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 HIPAA for FREE!!

Supply Of mHealth Apps Far Exceeds Demand

Posted on October 19, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

With demand relatively high and barriers to entry low, the supply of mHealth apps available on the two main marketplaces has exploded in recent years. And according to a new report from analyst firm Research 2 Guidance, the number of apps continues to mushroom despite lagging demand.

The report notes that nearly 100,000 mHealth apps have been added to the Google and Apple app marketplaces since the beginning of last year, bringing the total apps available to about 259,000. Also, 13,000 mHealth publishers entered the market since the start of 2015, bringing the total to 58,000, according to the study, which looked at global health app development.

To get a sense of trends, the group’s mHealth App Developer Economics 2016 report compared the number of available apps and publishers with the number of mHealth downloads.

During the past year, researchers found, the total number of mHealth apps climbed a whopping 57%, boosted by the expanding number of health app publishers, the increased importance of publishing across both key app marketplaces in the increase in app portfolios by publishers, R2G found.

Multi-platform publishing seems to be particularly important. Currently, 75% of mHealth publishers are developing apps on both iOS and Android platforms. (An even higher percentage of HTML 5 and Windows Phone developers publish across each other’s platforms, but their numbers are small so they don’t contribute much to the overall market stats, the firm found.)

Meanwhile, the number of health app publishers on major app stores climbed 28% since the beginning of 2015, a torrent of entries that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, the analyst firm concluded. This includes not only veteran publishers but also ongoing entrances by new mHealth publishers.

The problem is, demand is nowhere near keeping up with supply, at least when measuring by the number of downloads. Statistics by the research firm indicate that while demand continued to grow by a solid 35% in 2015, health app downloads are estimated to be only 7% in 2016.

Though such downloads are expected to reach a total of 3.2 billion in 2016, further massive growth seems unlikely, as the growth in use of capable devices that can use and download apps has slowed down in most Western countries, R2G notes.

Given the amount of noise in the mHealth app market, few publishers are likely to have the resources to stand out and grab significant download market share. As the analyst firm notes, only 14% of mHealth app publishers generated more than 100,000 downloads across their portfolio in one year, a number which is climbed only 3% since 2014.

A Look At Vendor IoT Security And Vulnerability Issues

Posted on October 5, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Much of the time, when we discuss the Internet of Things, we’re looking at issues from an end-user perspective.  We talk about the potential for IoT options like mobile medical applications and wearable devices, and ponder how to connect smart devices to other nodes like the above to offer next-generation care. Though we’re only just beginning to explore such networking models, the possibilities seem nearly infinite.

That being said, most of the responsibility for enabling and securing these devices still lies with the manufacturers, as healthcare networks typically don’t integrate fully with IoT devices as of yet.

So I was intrigued to find a recent article in Dark Reading which lays out some security considerations manufacturers of IoT devices should keep in mind. Not only do the suggestions give you an idea of how vendors should be thinking about vulnerabilities, they also offer some useful insights for healthcare organizations.

Security research Lysa Myers offers IoT device-makers several recommendations to consider, including the following:

  • Notify users of any changes to device features. In fact, it may make sense to remind them repeatedly of significant changes, or they may simply ignore them out of habit.
  • Put a protocol in place for handling vulnerability reports, and display your vulnerability disclosure policy prominently on your website. Ideally, Myers notes, makers of IoT medical devices should send vulnerability reports to the FDA.
  • When determining how to handle a vulnerability issue, let the most qualified person decide what should happen. In the case of automated medical diagnosis, for example, the right person would probably be a doctor.
  • Make it quick and easy to update IoT device software when you find an error. Also, make it simple for customers to spot fraudulent updates.
  • Create an audit log for all devices, even those that might seem too mundane to interest criminals, as even the least important of devices can assist criminals in launching a DDoS attack or spamming.
  • See to it that users can tell when the changes made to an IoT device’s software are made by the authorized user or a designated representative rather than a cybercriminal or other inappropriate person.
  • Given that many IoT devices require cloud-based services to operate, it’s important to see that end users aren’t dropped abruptly with no cloud alternative. Manufacturers should give users time to transition their service if discontinuing a device, going out of business or otherwise ending support for their own cloud-based option.

