ClickCare Café

Surprising Research on Whether Medical Collaboration is Natural -- or is Selfishness?

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Wed, Nov 15, 2017 @ 06:00 AM

rawpixel-com-378005.jpgWe started ClickCare as a “passion project.”

Cheryl, our cofounder and a pediatrician was the doctor responsible for several public elementary schools in the urban parts of Binghamton. She found that with a busy practice, she couldn’t possibly get to the schools for the School-Based Health program as she much as she wanted to.

So she started a simple telemedicine program to collaborate with the nurse practitioners in the schools. They found that by collaborating using words, photos, and videos, they were able to keep kids’ parents at work, kids in school, and nip health issues in the bud. It was the birth of ClickCare. And it was deeply satisfying to collaborate and make improvements for everyone involved.

So as ClickCare has grown and evolved, we’ve been shocked to find that some people say healthcare providers just don’t have the right temperament to collaborate.

“That’s nice,” some say, “But healthcare providers are lone wolves, and they won’t do medical collaboration unless they absolutely have to, unless there is a carrot or a stick.”

This perspective has never sat right with us, but we didn’t have concrete evidence for why this view was wrong. All we had were our wonderful colleagues and customers who use iClickCare to collaborate and provide better care, day after day.

Yesterday, though, I read something that provided that evidence. In the book, The Book of Joy by the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (with Douglas Abrams), cutting edge neuroscience is presented about human beings’ capacity for things like joy, compassion, and generosity.

John Bargh, a social psychologist at Yale University and one of the world’s foremost experts on the unconscious says that human beings have three primary innate, unconscious goals: to survive, to reproduce, and to cooperate.

I’ll emphasize that again: on par with our innate drive to survive and to reproduce is a drive to cooperate with other people, to collaborate.

In fact, Bargh says that in lab experiments “where eighteen-month-old children were shown dolls facing each other, they were more cooperative than those who were shown dolls who were facing away from each other.” Bargh clarifies that cooperation is a deep evolutionary drive but that it can be turned, on or turned off, based on our environment.

Which, to me, begs the question: now that we understand that we are innately cooperative and collaborative, how might we make our medical environments — in training and in work — support that evolutionary instinct to collaborate?

Can we provide simple tools, like iClickCare, so professionals don't have to "schedule in" medical collaboration?  Can we make collaboration a part of medical school?  Can we start to make the connections between outcomes and collaboration?


Make medical collaboration easy for your team. Try iClickCare for free:

Try the iClickCare 14-day evaluation


Tags: medical collaboration, healthcare collaboration

How to Avoid the Depression (and Medical Mistakes) Nurses Are Prone To

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, Nov 09, 2017 @ 06:00 AM

ben-white-194220.jpgIn medical training, for better or worse, we are trained to put our patients’ needs above our own. Whether you are tired, or your back hurts, you finish the surgery; you complete the rounds.

To some extent, the biggest value of our medical training isn’t the facts and methodologies. It’s that we’re taught to be true physicians (or true nurses, true therapists, or true aides). We’re taught to be scientists, artists, and caregivers in equal measure — we’re taught to be the ultimate professionals.

But this exquisite professionalism can go too far, especially when it is combined with the current climate of productivity obsession. The high principle of the medical training becomes combined with the drive to cut costs and produce more. And then the dominant narrative is that providers need to produce more, always do more... the more they subsume their own needs to the needs of their patient, the better.

But two new studies made me stop and question whether anyone is benefitting from this extreme. This study shows that nurses suffer depression at twice the rate of the general population. As Fierce Healthcare reports, “The attitude that "nurses don't crack" and a culture of constantly hiding one's emotions only ends up causing the problems of depression and anxiety to multiply and in the end can compromise patient safety and drive good nurses out of the profession.” That’s distressing in itself. But further studies show that nurses suffering from depression or burnout are more likely to make a medical error.

Our takeaway? There really isn’t a separation between who you are as a human being, and who you are as a healthcare provider. And that’s a good thing. Medicine is an art, a science, and a calling. And for us to be fully present for our patients, we need to be fully present with our whole selves. Which means we need to have our needs as people met.

Similarly, our patients are people with lives outside of their medical condition. And for us to fully minister to their needs, we need to understand the context within which they live... emotionally, societally, financially, physically, and spiritually.

