ClickCare Café

The Unstoppable Trend in Medicine That’s Here to Stay

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, May 09, 2019 @ 06:00 AM

jeremy-bishop-335002-unsplashSome things in medicine come and go.

Many trends — demands on our time or our practice  start off as the trend du jour but eventually get abandoned for new trends on the horizon.

But there is one trend in medicine that appears to be here to stay— and it’s coming to your state and town, whether you are ready or not.

That trend that’s here to stay?  Value-based payment in medicine.

As Fierce Healthcare summarizes, in just 5 years, 700% more states have adopted value-based payment (VBP) systems. Currently, only 4 states have yet to launch a value-based model.

What does that mean for most healthcare providers?  It means that it's not enough to simply put our heads down and provide good care for the patient in front of us. In a value-based model, it becomes very much "our problem" whether care coordination happens, whether we need to do medical collaboration, and what "non-medical" things are affecting our patients.

For instance, in a value-based model, there are concrete consequences to referring a patient to a doctor 3 hours away and hoping the patient gets an appointment and that they actually go. The patient may not make it to the appointment, end up with a bad outcome, and ultimately  in addition to the subpar care  it becomes a financial hit for the doctor and her organization.  Far better?  Use a system like iClickCare to get a 2-minute consult from that provider, while the patient is in front of you. 

For a long time, healthcare providers felt that medical collaboration and care coordination were altruistic things they would do "when they had time."  In a VBP world, collaboration and coordination are the most practical, incentivized activities in healthcare. Coordinating a medical team means that followup care happens and readmissions drop. Medical collaboration means that you can efficiently pull in providers across the continuum of care to determine the best possible course of treatment  decreasing length of stay.

It's not always the case that the right thing to do and the selfish thing to do are the same. But in a VBP world, the right thing and the selfish thing are the same  use medical collaboration, telemedicine, and care coordination to care for our patients. 

 

You can try iClickCare for free. Get started in 5 minutes or less here: 

Get Started 

 

 

Tags: care coordination, value based care, medical collaboration tool

Healthcare Travel and Wait Times Are Bad - But is That Our Problem?

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Wed, Mar 06, 2019 @ 06:00 AM

andrik-langfield-266832-unsplashMy daughter recently signed her new baby up as a patient at a pediatric practice and had to choose one of the doctors in the group. “Dr. Salno,” they said, “is great. But you have to wait at least an hour to see him, every time.” She ended up choosing another doctor in the practice.

Her experience isn’t uncommon — so many of the very best healthcare providers we know have long wait times in their offices or are frequently running behind. Is that a problem for healthcare, or is it simply part of the reality?

 

In our experiences as medical providers, there is sometimes a sense that long wait times, doctors who are hours behind, and extensive travel to get medical care are all just facts of life in medicine. And that makes sense — there is a shortage of providers, especially physicians, and every healthcare provider I know has far more work to do each day than time to do it in. For some of us, long wait times and long travel times are practically badges of honor, showing just how in demand our practice is. 

In fact, those travel and wait times are long, and aren't decreasing. A recent study by Altarum shows that “Despite significant investments in the United States [from 2006 to 2017] in improving access to health care through better insurance, the use of innovative delivery systems, and advances in digitizing health care records and automating administrative processes, travel and wait times show no discernable improvements.”  These dynamics haven't been improving in decades.

The place that I see travel times really come into play are for patients with complex, chronic, or even acute but serious conditions. According to the Altarum study, patients who reported their health as “poor”, spent an average 26.4 hours per month on healthcare. That time may be transiting from provider to provider, from appointment to appointment, in addition to actually accessing care. 

But is this time that patients spend a bad thing? Is it something that should be decreased? And further, are travel and wait times something that healthcare providers should concern themselves with, or is it someone else’s problem?

Long travel times may not seem like the healthcare provider's problem until we consider the health cost of that time. Of course, there is the element of lost productivity and wages. But even just focusing on health itself, I believe that spending so much time accessing healthcare, as well as transit and waiting, has a severe and negative impact on our patients' health. Time spent at home with loved ones, hours invested in hobbies, focus at work, and rest in our own beds are all crucial elements of healing from disease. Every hour that a patient spends in a waiting room or driving to yet another appointment detracts from this healing time. 

