October 12th, 2011 by Christian Seebode

The following article caught my attention

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1108040

Creating appropriate products for low-resource settings requires not only a rethinking of what is considered a health technology, but also cross-disciplinary innovation and in-depth understanding of the particular needs of each country. Location-specific needs assessment will help ensure that more appropriate devices reach people in need and will support parallel efforts to deploy novel devices, processes, or information technologies to cost-effectively reduce disease incidence. It will also help to prevent the adoption of ineffective or inappropriately costly technologies that could divert resources from other critical health care areas.hospital

Exactly. Despite all good that is delivered by device centered health technology it is a big source of unequality because it means expensive development. Lot of money for some improvement that impresses on a tiny scale but fails in a global context. Considering information and the access to it as a health technology that scales up globally is the first step in rethinking health technolgy and its impact to societies. The power of information is that it is flexible. Access is not cheap however, but it inherently contains the notion of distribution. Cost effective health technology needs careful asessment in different contexts (see also: http://patient-centered-it.com/2010/04/10/the-economic-value-of-patient-centered-it/).

At the same time i subscribe to the idea of reverse innovation which is capable to tell the first world what is really a necessary health technology. Again information technology is able to provide the infrastructure to enable this process …

October 10th, 2011 by Christian Seebode

Another remarkable result is contributed by this post:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarikabansal/2011/10/07/mhealth-text-message-txt2stop/2/

To the delight of mobile health proponents around the world, the researchers found that nearly 11% of smokers in the intervention group quit smoking, as compared to 5% of those in the control group. They published their findings in the Lancet this summer.

This study is part of a growing trend towards using mobile phones as platforms to encourage healthy behaviors. With over five billion mobile phone connections worldwide, it is not surprising that the public health community is looking to use them to improve health outcomes. Proponents have even created a catchy term, “mHealth,” to encompass all medical practices supported by mobile devices.

This again show that there is indeed something about text messaging and healthy behaviour which is not fully understood.  Other examples are:Smart phone reminder to join gym

http://patient-centered-it.com/2010/09/30/text-messages-boost-patient-outcomes/

http://patient-centered-it.com/2010/07/30/e-mail-could-be-good-for-your-patients-health/

The question is: Why is text messaging so powerful and what are the constraints.? I’ll try to collect some more data on that. For now i have to admit in works in some situations. We know from other experiences  that reminders are good at keeping a patient on track because healthcare situations might  get complicated and inconvenient (http://dermatology.cdlib.org/149/letters/atopic/feldman.html). Maybe aherence is beyond borders of understanding the therapy such that a text message breaks a complicated therapy down in simple instructions. Or maybe it is just the right tool to enforce learning healthy behaviour as oposite of the learned unhealthy alternative. We need to understand contents and frequency of text messages among other things. Another dimension is interactivity

Another operational consideration is the look and feel of the texting systems. Researchers hypothesize that text message systems work better if they are interactive rather than one-way – meaning that users should be able to ask questions and receive more targeted health information if desired. To that end, Dr. Clauson’s team is currently conducting a study to monitor the differences in diabetes outcomes with uni-directional and bi-directional texting.

I bet the bidirectional variant is even more powerful since it implies some kind of creational act and self-reflection. This scenario maybe an important part of of a Patient Centered IT infrastructure

August 16th, 2011 by Christian Seebode

I would like to cite a post on http://e-patients.net which mentions the importance of patient communication in healthcare delivery which has been addressed in previous posts (Patients communicate , The economic value of Patient Centered IT, Online Communities vs. Treatments) on Patient Centered IT.dreamstime_xs_18404768

Communication for patients is an essential and non-disputable act in healthcare delivery. I totally subscribe to this statement:

There is no industry where communication is not an essential component to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. In healthcare, however, communication can save lives and that is beyond essential

It is absolutely necessary to improve communication skills of providers and patients in order to save lives. This is not a new claim and has always been an issue. The newer development with enhanced  possibilities of  information system together with the need for Patient Centered Applications just put an additional focus on this.

http://e-patients.net/archives/2011/08/nancy-finn-on-communication.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+E-patients+%28e-patients%29

July 26th, 2011 by Christian Seebode

Re people open or closed facing health communication. The answer is

we don’t know yet.  It appears to be a period of transition to something which is still not known. Patients discover a world of open communication about health related issues but are still tied to existential fears that they learned over a long time. The study mentioned in this post tries to find some relationship between behaviour and informationSource: Seeking Social Solace, Russell Herder categories.