It’s been shown that when we feel isolated — like when we don’t connect with our colleagues — we experience anxiety and depression. And studies are showing that when we don’t feel connected with out patients, our burnout increases. 

Sure, perhaps it would be better if we could return to a different era of medicine, one in which healthcare providers had the time and support to connect with each other and slow the pace of care.

But realistically, the pace of medicine may stay as relentless as it is. And so we must use tools that allow us to connect with each other within the constraints we have, like telemedicine-based healthcare collaboration, to support ourselves — and each other.

To feel more connected with your colleagues, try iClickCare for free, from the App Store:

Download iClickCare from the Apple App Store

Tags: medical collaboration, healthcare provider burnout

3 Things We Learned About Telemedicine from the Hippocratic Oath

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Tue, Nov 07, 2017 @ 06:00 AM

helloquence-51716-1.jpgThe pace at which medicine is changing makes your head spin.

When you consider that the first surgery under anesthesia was performed only 150 years ago, it’s shocking what competencies we have developed as a profession over that time.

But the truth is that the core nature of what we do has remained the same for thousands of years. The specifics, and technology, and lived reality has evolved dramatically, but the ethos, heart, soul, and discipline of the work is continuing.

I was especially struck by the reality of this “through line” of the continuity of medicine as I began to dig into the history of the Hippocratic Oath.

As you undoubtedly know, The Hippocratic Oath was written in the fourth or fifth century BC.  As Wikipedia says, “The Oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today. These include the principles of medical confidentiality and non-maleficence. Although the ancient text is only of historic and symbolic value, swearing a modified form of the Oath remains a rite of passage for medical graduates in many countries.”

I’m fascinated both by the lasting nature of the Oath as well as by how it has evolved. It’s amazing that such an old document and set of concepts has stood the test of time for so long. (Although perhaps it could be said that many of our most foundational principles and books have lasted as long or longer.) 

The oath has evolved, as well. The version that is in use at many medical schools today was a version rewritten by Dr. Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University. The wording is different, but the spirit and even the content is ultimately almost identical.

Dr. Lasagna’s oath highlighted for us three aspects of the vow that really underlie what we do at ClickCare, and, interestingly, are the core of what telemedicine and healthcare collaboration are all about:

  • Collaborating with our colleagues and admitting when there are limits to our knowledge.
    “I will not be ashamed to say 'I know not,' nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.” The foundation of everything we do at ClickCare comes from the understanding that none of us is as smart as all of us. 
  • Respecting privacy.
    “I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know." This value is why iClickCare far exceeds the demands and standards of HIPAA compliance, though they are onerous. And it's why we've created a HIPAA-safe way for medical providers to collaborate with each other, that's as easy as a text message, but safe for our patients.
  • Learn and teach.
    “I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.” All cases in iClickCare are archived for future teaching cases. In a way never supported by video teleconferencing, Hybrid Store-and-Forward® telemedicine lets you nurture the next generation.

We're proud to be part of the lineage of doctors from Hippocrates to today. And we honor the continuation of that legacy, with the insights and tools that our contemporaries, like Dr. Lasagna, are contributing. 


ClickCare Quick Guide to Hybrid Store-and-Forward

Tags: good medicine, healthcare collaboration

Why The Future of Telehealth Is Access for Everyone

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Wed, Nov 01, 2017 @ 08:19 AM

hal-gatewood-336679.jpgAccess to good healthcare has always been one of the three pillars of ClickCare. We're driven by access, collaboration, and education. Ultimately, we believe that these are the three pillars of good medicine as well. 

It's been fascinating, though, to watch how good medicine starts to converge with what makes sense financially -- especially in the current climate of healthcare.

The more that medicine becomes linked to value and performance, the more crucial questions of access become for the sustainability and viability of hospital systems. If patients aren't able to access the care they need (including followup care, etc.), outcomes will not be what they should, which means higher costs in the long run. So it's more important than ever that we have a strong and sophisticated understanding of the dynamics around access.

We've found, though, that the general understanding of access to healthcare is lacking nuance and lacking evidence. For instance, when people think about telemedicine and telehealth, these technologies and practices are often thought of as bringing "medicine from the city to distant rural areas", thus improving access. That's why the common direct-to-patient model (a patient on a video call with a provider in another state) is frequently imagined as the primary vehicle for care. 