So what can healthcare providers do? Most importantly, we can try to understand our patients' lives, travel times, wait times, and recovery and see it as "our problem." We can use medical collaboration tools to loop in other providers' input without the patient needing to trek across the state to gain that input when a picture and a discussion is actually all that is required (and this is reimbursable). When tools like iClickCare exist, that use telemedicine to dramatically decrease transit and wait times, there is the opportunity for health to truly improve, because the patients are able to spend more time healing and less time transporting or waiting 

 

ClickCare Quick Guide to Hybrid Store-and-Forward

 

Tags: hybrid store and forward medical collaboration, healthcare collaboration, medical collaboration tool

Why Robots May Not Steal Your Job as a Medical Provider

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Tue, Feb 26, 2019 @ 06:00 AM

franck-v-740555-unsplashIn a conversation with a young doctor recently, she sighed as she considered her future as a physician.

“I just don’t think my job is going to really exist in a decade or two,” she said. “It’s all going to be computers and nurse physician assistants.”

It’s a scary thought — that doctors as we know them  won’t have a role in providing medical care in the future. But is it true?

 

The applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are always illuminating as to what is on the horizon in the world of science and technology. Patents reflect those innovations that may or may not have a business plan or a market, but often reflect the direction that technology is headed more generally.

So I was interested to note that Google is developing an electronic health record (EHR) that uses machine learning to predict clinical outcomes.

As Fierce Healthcare reports, “Google appears to have plans to develop its own electronic health record (EHR) for clinicians that gathers patients’ medical records and then leverages machine learning to predict clinical outcomes, according to a patent application."

So is this patent application, backed by tech's behemoth, a harbinger of the inevitable phase-out of doctors?

I don't think so. True enough: it’s almost certain that the role of computers in our practice of medicine will continue to increase. But the truth is that doctors' core role is so much more essential and irreplaceable than any diagnosis, computer-assisted or otherwise. Ultimately, physicians are healers. And a computer can diagnose. A computer can perhaps even treat. But it takes a human being to truly heal another. 

That said, I believe that for medicine to be truly resilient -- for healthcare providers to continue to be relevant into the future, we need to lean into the art and humanity of medicine. The trend over the last couple of decades has been to reward providers who treat medicine like a complex factory -- the more efficiently and flawlessly you can move through the heap of patients, the more you are rewarded. But I believe that we are beginning to experience a shift. And into the future, simply being efficient and precise is not going to be our path forward. 

I believe that medical collaboration with our very human colleagues is a crucial part of leaning into that art and humanity. It's a tool that we can use to treat the whole patient, and do so with true thought. Our practice will likely be assisted by machine learning and artificial intelligence in the future. But if we're doing our jobs right, that assistance simply can't replace us. 

Get Started

Tags: telehealth, medical collaboration tool

The 3 EMR Interoperability Blindspots Your Hospital Has

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, Feb 14, 2019 @ 06:00 AM

rawpixel-782046-unsplashRecently, seven major hospital systems put out a bold call.

It is crucial, they contend, to improve data sharing and interoperability among EMRs and EHRs. As Fierce Healthcare reports, "In a 2017 AHA survey, 57% of respondents had experienced challenges sending the proper information to a different vendor platform. And 37% ran into challenges just matching patient identities between systems."

Any healthcare provider who works with Electronic Medical Records won't dispute that data sharing is lacking with these tools. But despite the importance of this report, I see 3 crucial blindspots that it has -- and that your hospital may have, too.

I agree that interoperability among EMRs and EHRs is something that we should all demand. The simple access to data about your patient is as fundamental as having a clean and private exam room to see that patient in... or as having the ability to record your own notes about that patient. 

So I was glad to see this hospital report come out. That said, I believe there are three crucial shortcomings to this report. And identifying them isn't so much to undermine the findings or importance of the report itself -- but to identify blindspots that your hospital may have as it begins to pursue interoperability of EMRs and EHRs.

 

3 crucial shortcomings to focusing on EMR interoperability:

  • EMRs / EHRs will never be true healthcare collaboration tools.
    No matter how sophisticated interoperability among medical records becomes, the truth is that these systems will never be true healthcare collaboration tools. The records simply aren't made to easily facilitate multidirectional care coordination and medical collaboration among all members of a care team. And so it's a mistake to believe that by solving interoperability, we might have improved care coordination or collaboration. 
  • Providers need better tools now. 
    The reality is that even if EMRs and EHRs become more interoperable, healthcare providers need better communication and collaboration in the meantime. The reality is that today, EMRs and EHRs consistently get in the way of sharing data and patient information. Until the day that EMRs/EHRs are interoperable, healthcare providers must take the burden on themselves of making sure that other members of the care team have HIPPA-secure access to patient information. 
  • We need collaboration among people, not computers. 
    The AHA report emphasized that "there is an urgent need to coalesce around improved standards that overcome the significant gaps making communication difficult between systems." In other words: we need our computers to communicate better. But the harder truth is that allowing computer systems to share data is just Step One. What is really needed in medicine is the ability of providers to collaborate and coordinate care. The data-sharing is just the foundation -- it doesn't necessarily facilitate the profound collaboration that needs to occur for good care to happen. 