If we take a high-level look at these recommendations, there’s a few common themes to be considered:

Awareness:  Particularly in the case of IoT devices, it’s critical to raise awareness among both technical staffers and users of changes, both in features and security configurations.

Protection:  It’s becoming more important every day to protect IoT devices from attacks, and see to it that they are configured properly to avoid security and continuity failures. Also, see to that these devices are protected from outages caused by vendor issues.

Monitoring:  Health IT leaders should find ways to integrate IoT devices into their monitoring routine, tracking their behavior, the state of security updates to their software and any suspicious user activity.

As the article suggests, IoT device-makers probably need to play a large role in helping healthcare organizations secure these devices. But clearly, healthcare organizations need to do their part if they hope to maintain these devices successfully as health IT models change.

Apple’s Healthcare Data Plans Become Clearer

Posted on October 3, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Though it’s not without competitors, I’d argue that Apple’s HealthKit has stood out since its inception, in part because it was relatively early to the game (mining patient-centered data) and partly because Apple products have a sexy reputation. That being said, it hasn’t exactly transformed the health IT industry either.

Now, though, with the acquisition of Gliimpse, a startup which pulls data from disparate EMRs into a central database, it’s become clearer what Apple’s big-picture goals are for the healthcare market – and if its business model works out they could indeed change health data industry.

According to a nifty analysis by Bloomberg’s Alex Webb, which quotes an Apple Health engineer, the technology giant hopes to see the health data business evolve along the lines of Apple’s music business, in which Apple started with a data management tool (the iPod) then built a big-bucks music platform on the device. And that sounds like an approach that could steal a move from many a competitor indeed.

Apple’s HealthKit splash
Apple made a big splash with the summer 2014 launch of HealthKit, a healthcare data integration platform whose features include connecting patient generated health data with traditional systems like the Epic EMR. It also attracted prominent partners like Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Ochsner Health System within a year or so of its kickoff.

Still, the tech giant has been relatively quiet about its big-picture vision for healthcare, leaving observers like yours truly wondering what was up. After all, many of Apple’s health data moves have been incremental. For example, a few months ago I noted that Apple had begun allowing users to store their EMR data directly in its Health app, using the HL7 CCD standard. While interesting, this isn’t exactly an earth-shattering advance.

But in his analysis — which makes a great deal of sense to me – Bloomberg’s Webb argues that Apple’s next act is to take the data it’s been exchanging with wearables and put it to better use. Apple’s long-awaited big idea is to turn Apple’s HealthKit into a system that can improve diagnoses, sources told Bloomberg.

Also, Apple intends to integrate health records as closely with its proprietary devices as possible, offering not only data collection but suggestions for better health in a manner that can’t be easily duplicated on Android platforms. As Webb rightly points out, such a move could undermine Google’s larger healthcare plans, by locking consumers into Apple technology and discouraging a switch to the Google Fit health tracking software.

Big vision, big questions
As we know, even a company with the reputation, cash and proprietary user base enjoyed by Apple is far from a shoo-in for consumer health data dominance. (Consider the fate of Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health.) Its previous successes have come, as noted, by creating a channel then dominating that channel, but there’s no guarantee it can pull off such a trick this time.

For one thing, the wearables market is highly fragmented, and Apple is far from being the leader. (According to one set of stats, Fitbit had 25.4% of the global wearables market as of Q2 ’16, Xiaomi 14%, and Apple just 7%.) That doesn’t bode well for starting a health tracker-based revolution.