However, we've found that the obstacle to treatment -- the obstacle to access -- often isn't just a single consult with a provider: it's effective, timely, coordinated care by a team of providers. So we were interested to see that researchers at Princeton and Thomas Jefferson University argue that access in urban areas can be just as bad as access in rural areas. Ultimately, the issue isn't proximity to doctors -- it's whether or not you can access medicine and surgery in an effective and timely fashion. 

Access to quality healthcare derives from factors like these:

  • The complexity of your disease.
    More complex situations multiply the providers who are trying to coordinate your care, and the longitudinal nature of the collaboration that has to take place.
  • The complexity of your life situation.
    If you are homeless and have 7 children and just moved from a different country, then your access to care will be different than if you are a single man, with a job and a house, who has lived in the same town his whole life. If you are an Olympic athlete with cancer, the demands and constraints on your care are more than if you are a part-time computer programmer.
  • Your economic and social status.
    Certainly, economic and social advantages tend to confer better medical care. Although an interesting note here is that it's not that the "the more money you have, the better your care." Sometimes economic and social status isn't as helpful as it might appear.
  • Social support.
    Patients with supportive families and advocates will have more access to better care than those who struggle to get the support they need.
  • Your geography. 
    As the article points out, there are "deserts" of care, both urban and rural. 

One of the reasons that we are so passionate about iClickCare is because we've seen patients get access to crucial medical care, in ways that would never have been possible otherwise.

We believe that the question of access is often a question of care coordination and medical collaboration. When providers are able to work together, with each other and with the patient, access to good care results. 

It's not an impossible goal -- and we all have the ability to impact it. We just have to use the tools we have.


Try iClickCare Today!

Tags: medical collaboration, hybrid store and forward medical collaboration, care coordination

Shocking ER Usage in Era of Value-Based Care and Telehealth

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Wed, Oct 25, 2017 @ 06:00 AM

daan-stevens-282446.jpgWe've written before about the Super Utilizer or Super User problem at our hospitals' Emergency Rooms. And we've written about how the most successful approaches to solving these issues are integrated and holistic.

But we were still shocked to see a statistic about Emergency Room usage across the hospitals in the country -- and this reality has serious implications for providers and hospital systems.

Fierce Healthcare reports that Researchers from the University of Maryland School of Medicine analyzed data from 1996 until 2010 and determined that 47.7% of the medical care delivered in the US is in the Emergency Room. 

Further, over that 14-year period, ER usage increased by 44%. It seems that because vulnerable populations use the ER more, the increase in usage can be attributed to those populations: African-Americans, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, etc.

It's an interesting data point because it's dramatic, yes, but also because the increase in ER usage during that 14-year period is the exact opposite of the intended trends in the medical field. As a healthcare system, we're working towards value-based care. We're working towards decreasing readmissions, length of stay, and costs, and improving outcomes. We're not trying to encourage expensive, ineffective, un-integrated approaches.

Usually, human beings act in deeply rational ways that we would understood if we really knew all of the facts about their situation. This extreme usage of the country's ERs has to be understood as an indication on needs on the part of their patients. (Whether for immediate care, 24-hour care, care that comes with fewer questions about insurance coverage, or something else.) That said, this kind of ER-based care isn't good for patients and isn't good for hospital systems. It's costly, allows patients with complex situations to fall between the cracks, and often doesn't identify the root cause of the visit.

Realistically, we're not going to reverse the tide of ER visits. But what we can do is work in thoughtful, collaborative ways as providers so that when someone does come into the ER, we're still providing integrated, team-based care. iClickCare is one tool to facilitate that, but, simple conversations with patients and colleagues is another tool.


Try iClickCare Today!

Tags: medical collaboration, hybrid store and forward medical collaboration

Joint Commission Permanently (for now) Cancels Telehealth Standards

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Mon, Oct 23, 2017 @ 06:01 AM

trent-erwin-338084.jpgLast week, Fierce Healthcare reported that the Joint Commission has decided to table the Telehealth standards that, in May, they had originally announced were in the works.