As always, these organization-level initiatives -- like those to improve interoperability -- are crucial. They are long-term projects that affect key foundational aspects of what we do as providers. But these projects are often uni-dimensional and may not affect our work in the holistic ways we need them to. So even as hospital-level and nation-level work occurs, we as providers must create and demand tools that are immediate and holistic enough to support excellent care for our patients. 

 

ClickCare Quick Guide to Medical Collaboration

 

 

Tags: care coordination, EHR, EMR, medical collaboration tool

Why Balls Get Dropped in Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facilities

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Wed, Feb 06, 2019 @ 06:00 AM

 

hush-naidoo-1170845-unsplashThe United Hospital Fund is a nonprofit that is embarking on an important initiative. Their Difficult Decisions series explores the challenges that hospital staff personnel face in planning discharge.

The third in the series looks at the transition to post-acute care, usually to a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). And the study itself brought to light important insights for all providers, in understanding discharge planning, as well as patient transitions, more generally.

The most salient point in the study is, as Fierce Healthcare summarizes, that discharge planning presents profound obstacles for the hospital staff personnel who carry it out. Both administrators and staff very much have a goal of continuity of care. But the tools and structures that staff personnel encounter make the outcome of discharge planning fall short, many times. 

For any of us who work in hospitals every day, none of this comes as a surprise. That said, there were several nuances in the study that were enlightening in exploring when balls get dropped in discharge planning -- and how we might improve that process. 

Why Balls Get Dropped in Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facilities: 

  1. Discharge plans are made without real input from the people carrying them out. 
    One thing that I loved about this study is that it was carried out by talking directly to the people who are actually doing the work, in order to understand the real challenges and opportunities they face. For that reason, I think the insights carry more weight than a study solely based on administrators, or findings from a think tank or conference. Similarly, discharge plans are sometimes coordinated "at the top" rather than allowing them to be shaped and reshaped by the medical team, across the continuum of care.
  2. Discharge plans are often static. 
    The status of a particular patient changes quickly and often without warning, which means that the discharge plan must change and evolve, too. A static plan won’t work. And one that’s created once and then executed by members of the care team, in their offices or even across institutions won’t work. That’s why a tool like iClickCare -- which uses telemedicine to support medical collaboration for care coordination -- is so crucial. As the patient's situation changes, the entire care team can continue to influence the discharge plan, communicate about status changes, and get multiple perspectives.
  3. There is little communication across institutions. 
    Although, in theory, a nurse at a Skilled Nursing Facility, or a doctor at a hospital can always "pick up the phone,"  the pace of medicine and the realities of scheduling makes telephone tag nearly impossible to do successfully. For that reason, there is often little communicate across institutions -- for instance, from a hospital to a Skilled Nursing Facility, or vice versa. That means that information is often fractured and things can get missed, not to mention that crucial nuances of patient care fall by the wayside altogether. 
  4. Patients are given information, not guidance. 
    In theory, patients are given the information they need (for instance, a list of skilled nursing facilities). But realistically, they’re not being given the guidance or support necessary to make high-quality decisions about "next steps" in their care. True guidance and support means their whole care team working with the patient collaboratively -- throughout the duration of their illness.

In exploring the findings of this study, it was so clear to me that "trying harder" is not the answer when it comes to healthcare providers doing care coordination and discharge planning effectively. Teams need excellent tools and strong processes to support them in actually creating the continuity of care they intend to. And telemedicine-based medical collaboration is one of those crucial tools. 

 

You can try iClickCare today to support your organization in doing care coordination as effectively as it intends:

 

Get Started

Tags: care coordination, medical collaboration tool, skilled nursing facility, telehealth in skilled nursing facilities

A Surprisingly Simple Way to Improve Birth Outcomes

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Tue, Jan 29, 2019 @ 06:00 AM

julie-johnson-692218-unsplashIn Sweden, 28% of women who give birth were born in another country.

These women may be Syrian refugees or arrivals from Africa, or France, or Spain. They speak countless languages and may not be familiar with the medical protocols and cultural norms of their new home. 