On the other hand, though, Apple did manage to create and dominate a channel in the music business, which is also quite resistant to change and dominated by extremely entrenched powers that be. If any upstart healthcare player could make this happen, it’s probably Apple. It will be interesting to see whether Apple can work its magic once again.

The Required Shift in How Patients View Wearables

Posted on September 27, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

This post is sponsored by Samsung Business. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

We’ve all seen the explosive growth that’s occurred in the wearables market. The most extraordinary part of the wearables explosion is that the majority of wearables growth has been in the healthcare space. The problem we now see in healthcare is that most people don’t look at wearables as a disease management tool as much as they see them as lifestyle tools. This was described really well by Megan Williams on the Samsung Insights blog:

Perhaps the most challenging part of meeting that desire [Physician Access to Patients’ Lives and Health] is the fact that patients mostly view wearables as an aid in lifestyle improvement instead of disease management. The task of helping patients understand that wearables are about much more than weight loss will fall squarely on the shoulders of providers.

Patients have traditionally shown a preference for lifestyle apps including fitness, nutrition and heart rate aids, and have been much slower to adopt disease management tools, even as chronic disease remains a burden on healthcare as a whole. Encouraging the use of a broader range of wearables, digital tools and apps will be a challenge for any provider.

Changing habits and perceptions is always a challenge. However, it’s also a great opportunity.

No one would argue that today’s wearables are more than novelty items that may have some impact on your lifestyle (fitness, nutrition, etc). That’s largely because the initial wearables were designed around those retail areas of the market. It’s much easier to create a retail wearable device than to create a disease management focused healthcare device.

As the healthcare wearables market matures so will patients expectations around the benefits they can receive from those wearables. I think there are two main keys to development of wearables as true healthcare devices: Depth of Tracking and Connection to Providers.

Depth of Tracking
I’ve argued for a while now that all the various fitness trackers were not clinically relevant. I still believe that today, but I also believe that wearables like the various fitness trackers will start tracking us in ways that are clinically relevant. That just takes a lot longer to develop.

Whether it’s new trackers that screen for sleep apnea or ECGs that monitor our heart, we’re seeing more and more wearable devices monitoring data that’s more clinically relevant than the number of steps you’ve taken. This trend will continue. As wearables more deeply track various parts of the human body, the opportunities to understand your health and improve your health will follow along with it. This will provide doctors the impetus to request access to your wearable data.

The deep data these wearables will provide will challenge the tried and true beliefs healthcare holds so dearly today. That can be scary for some, but is also very exciting.

Connection to Providers
While wearables will provide the data, we’ll still want to consult a healthcare provider to understand the data and to create a plan of action based on that data. At least in the foreseeable future, our health will depend on collaboration with healthcare providers as opposed to a replacement of healthcare providers. This will be particularly true as the type of data our wearables collect gets more complicated. Understanding your step chart is quite different than understanding your ECG.

In order to facilitate this collaboration, our wearables will have to be connected to our care providers. Note that I said care providers and not doctors. In some cases it might be our doctor, but in other cases it could be a nurse, care manager, social worker, or some other care provider. I’m hopeful that we eventually reach the point of a true care team that collaborates on our health. That’s a far cry from where most of our healthcare is today, but that is the hope.

If we can solve these two wearable challenges: Deeper Data and Connected Providers, then we’ll be well on our way to changing how patients view wearables. This shift won’t happen over night, but I believe it will happen a lot quicker than most people imagine.

For more content like this, follow Samsung on Insights, Twitter, LinkedIn , YouTube and SlideShare.

Apple App Store Toughens Guidelines For Health Apps

Posted on September 13, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

In a precedent-setting move, Apple has released new guidelines for its iOS App Store which impose new limitations on health and medical app developers.  iMedicalApps contributor Iltifat Husain, M.D., who wrote a piece about the changed standards, said they contain “the most stringent language I have ever seen Apple used for the health and medical category of apps.”