The primary focus of the standards was the portion of telehealth where care is provided direct from, and to, the patient. As The Center for Telehealth and e-Health Law reports, attorney Nathaniel Lacktman of Foley & Lardner said the standards would have "forced Joint Commission-accredited hospitals to obtain informed consent from patients prior to delivering care via telehealth. In addition, providers would have had to discuss with patients the 'type of modality that will be used' before providing care."As readers of this blog well know, iClickCare is all about using technology to help providers collaborate. This collaboration results in the best care for the patient, and the patient can be invited to join when desired and necessary. See our answer from our FAQs “Can I include my patient of family members in iClickCare?"

We're largely appreciative of the Joint Commission's dropping the standards. It's not that telehealth standards of any kind are out of the question. But the Joint Commission's proposed standards were troublesome because they were simultaneously narrow and too restrictive.

We believe that the portion of telehealth that is direct-to-patient is over emphasized in the telemedicine landscape. It's a tool with specific applications and potential because it doesn't allow a team of thoughtful providers to partner with a patient in asking the right questions about their own care. Instead, a "fix" is sought, and via technology, seemingly obtained.

As an architect friend of ours said recently, “Sometimes we come to a conclusion before we have defined the problem”.  We all know that the patients who often get the worst care are physicians and nurses.  Why?  Because they make the diagnosis, and seek the treatment from an ultra-specialist, before the big picture is analyzed. They seek the tree and miss the forest. Similarly, direct-to-patient telehealth can risk the same challenges. 

None of this has been addressed fully. Narrow standards applied to a isolated topic will do little to advance a broader view of technology and health and worse, stifle innovation and adoption.


Tell Me More About iClickCare


Tags: medical collaboration, telehealth, regulatory issues

JAMA: Sharing (and Medical Collaboration) is the Future of Medicine

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Tue, Oct 17, 2017 @ 06:01 AM

jelleke-vanooteghem-386022.jpgMedicine is certainly in transition these days. 

I'm reminded of the old saying that you need a canoe to get across the river. But once you're on land on other side, you shouldn't drag the canoe behind you; you need to put it down and find another way to move forward. 

Similarly, so many of the approaches in medicine that have brought us to where we are today aren't approaches that will bring us where we are trying to go.

In fact, medicine is changing so rapidly, and to such an extreme degree, that even medicine's hallowed institutions are beginning to advocate for change. 

JAMA is doing a series of articles called "Sharing Medicine". The framing of the series and the takeaways from the first components of it are stark in their unapologetic advocacy for new ways of doing things. "Sharing medicine" is what the series advocates for, and even in the definition of it, JAMA is showing a new way forward: "Sharing medicine describes a broader ecology of the sharing of knowledge, data, skills, and experiences within the medical profession, with patients, and with the public and society."

We're inspired and energized to read about these authors' research viewpoints. So we wanted to share a few of them with you. 

Initial takeaways from JAMA's series on Shared Medicine and medical collaboration:

  • Doctors' way of seeing themselves gets in the way of sharing. 
    This article says that physicians see themselves as repositories of knowledge and specialized skills. They are the ones that are supposed to know the answer and execute the treatment. That means that medical collaboration tends to butt up against that self-perception. The article says unequivocally that physicians need to find a new way to share and collaborate, or medicine will not reach its potential.

  • Medical collaboration is about true shared understanding -- not simply sending data.
    The reason that iClickCare exists is that medical collaboration needs rich information (text, back-and-forth discussion, context, archiving, photos, and video.) Similarly, one of the JAMA pieces says that medical providers need to "enter into dialogue with patients and try to align our understanding with theirs." In other words -- what's needed is not a transaction. It's not a text message. It's not a hurried note in an EMR. It's a process of aligning understanding that will truly change results in medicine.
  • The way we are sharing in medicine is not sustainable. 
    As the JAMA pieces say, "Compared with other sciences, the whole structure for knowledge generation and dissemination seems archaic, redundant, and inefficient." As medical providers, we demand the most cutting edge medicine and technology for our patients. It's no longer sustainable or acceptable to continue using archaic tools to collaborate.

  • Poor communication damages our patients.
    As JAMA reports, "Poor communication by health care professionals contributes to physical and psychological suffering in patients living with serious illness. Patients may not fully understand their illness, prognosis, and treatment options or may not receive medical care consistent with their goals. Despite considerable research exploring the role of communication in this setting, many questions remain, and a clear agenda for communication research is lacking."