And this reality is not without its challenges. Sweden has good rates of maternal complications and mortality, but immigrants face outcomes six times worse than their native-born counterparts. 

That said, a simple new initiative has been changing that for immigrant women giving birth -- and the practice is rooted very much in medical collaboration and care coordination.

A recent article in the New York times explores Sweden's immigrant maternal health challenge -- in which foreign-born women face outcomes six times worse than Sweden-born women. Of course, these women may have significant linguistic and cultural barriers, keeping them from accessing the same standard of care.

Interestingly, the solution to this problem isn't intensive prenatal interventions or better technologies -- it's simply improving collaboration and communication.

This collaboration intervention comes in the form of "doula culture interpreters" -- trained women who assist a pregnant woman in her labor, supporting her in communicating with her midwife or doctor as well as helping her understand the norms and practices in the birthing process. These doulas translate from the immigrant’s home language and culture into their adopted language and culture. But they also translate the medical system, culture, and jargon. 

Sometimes the participation of the doula is as simple as literally translating from Swedish to, say, Arabic. Other times, the "translation" is from medical-speak to plain language. “Good communication is listed as one of the best ways to improve outcomes,” Dr. Esscher, a Swedish obstetrician, said in an interview. And, indeed, the doulas' support of good communication, has been having an effect on outcomes. 

I found this doula project inspiring in its simplicity. It's an intervention that doesn't involve displacing or dramatically changing any current practices or providers. It simply improves communication, collaboration, and coordination with the assistance of one of the doula interpreters. I also think that this kind of approach spotlights the importance of having collaboration tools that are flexible enough to involve multiple kinds of collaborators.

For instance, the old telemedicine paradigm of a one-to-one videoconference or text message thread between two doctors simply isn't enough to support this kind of approach. Rather, a truly team-based approach in which, perhaps, the doula interpreter, the obstetrician, and the midwife could all collaborate on postpartum or antenatal care, that is the approach that is truly necessary. Knowing this need generally, iClickCare has been structured to enable medical collaboration among multiple members of the care team, regardless of medical training, across the continuum of care. In an age when our care team includes a range of providers, offering a range of perspectives, this kind of tool is not only helpful, it's indispensable. 

To me, this program brings up questions that apply to all of us in medicine. First: We’re in a time where immigration and refugees are one of the challenges and opportunities that many countries face. How might we ensure that all people in our country experience the same quality of care and outcomes? And perhaps even more crucially: we're in a time when medical care is increasingly team-based, with a diversity of training levels and perspectives. How might we make sure that all members are engaged to provide the most coordinated, nuanced care possible?

 

Try iClickCare to support team-based telemedicine medical collaboration: 

Get Started

 

Tags: telemedicine solutions, care coordination, medical collaboration tool

Holistic Medical Approaches Can Have Measurable Outcomes

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, Jan 24, 2019 @ 10:54 AM

rawpixel-659503-unsplashMy mentors in surgery never allowed us to view surgery as solely the surgical event.

Truly knowing the patient, preparing the patient mentally and physically, and working with other providers to ensure excellent post-operative care were all inherent parts of the job — not “extras.”

The truth is that the structure of the medical system has made this approach increasingly difficult to carry out. Ironically, though, many of our most pressing health issues demand this kind of approach. So I was inspired recently to hear about a new program using just this kind of holistic approach -- achieving tremendous success, in a major hospital system. 

As we know, recovering from surgery can be slow and complex, even in the best of times. In the midst of an opioid epidemic, however, there are even more reasons that surgical recovery can touch off opioid addiction. On the face of it, it doesn't sound like a problem you could do much about -- but Geisinger Health System, a major Pennsylvania-based hospital system, decided they could do something about it. 

Rather than trying to address opioid problems directly and after-the-fact, Geisinger's program uses a holistic model to prevent issues before they start.

As Fierce Healthcare explains, “Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System is launching a program to "redesign" the surgical experience aimed at improving the healing process following surgery while ultimately tackling one of the major sources of opioid addiction: postsurgical care. Officials said their Proven Recovery program rethinks the surgical experience by pushing patients to be healthier before surgery, which leads to fewer complications.”

Since June 2017, when the program began, opioid usage across the system has dropped 18%. Perhaps even more astounding, hospital stays for neurosurgery and colon surgery went down by a full 50%.

The program focused on pre-surgery and post-surgery approaches, like making it easy for patients to achieve proper nutrition, a focus on non-opioid and targeted pain approaches, as well as focusing on mobility after surgery.