People disclosed their conditions 23% more often on weekdays more than on weekends

It is this kind of analysis that is important for the development of transparency and security at the same time. Patients that do know about the value of information are able to perform mature communication and to protect themselves

http://healthpopuli.com/2011/07/22/why-patients-disclose-medical-diagnoses-online/

Source: Seeking Social Solace, Russell Herder
July 20th, 2011 by Christian Seebode

dreamstime_xs_19219970The following link depicts the demand for an open mhelth architecture

http://rds.epi-ucsf.org/ticr/syllabus/courses/2/2011/03/08/Lecture/readings/Sim_OpenmHealth_.pdf

This approach is one of the technical dimensions necessary to support patient centeredness in information infrastructure. A vertical architecture with open interfaces is very important to build a multitude of services on to of it. Mobile devices have the great virtue to be very close to the patient and his or her behavior. Access and availability is a key factor in a successful migration to patient centered services.

At the same time i have to say that a vertical architecture is not enough. Horizontal or service oriented patterns or best practices have to be designed too in order to support healthcare delivery and processes. A landscape of infrastructure services that are well known and established is important to the success and accceptabiliy of patient oriented services.

April 1st, 2011 by Christian Seebode

Overview of the aspects of patient centered information technology and summarizes the patient centered nature of applications on mobile devices for healthcare.

Details for this event can be found at:

http://www.mobile-monday.de/events/mobile-healthcaremm

March 6th, 2011 by Christian Seebode

November 11th, 2010 by Christian Seebode

Just a quick wrap-up of what I experienced at Mozilla drumbeat. First of all: this was a non healthcare event. It was about open education, sharing, improvement and freedom of the web. Personally I hooked on a thread about web development skills and how one could enforce various skills, badges(certificates) to have a better web for all. Mozillas way of doing this is to offer open courses via P2PU transferring the open source to education.

This is what I learned

  1. WOW. First emotion was kind of an eye opener to see the value of openness in education. In fact motivation to learn relates much more to a position of activity than passively consuming course materials.
  2. THE PATIENT. A Patient Centered IT Blog takes care of patient education. Open education align perfectly with a situation patients are usually in. Highly motivated and with an excellent prognosis for their outcome if participating actively. Collaboration among patients and physicians aligns perfectly with transparency and openness in healthcare delivery.
  3. BUT. Number 2. seems easy but it’s not. We are not dealing with openness in healthcare although we’d love to. The steps to design a self driven syllabus for patients have to be designed carefully and with participation of patients (virtually everybody :) ). This addresses a community which easily exceeds any reasonable number. This is intimidating but can be done with focus on particular problem domains like Epicondylitis humeri radialis.
  4. THE WEB. The event was about webcraft skills. It is not easy to design Patient Centered Websites without the usual clutter and noise of medicine. The main reason is that patient thoughts and physician daily practice are so different. Any feasible collaboration requires education for the improvement of health literacy. Starting with a simple thing like finding a date for a radiography of the chest could be the starting point of an individual learning experience. Empower patient by powering Patient Centered Websites.
  5. OER. Patients have knowledge. They deliberately provide it in many situations. Supporting collaboration in Patient Centered Environments makes patients OER’s which is just great :)
  6. BADGES and CERTIFICATES. A key factor in healthcare delivery is transparency in terms of processes and quality. Community hosted certificates are a great idea. Put patients in the position where you want to have web developers too. In fact sometimes patients are tougher…
  7. AWESOME was the most frequently used word @ drumbeat
  8. CHEERS to Pippa, Chris, Chris, Janet and everyone for sharing this experience!
September 30th, 2010 by Christian Seebode

This study is a remarkable result where skin patients get better outcomes just from receiving test messages that remind them to comply with their treatment.  It reminds of the fact that a prescribed treatment is not an executed treatment and that there is a level of patient participation which might sound trivial @ first sight but is nonetheless precondition for any therapeutic success. The patient has to follow the instructions of the doctor. It seems intuitive that this is what patients want and do but often enough there is a lack in complience which is responsible for treatment failure (i.e. http://dermatology.cdlib.org/149/letters/atopic/feldman.html).  This study documents that patient attention levels are an important factor. An older post shows a related issue.dreamstime_2038597

Patients participating in the study self-scored of the severity of their skin symptoms. Each of the patients suffers from atopic dermatitis, a common chronic skin disease, accounting for 30% of all dermatology visits for which self-care behaviors among patients is typically low, he said.