We applaud JAMA for their thoughtful research and series. We agree wholeheartedly with their learning. And we look forward to creating the future of medicine with colleagues like these. 
ClickCare Quick Guide to Medical Collaboration



Tags: medical collaboration, hybrid store and forward medical collaboration

When Telehealth Monitoring Takes the Place of Medical Collaboration

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Wed, Oct 11, 2017 @ 06:01 AM

tim-bish-171738.jpgOne of ClickCare’s founders is a pediatrician.

And as a pediatrician, she’s no stranger to the obsession that new parents have over their babies.

Sometimes in her practice, it seemed that the more educated or well-off a parent, the more bizarre their parenting approach would be. Now called “helicopter parenting,” the excessive hovering and worrying that many parents show is nothing new.

A recent article showed that technology can certainly exacerbate a natural tendency, however. The New York Times looks at extreme baby monitoring gadgets. Whether it’s a sock that measures oxygen levels or a temperature indicator to tell you if your baby’s blanket has slipped, there are more gadgets than ever to allow parents to track babies continuously, night and day.

These devices are likely unnecessary and even potentially harmful in terms of the family dynamic. Dr. Michael Yaker of Westside Pediatrics in Manhattan and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai says, “In general, do the vital signs of healthy babies need to be monitored regularly? Absolutely not… If your baby needs to be on a monitor regularly tracking vital signs, your baby is likely not ready to be discharged from the hospital.”

The article asks the valuable question: can this information be applied in a meaningful way, or is it noise? Is the information gathered from these monitors a) accurate and b) actionable? 

Similarly, the telehealth monitoring boom has meant that the most publicized and well-funded projects in the telehealth space are those that gather a lot of information using hardware devices. The allure of 24/7 data gathering and always-accessible videoconferencing is seemingly hard to resist.

In either, the case of excessive focus on telehealth monitoring or the case of the extreme baby monitoring, I believe that there is a dynamic in which fear is being capitalized on to sell quick fixes. Rather than asking what is truly good for the baby and the family, the monitoring is providing a few moments of salve for panic and worry. Similarly, expensive telehealth monitoring programs sound impressive but may not ultimately improve outcomes significantly or take the whole patient into account. Telehealth monitoring in conjunction with videoconferencing isn't really taking the whole system into account, either. If they were, they would be thoughtful about allowing asynchronous consults. They would enable medical collaboration. They would facilitate real human medical providers talking with each other about patients. They would engage providers in considering the whole picture, rather than just a few data points.

Ultimately, we believe that medical collaboration, enabled by an inexpensive and asynchronous tool like Hybrid Store-and-Forward® telemedicine, is the best tool available to truly improve medicine. We believe it's good medicine to be skeptical about whether gathering more data is always best: is it accurate? is it actionable? is it meaningful?

Try iClickCare Today!



Tags: medical collaboration, telehealth

Telehealth Brings Providers Closer Together — So How Will You Use It?

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, Oct 05, 2017 @ 06:47 AM

nasa-53884.jpgLast week Elon Musk announced a new plan for getting people to Mars — and a clearer idea of how SpaceX would make money at it.

As the New York Times reports, “The key is a new rocket — smaller than the one he described at a conference in Mexico last year but still bigger than anything ever launched — and a new spaceship.”

But it was a specific aspect of his vision that reminded me of the potential, promise, and reality of telehealth…

Mr. Musk’s Mars vision is interesting and almost unbelievable. (And, indeed, may not be practical, but time will tell.) “For Mars colonists, the rocket would lift a spaceship with 40 cabins, and with two to three people per cabin, it would carry about 100 people per flight. After launching, the B.F.R. booster would return to the launching pad; the spaceship would continue to orbit, where it would refill its tanks of methane and oxygen propellant before embarking on the monthslong journey to Mars.”

What is even more fascinating to me, however, is Mr. Musk’s vision for using the reusable rocket here on earth.

Because the rockets are reusable and because they travel up to 18,000 miles per hour, the rockets could take off to the atmosphere, and then come down in, say, Shanghai. Any two points on earth would be less than an hour apart. And, in fact, he says that the cost of a ticket would be cheaper than an economy ticket on a plane today. (He didn’t mention the leg room, but I’ll assume it’s better!)