In many ways, this program isn’t cutting-edge medicine. It’s appropriate pre- and post-surgical care. “Appropriate” care is always holistic in these ways — and at other points in the history of healthcare, this kind of approach wouldn’t be out of the ordinary.

That said, the frustrating truth is that this kind of holistic program is so rare that the results Geisinger is getting are truly exceptional. The way the medical system is structured, a program like this — which is preventative, collaborative, and holistic — simply isn’t easy to create or get support for.

We hope that models like this pave the way for more programs that tackle challenging problems in smart, holistic, collaborative ways. And we will continue to make sure that courageous healthcare providers like these have the tools they need to overcome silos and work in medical collaboration, together. 

 

Get Started

Tags: good medicine, medical collaboration tool

Is Gun Violence a Public Health Issue Needing Medical Collaboration?

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Thu, Nov 29, 2018 @ 06:00 AM

david-leveque-544057-unsplash

After declining steadily through the early 2010s, gun violence has been rising in the US. Mass shootings, while a very small percentage of total gun deaths, have also risen significantly in the past few years — thus the reason that it feels like we hear about a new shooting every week. Of course, the overall numerical significance of gun deaths may not be as sizable as other causes of death -- but gun deaths remain a killer in our country.

For these reasons, gun violence is sometimes seen as a public health issue. Although not an “unpreventable biological disease,” it is a killer and a factor in the well-being of our citizens. Similar to the opioid epidemic, gun deaths have social, public health, political, and behavioral dimensions. So it makes sense that doctors may have perspectives and concerns about gun violence, especially trauma or ER doctors who are literally on the front lines of battling to save patients who have suffered from a gunshot wound. (That said, the overall deaths from gun violence each year are tiny compared to many other public health problems.)

But a recent kerfuffle highlighted how difficult this topic can be to broach.

As is highlighted in a recent New York Times article, Bronx doctor, Dr. Marianne Haughey was outraged when the National Rifle Associated tweeted: "Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane.”

She replied, "I have cared for victims of gun violence for the past 25 years. THAT must be MY lane." 

The politics and practicalities of gun control and mitigation of gun violence are beyond my sphere of expertise. And the analysis of the relative significance of gun deaths relative to other causes of death is a matter of real research to understand -- not something to address flippantly or scandalize.

But regardless of those more specific questions, for me, the conversation brought up an important question -- what does it mean for a doctor to "stay in their lane"?

What is our lane as doctors, generally, and as individual doctors?

Does our “lane”…

  • End after the last stitch is sewn, as surgeons, or does it extend to stopping by to check on the patient post-surgery?
  • End after we refer a patient to a specialist, or does it extend to following up on their care?
  • Include the societal, social, behavioral, and economic determinants of health?
  • Necessitate medical collaboration, or is seeing a patient during the visit the only job we have?
  • End at the end of our shift?

The answers to these questions have evolved for physicians and healthcare providers over time. And the truth is that there are no right answers. There do have to be boundaries to our sphere of influence as doctors -- both to remain within our expertise and to maintain sanity and efficiency. 

But I think that as a healthcare culture, we've drawn our "lane lines" too narrowly. I do believe that doctors have an important voice when it comes to questions of gun violence. I do believe that surgeons have a responsibility to care for patients long after the surgery is complete. And I believe that medical collaboration is a bare minimum requirement for adequate care. 

Get Started

Tags: good medicine, medical collaboration tool

Are Medical Mistakes Linked to a Lack of Medical Collaboration?

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Tue, Nov 27, 2018 @ 06:00 AM

roman-kraft-266787-unsplashIn a recent New York Times article, Dr. Peskin tells the story of one of her patients — Shirley.

The first time that Dr. Peskin saw Shirley, she had been taking shots on a daily basis to deal with her diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis.

5 months later, Dr. Peskin saw her again because she had now suffered anaphylaxis from the shots. In the process of treating the anaphylaxis, another doctor ended up reviewing Shirley’s history and concluded that she didn’t have MS at all — indicating that the decades-long course of daily shots were actually unnecessary.

In other words, Shirley’s first doctor made an incorrect diagnosis; that diagnosis was confirmed by a second doctor; and a it wasn’t until a third doctor was involved that the mistake was revealed.

This story certainly isn’t unique. In fact, mistakes are often revealed at the junction point between two doctors — whether it’s during a handoff or because care has been taken up with a new doctor for a different reason.