At enrollment into the trial project, 92% of the participants reported that they sometimes forgot to use their medication, and 88% said they often stopped treatment when their skin symptoms improved.

However, by the end of the study, 72% reported improved compliance to treatment. Sixty-eight percent reported an improvement in the number of self-care behaviors they routinely perform, such as avoiding harsh soaps, and nearly all — 98% — reported an improvement in at least one self-care behavior.

Sending out text messages is just a minor level of patient involvement (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17174016)  but it show the effectiveness of a simple intervention mediated by todays infrastructure and the importance of Patient Centered IT. Achieving better levels of participation could be a matter of personalization and adaption to patient daily routines (see http://patient-centered-it.com/2009/10/26/what-patients-learn/).

http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/mobile-wireless/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227500893

August 22nd, 2010 by Christian Seebode

Medical tourism is special in many aspects. Patients travel first to be treated. Main drivers for this behavior are quality and/or price. This makes medical tourism a real market scenario with real customers.

Patient Choice

The first remarkable thing about medical tourism is choice. Whatever the reason is that patient choice is often not possible in general healthcare it is possible in medical tourism by definition. It is not that you select or are forced to select the hospital or doctor around the corner you actively select a treatment and a destination or vice versa. The combination counts and makes the difference. Being treated abroad is way more complicated than it is at home for a number of reasons.

Among them

  • Distance. Travel is needed to become treated. This has to be considered in schedules, indications and post treatment plans, just to name a few
  • Culture and Language. Healthcare has not the same value in different cultures and even if it does, people talk about it in different languages and nomenclatures
  • Procedures and quality. Changes from one hospital to another and even more from one country to another. Even if medical science is global, quality still has a long way to go to claim this. Transparency is just another issue.
  • Patient context. What is this? When a patient moves across borders he carries along his data, relationships, contracts everything that counts in a healthcare situation. It is still an illusion that this context is completely preserved in the country of treatment. But it is a goal. Patients contact to families, access to medical data, insurances etc. , all this changes in the country of destination

But whatever the reason is the core procedure is to execute choice. But what is needed to do this? Do we need to know everything in order to make a good decision or is choice just an inevitable evil?

First let’s have a look on what drives choice in medical tourism. Quality? Price? Both!

According to a recent survey (http://www.imtj.com/articles/2010/medical-tourism-climate-survey-30055/) the most important factors influencing patient choice in medical tourism are

  • Expertise and qualifications of the doctor/dentist
  • Comments and ratings by other patients
  • Fluency in the patient’s language (English, French and German are the most commonly supported languages within the destination countries).

In other words: Patients require transparency and communication about quality. But it is not the mere information that is most influential. What really is impressive is that the communications about choices of other patients are considered important. Trust is crucial for a community to provide guidance and reciprocity (’tit for tat’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1067860.1067864). But even if you are only a lurker in communities (only reading, rarely writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker) you PAY attention which means you contribute to the community and to the social capital it represents. In a healthy community everybody can follow without running the risk of being information overloaded (http://www.citeulike.org/user/phauly/article/825577).

This is what is important for a community to leverage patient empowerment in order to support choice. The patient-centeredness of a community is the adequate amount of information and knowledge it represents. This is why it works usually completely self driven.

Patient Communication

Communities that are based on patient-patient communication are only one possibility. Within the process chain of medical tourism there are other players involved. The main issue of medical tourism is that most of these relationships are remote. For remote relationships, especially in healthcare special conditions apply. A huge communication effort is needed to make this work but there usually is no coordinating instance, because interests or business models are decoupled. The only entity present in all steps is the patient himself. This makes the patient the natural hub for all communications but is he or she really involved? I doubt there are hard facts available analyzing the relationship of communication skills and possibilities for patients in medical tourism but at least a result form a 2008 survey (http://www.treatmentabroad.com/medical-tourism/medical-tourist-research/) suggests that language barriers are a common cause for dissatisfaction.