When you watch the BFR “Earth to Earth” video, imagining the idea that you could get to Shanghai in 39 minutes, or from New York to Paris in 30, you start to wonder how our world would change if we could connect to each other so easily, so quickly. You think about how our understanding and empathy of other cultures might grow. You think about how new ways of practicing business, medicine, and art might emerge. How we might work and live differently, better. And you wonder -- if I could go to any country in the world before lunchtime, what would I do with that ability to connect? If I had the power to connect across the world, how would I use it?

The truth, of course, is that you have that power now.

Mr. Musk’s vision is big, and it’s encouraging to know that entrepreneurs with big visions are working towards new futures. But the truth is that in the palm of our hands, we have tiny computers that let us collaborate with medical colleagues in any corner of the world, even in a HIPAA-safe way, for a cost that is tiny. The reality is that telehealth now allows us to connect with patients and people across the spectrum of care in ways we couldn’t, even 20 years ago.

What will you do with that power?


Try the iClickCare 14-day evaluation


Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Tags: telehealth, hybrid store and forward medical collaboration, Telemedicine and HIPAA, telehealth and hipaa

Can Healthcare Collaboration Help Puerto Rico’s Hurricane Maria Recovery?

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, Sep 28, 2017 @ 06:01 AM

rucksack-magazine-324009.jpgWith impending calamities threatening and real calamities besieging so many of our neighbors, it's easy to feel your attention pulled by your heartstrings.

I know my mind has frequently been pulled to our neighbors in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico's devastation in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria is especially heartbreaking for me and the rest of the ClickCare team. My daughter's business was honored to receive a fellowship on the island and I was lucky enough to spend a week there last year. Also, a few of our valued team members have lots of family on the island.

Of course, Puerto Rico is technically a part of the US, and Puerto Ricans are US citizens. However, the Puerto Rican government as well as the electrical plants there are bankrupt. Which means that Puerto Rico is certainly in our purview to worry about here in the US, and the problems they're facing are even worse than many similar situations on the mainland US. 

The medical situation in Puerto Rico is especially dire. There is limited fuel, which is supplying generators as well as healthcare providers' cars to get back and forth to the hospital. Food and other necessities are also in short supply. Cell service, email, and internet are all mostly down.  

For many, it's become necessary to fly to the US for care -- but it's very, very difficult to get a plane ticket off the island. Healthcare providers are scrambling, doing whatever they can to manage the emergency situation in which they find themselves. 

In an immediate way, very basic help is needed. Food, fuel, and resources. In that context, iClickCare certainly may not be a tool that will be useful in the next several days. 

But as recovery starts to coalesce, even just to the basics of cell service and fuel, telemedicine-based healthcare collaboration may well be a crucial tool (and we will do whatever we can to make it available to Puerto Rican providers). Consults with providers off the island may be helpful to providers on the island. And collaboration will certainly be necessary into the future.

But even we were surprised to hear just how important healthcare collaboration may end up being. New York University recently published reports looking at healthcare providers following Hurricane Sandy in 2012 -- and showing collaboration and communication ended up being key to long term recovery.

According to their reports, "Nurses proved extremely resourceful during the crisis, but also prone to burnout from the high level of stress involved in dealing with such a major public health event under such adverse circumstances." That is certainly to be expected. What is interesting, though, is that medical collaboration proved crucial to the long term recovery of both the system and the providers themselves after the storm. Christine T. Kovner, RN, Ph.D., a professor of geriatric nursing at NYU Meyers said, “Our research shows that maintaining good communication with peers and hospital leaders after the hurricane helped the nursing staff feel more connected and less stressed."

Our thoughts and prayers will be with Puerto Rico as they recover, and we intend to contribute in whatever ways we can. We'll be hoping for strong communication and thoughtful healthcare collaboration in the coming days as providers begin to look to the future, as well.


If you are able to contribute to the recovery effort, join us in donating here.


ClickCare Quick Guide to Medical Collaboration 

Photo by Rucksack Magazine on Unsplash

Tags: medical collaboration, healthcare collaboration

Subscribe By Email

Recent Posts

Posts by Topic

see all