 

To me, there are three important findings that relate to this story:

  • Mistakes must be part of our medical experience.
    The entire structure of our medical system and practice treats mistakes as an unpardonable, inexcusable part of care. That means that, as Dr. Peskin explains, doctors are left to deal with the intellectual and emotional aftermath of making a mistake on their own. And, I think, learnings from mistakes are limited. Far better would be to incorporate a thoughtful exploration of our mistakes into our practice — in a way that doesn’t necessarily make anyone “wrong” for having made the mistake in the first place. This is one crucial reason that all ClickCare cases are automatically archived and searchable for teaching and reflection.
  • The more we collaborate, the better we do.
    If you collaborate, you don’t need to wait until a mistake is found “after the fact” — another set of eyes (or two or six) can help us make better decisions and diagnoses in the moment.
  • Handoffs are not collaboration.
    It’s important to note that Shirley would likely have received more thoughtful, appropriate care if her three doctors had been able to work together, sharing perspectives. This type of collaboration creates far better, more sophisticated care than simply bouncing the patient between providers. It’s possible that her original doctor had important insights about her that informed the diagnosis of MS — and rather than reversing the original diagnosis, perhaps the final doctor would effect the change by integration or interpolation, while engaging together about the care.

 

Shirley's case didn't end badly, and all of her doctors had been working hard to provide the best care possible. But we believe that a better way is possible, easy, and doable -- if doctors have the right tools and the right mental framework. Doctors don't have to "go it alone" and be infallible -- they can collaborate and they can learn from their mistakes. 

 

ClickCare Quick Guide to Hybrid Store-and-Forward

Tags: medical mistakes, medical collaboration tool

Health Care Power-Users Point to Collaboration as Key to Care

Posted by Lawrence Kerr on Tue, Nov 06, 2018 @ 06:00 AM

rawpixel-577480-unsplash (1)

Frequently, “power users” of healthcare are seen negatively.

Whether because they are seen as more “demanding” patients or because of their relatively larger “burden” on the healthcare system, there is often a bias against these patients.

But a recent study — a collaboration among the New York Times, The Commonwealth Fund, and the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health — looked in depth at these patients, both putting a spotlight on their behavior and experience, as well as sharing the wisdom they have about how to interact effectively with the healthcare system. Interestingly, much of what they shared advocated for a more collaborative, connective way of doing medicine.

In this study, “power users” of healthcare are defined as “people who have been hospitalized multiple times and are seeing multiple physicians, related to a serious illness, medical condition, injury, or disability.”

Of course, their perspective holds a lot of important insights for healthcare providers, for a few reasons. They: 

  • Have experienced more facets of the healthcare system. 
  • Necessarily developed skills and habits to deal with the shortcomings and strengths of the system. 
  • Are sicker and so may tax the system more, revealing faults that go less noticed otherwise. 

So this study of their experience, problems, and advice is enlightening. Among the findings: 

  • 30% say they were sent for duplicate tests by different healthcare providers.
  • 23% have had to wait too long for appointments, treatments, and tests.
  • Overall, they offer the following advice for navigating the medical system:
    • Show your doctor a list of medications you are taking (78%)
    • Bring a list of things to discuss with your doctor (70%)
    • Bring a family member, friend or someone else to all of your medical appointments to serve as a coordinator (55%)
    • Seek advice or help from a family member or friend who is a doctor, nurse or other health professional (34%)
    • Seek advice or help from a former patient who had a similar health condition (23%)

 

Our take on these results? People who use the medical system a lot experience the delays, confusion, and duplication caused by healthcare providers that aren't able to coordinate care or do healthcare collaboration. For that reason, the advice these patients offer tends to revolve around creating their own solutions to ensure care coordination on their behalf.  

Instead of patients trusting doctors and other providers to coordinate care, they do it themselves or involve friends or relatives to support them in doing it. This behavior certainly makes sense. And it's a wise way to approach a well-intentioned system that doesn't always work. But it does concern us, since patients have only a limited ability to truly coordinate care on their own behalf. For instance, a patient can bring a list of medications they are taking, but they can't bring a list of providers who should collaborate on a case. They can ask a friend to offer advice, but they can't necessarily facilitate meaningful conversations among all of the members of their care team. 

That's why we believe it's necessary for healthcare providers to have the tools they need to truly effect care coordination and healthcare collaboration. Sure, patients may fill in the gaps. But their ability to identify all of the possible gaps and truly fill them effectively is limited.

 

Try the iClickCare 14-day evaluation

Tags: care coordination, healthcare collaboration, medical collaboration tool

Subscribe By Email

Recent Posts

Posts by Topic

see all