On the other hand clinics that offer on international markets do have an considerable advantage to follow JCI accreditation requirements.

JCI accreditation regulations require

All written and oral communications with the patient must be in a language and a format the patient understands; the patient’s understanding is to be verified. The organization should also provide caregivers for patients who speak the same language or translators.

( http://www.medicaltourismmag.com/issue-detail.php?item=60&issue=3# )

A patient centered website considers exactly these requirements and keeps a track record of all medical and non-medical communications in the language of the patient. This means the application model supports whether direct translations or a translator service or the internationalization of the application model. The latter needs some coding standard of a medical terminology like SNOMED-CT or the like. But patients may not be able to use medical terminologies in the first place. This is why a didactic concept is needed to provide patients with the necessary knowledge. My favorite is the combination of a human guide or patient manager with the possibility to keep track records of all communications. This would be in line with the above JCI requirements. In any case the communication efforts for medical tourism require

  • A central reference or repository to track all communications. The model could be similar to a blog. The main requirement is that it tracks ALL communications and is able to store links, tags and other meta-information to support causality and knowledge
  • The possibility to assemble official documents from all communications. Documents that have to be signed or viewed by other parties are the basis for business. Examples are contracts or patient targeted education for procedure
  • T he possibility to search and sort by date, tag or any other classified attribute

Patient Involvement

Another aspect of patient communication is patient involvement. Patient involvement implies a continuous participation in the process. This is only possible with a certain amount of understanding what is going on. Medical tourism especially puts some difficult barriers in the way. These barriers are linguistic and cultural but also procedural. In fact because of the multitude of parameters added in comparison to near shore treatment finding an optimal pathway for the patient is a huge effort. This is why in medical tourism a patient involvement is more than required. It is mandatory. The story behind patient involvement is patient safety. Every patient should claim a maximum of participation in his own interest. The maximum is limited by cognitive barriers but it is recommendable to learn as much as possible about the process. So the patient involvement begins with actively searching an adequate offer. Treatment offers should be backed up by second opinion services offered by independent experts or authorities. Patients should learn ask the relevant questions themselves. Before selecting an offer a patient should be able to express in his own words what he or she is going to select. This is not a simple claim. Some procedures are simple in principle but how a patient really profits is sometimes subject to subtle science. A good example is fertility tourism. Patients looking for fertility treatment are often desperate need. A health condition which is sometimes not profoundly understood offers a probabilistic chance for happiness and a family. It is however in general unrealistic to claim that customers of fertility services really understand and take full responsibility of evaluating the quality of the service. This is even difficult for experts sometimes. But at the same time it is necessary for the patient as a customer to distinguish quality from lesser quality services (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122443658/abstract). It is not enough to rely on ethics alone. Patient involvement through provision of educational services and transparency of procedures additional to the fertility treatment itself is a step in the right direction (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547268). A fertility treatment needs an elaborate plan that has to be agreed with and followed by the patients. Simple checklists or diaries are of considerable use here (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/1420). Patient Centered Information Technology supports this by providing interfaces to electronic diaries connected to EHRs. The important point is that a web based diary could be linked to the medical pathway information and to the educational content. Web 2.0 interfaces allow personalization and feedback for a richer user experience. Fertility clinics are better off providing this as part of patient CRM for international patients to better schedule the visit. Patient Centered technology still is very simple compared to the complexity of the treatment but effective in the sense to give patients a possibility to participate. Having web based interaction possibilities implemented treatment for medical tourism could start when the patient is still at home. This is true for all treatments that need a special preparation as for example fertility treatment.

Patient involvement in medical tourism can be facilitated by Patient Centered, web based interfaces for

  • Process scheduling. Early in the process patient can influence schedule, path and decisions. Risk can be assessed before traveling
  • Decision support. Educational services provide learning possibilities for better understanding and participation of patients
  • Feedback. The patient is a very good indicator for improvement of therapies and services

Conclusion

Patient choice, patient communication and patient involvement are 3 aspects of the same phenomenon in medical tourism. The goal is active participation and personalization of services. Communication comes along in different flavors. Communities are able to build trust for services and patient centered communication enables patients to follow all relevant communications even in different languages. Finally educational services are able to provide the necessary knowledge for the patient to participate in decision and execution of procedure in medical tourism

Patterns

community

guided search and communication

medical pathway