting the doctor, 26% that they didn’t understand enough about how AI works, and 23% that they did not want to share their data.

However, 47% said they would choose a virtual doctor because it would be available whenever they needed it. Also, 36% said they’d use a virtual doctor because it would save time by avoiding a trip to the doctor, and 24% said they’d like to access a virtual doctor because the AI would have access to large amounts of relevant information.

Right now, it’s far more likely that hospitals will have the capacity to deliver such services, which may demand a higher level of IT expertise and staff time that many medical practices have available. Nonetheless, it seems likely that at some point, medical practices will need to offer more digital services if they want to remain competitive.

Medical Groups Adopting Telehealth, But Cautiously

Posted on February 5, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Telehealth has gone from a neat idea to an accepted part of the spectrum of care. However, it’s largely been hospitals, not doctors, which have dived into telemedicine wholeheartedly

Recent data suggests that while doctors are gradually adopting telecare, they have many reservations about doing so. A study published last year by Reaction Data found that while 68% of physicians said they were in favor of telemedicine, most were using it only in special situations such as reaching patients in rural areas, visit follow-ups and managing specific patient populations.

A new survey by the Medical Group Management Association has reached a similar conclusion. In a poll conducted last month by the trade group, the MGMA found medical practices’ approaches to telemedicine have changed only marginally since January of last year.

In this year’s Stat poll, which had 1,292 respondents, 26% of respondents said their organization offered telehealth services, and another 15% said they planned to offer them in the future. That’s up only 3% from January 2017 research, which found that 23% of respondents provided such services and 18% planned to add them.

Meanwhile, two key statistics have stayed in place from last year. Thirty-nine percent of respondents to this year’s survey said they didn’t offer telehealth services and 20% weren’t sure if they would, the same percentages found in last year’s research.

When it announced the results, MGMA shared some specific suggestions for planning and implementing a telehealth program. They include:

  • Researching and understanding patient needs
  • Setting clear goals for telehealth and tying them to an existing strategic plan, which demands fewer organizational changes and speeds adoption
  • Understanding how telehealth supports value-based care
  • Researching telehealth vendors and platforms
  • Researching reimbursement and licensure requirements (if any) in the practice environment
  • Engaging and educating practice staff members on telehealth issues and strategies
  • Having doctors reach out to colleagues in their specialty to learn how their telehealth implementation experience has gone
  • Bearing in mind that telehealth implementations typically take an average of one year from plan to rollout

All that being said, it seems likely that some of the practices which are hanging back from telehealth have taken most or even all of the steps outlined above. The thing is, even if a practice has researched the telemedicine market, understands its patients’ needs and knows what issues it will face during a service rollout, these steps still can’t address some of the fundamental realities holding telehealth back today.

The truth is, from what I’ve seen medical practices still face two difficult issues when they consider telehealth seriously: how to make money at it and how to fit it into their workflow. These are major problems and won’t be resolved by advice alone (not that this is MGMA’s fault of course).

Despite medical groups’ concerns, there will doubtless be a tipping point where practices begin to see telehealth services as a routine part of what they provide. However, it seems clear that we’re far from getting there.

Big Gap Exists Between Wearables Hype And Physician Use

Posted on January 12, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Not long ago, I wrote an article describing some major advances in wearables and health tracking technologies. Standout technologies included Grail, a cancer detection startup, Beddit, which makes sleep tracking technology, and Senosis Health, which developed apps using smartphone sensors to monitor health signals.

In the article, I argued that we’re past the question of whether wearables are valuable and that it’s time to focus on what we want to do with next-generation of superpowered health tracking devices instead. I was driven by stats like the ones produced by the Consumer Technology Association, which asserted last year that by 2020, physician use of patient-generated data will reach critical mass. It noted that wearables are being used more often in clinical trials and that some health insurers offering free wearables to patients, trends which it predicts will cause the market to explode.

But at least to some extent, I think the CTA (and I) were both wrong. As impressive as the new patient trackers are, they won’t be that valuable if nobody on the frontlines of medicine uses them. And even if trackers are being used in clinical trials or given away by health insurers, that doesn’t mean physicians are on board. The issue is not just whether devices work well, but whether doctors can actually use them in their daily care routine.

Recent stats suggest that few physicians actually use patient-generated data in their practice. In fact, the Physicians Practice Technology Survey found that just 5% of respondents reported that they use such such devices as part of their care routine.

I’m not surprised by this research. My own informal discussions with physicians suggest that the number of practices that actively use patient-generated data may be even lower than 5%.

Why are so few medical practices leveraging patient-generated data? The reasons are fairly straightforward:

  • Few of devices offer measurements that are consistent, predictable and valid
  • Vanishingly few are FDA-approved, which does little to inspire clinicians’ confidence
  • In most cases, the data produced by wearables and related devices isn’t compatible with practice EMRs

For what it’s worth, I do believe that many physicians — especially those with an interest in health IT– know that patient-generated health data will eventually play a valuable role in their practice. After all, in principle, there must be ways that such data could inform patient care.

But right now, the simple devices patients own aren’t sophisticated enough to serve practice needs, and most of the advanced patient tracking devices are at the idea or testing phase. Until patient tracking devices become more practical, and offer reliable, valid, usable data, they’re likely to remain a dark horse.

Doctor on Demand Stats Offer Insight Into Telmedicine Trends

Posted on January 5, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Recently, direct-to-consumer telemedicine provider Doctor on Demand released some statistics on its performance in 2017. While some of the report was self-congratulatory, I still think the data points are worth looking at, especially for clinicians.

For starters, it’s worth noting that the company now considers itself a fully integrated medical practice. For example, it’s begun offering lab testing services through Quest Diagnostics and Lab Corp. as part of a program to control chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels.

Another factoid the stats offer is that its physicians are generally in their mid-career; apparently, Doctor on Demand’s average physician has 15 years of experience. The company doesn’t offer any perspective on why that might be, but it suggests to me that clinicians who participate are both confident that they can manage care remotely and comfortable with technology.

Why is that the case? My guess is that this work may not be attractive to younger doctors, who might feel uneasy managing patients online given their lack of experience. It also suggests older physicians, some of whom still consider telemedicine to be a poor substitute for face-to-face care, probably aren’t engaging with telemedicine either.

Other data provided by Doctor on Demand includes the top reasons for visits included treatment of cold and flu, prescription refills and infections, which isn’t surprising. It also notes that mental health visits climbed 240% over 2016, with anxiety, depression and stress being the most common symptoms treated. This is more interesting, as it suggests that among other problems, consumers feel they aren’t getting their mental health needs met in real life.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the company’s self-reported benefit statistics, I’m taking them with a large grain of salt, but I found them to be worth a look nonetheless. The company says it saved its patients nearly $1 billion in healthcare costs and saved over 1.6 million hours that would otherwise have been spent in doctor’s waiting rooms. These results were allegedly generated by a base of 1 million patients, according to the San Francisco Business Times.

I’m not writing this to suggest that Doctor on Demand is better or worse than other telemedicine companies and video services offered by privately-employed physicians or hospital telemedicine services. Still, I got a kick out of learning what trends a well-positioned telemedicine service was seeing in the marketplace. While Doctor on Demand’s results may not reflect the market as a whole, they certainly offer food for thought.

Wearables Makers Pitching Health Trackers For Babies

Posted on November 9, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

When my older son was born, we relied on a low-tech “sense of hearing” solution to track crying alerts from his crib at the other end of the hallway.

But were he born today, my son would never have settled for such pedestrian technology. Today’s discriminating newborn expects his parents to collect a wide array of data points and conduct advanced analytics on them to optimize his health.

You think this is ridiculous? Wipe that smile off of your face, you slackers. Ever sensitive to the expanding needs of today’s modern baby, wearables manufacturers have begun testing health trackers designed to monitor their tiny bodies, according to an article appearing on the CNN.com site.

In fact, there are already dozens of wearables for babies on the market, CNN found, including devices that monitor their heart rate, smart socks that track oxygen levels and a baby monitor button that snaps onto the child’s clothes. Any of these could cost a few hundred dollars. But there’s also smart thermometers and pacifiers, such as Vick’s or Blue Maestro’s Pacif-i, which start around $20 and go up from there, the site reports.

The CNN article also shares the tale of Crystal King, an Atlanta mom who’s monitoring her six-month son Avery using one of these emerging trackers.

The piece describes how using her cell phone, King can check her baby’s temperature on her cell phone and get app-driven alerts when it’s time for Avery’s next bottle feeding.

Meanwhile, if King picks up her tablet, she can also monitor her son’s breathing, body position, skin temperature and sleeping schedule. (Back in the Stone Age, I had to settle for keeping his body in position with pillow wedges and tracking his sleeping schedule using a little trick known as “staying awake.”)

As part of his work with CNN, Avery has been testing a number of different wearable devices. He seems to be a tough critic. On the one hand, he seemed pretty comfy wearing a biometric-tracking onesie while playing on his mat, but kept spitting out the smart pacifier, which was apparently a nonstarter.

Of course, we don’t actually know what Avery thinks about these devices, but his mom has developed some ideas. For example, King told CNN she thinks it would be good to help parents control the number of notifications they get from baby-monitoring apps and technologies.

If nothing else, equipping their baby with a health tracker may offer parents a little extra reassurance that their child is safe. He might still erupt in deafening screams at 3AM now and again, but if he’s wearing a health tracker, you might at least know why.