According to Husain, highlights from Apple’s new developer guidelines include:

  • A warning that if an app could possibly cause physical harm, Apple could reject it
  • A warning that apps which provide inaccurate data or information that could be used to diagnose or treat patients will get increased scrutiny
  • A reminder that apps which calculate drug dosage must come from the drug manufacturer, a hospital, university, health insurance company or other approved entity. In other words, independent developers cannot post a medical app for drug dosages themselves.
  • A ban on marijuana-related apps
  • A ban on apps that encourage people to place their iPhones under a mattress or pillow while charging (such as some sleep monitors)

Historically, Apple has been relatively lax about hosting potentially dangerous health apps, Husain says. For example, he notes that apps purporting to measure a consumer’s blood pressure by using the iPhone’s camera and microphone tend to be quite inaccurate in their measurements, but that Apple had not screened them out.  Now things have changed for the better, Husain writes. “Apps [like these] would not get through the screening review process under Apple’s new guidelines.”

Husain argues that the new guidelines are more important than the FDA’s recently-updated guidelines on health apps: “There is no way the FDA can regulate the hundreds of thousands of health and medical apps and the updates made to them,” Husain writes. “The screening process is what has to change.” And given Apple’s market footprint and influencer status it’s hard to disagree with him.

At this point the question is whether Google will follow suit. After all, while the Apple app store hosted 2 million apps as of June, Google Play offered 2.2 million apps, according to one study, and as of February there were three Android users for every iPhone user. So If Google doesn’t put more stringent health app requirements in place as well, creators of dodgy health apps can still develop for Android and find a wide audience.

That being said, neither Google nor Apple are required to impose new restrictions on health apps, and are likely to be governed by commercial pressure more than medical appropriateness. Also, both parties are free to set any rules they choose, and uses might not be aware of important differences between the two sets of policies. In other words, if the goal is to protect consumers, relying on guidelines generated by app store hosts probably won’t fly over the long-term.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that the FDA or other regulatory body should come down on the app stores like a ton of bricks. That would be overkill, and as Husain notes, is probably beyond their capabilities.

But doctors in the know about apps might want to warn patients about their potential limitations, and offer some criteria as to what they can expect from health apps. After all, most consumers have experimented with one health app of the other, so even if the doctor doesn’t prescribe them, patients need to be educated about their options. So if you’re a mobile health savvy clinician reading this, consider increasing patients on these issues.

Improving Clinical Workflow Can Boost Health IT Quality

Posted on August 18, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

At this point, the great majority of providers have made very substantial investments in EMRs and ancillary systems. Now, many are struggling to squeeze the most value out of those investments, and they’re not sure how to attack the problem.

However, according to at least one piece of research, there’s a couple of approaches that are likely to pan out. According to a new survey by the American Society for Quality, most healthcare quality experts believe that improving clinical workflow and supporting patients online can make a big diference.

As ASQ noted, providers are spending massive amounts of case on IT, with the North American healthcare IT market forecast to hit $31.3 by 2017, up from $21.9 billion in 2012. But healthcare organizations are struggling to realize a return on their spending. The study data, however, suggests that providers may be able to make progress by looking at internal issues.

Researchers who conducted the survey, an online poll of about 170 ASQ members, said that 78% of respondents said improving workflow efficiency is the top way for healthcare organizations to improve the quality of their technology implementations. Meanwhile, 71% said that providers can strengthen their health IT use by nurturing strong leaders who champion new HIT initiatives.

Meanwhile, survey participants listed a handful of evolving health IT options which could have the most impact on patient experience and care coordination, including:

  • Incorporation of wearables, remote patient monitoring and caregiver collaboration tools (71%)
  • Leveraging smartphones, tablets and apps (69%)
  • Putting online tools in place that touch every step of patient processes like registration and payment (69%)

Despite their promise, there are a number of hurdles healthcare organizations must get over to implement new processes (such as better workflows) or new technologies. According to ASQ, these include:

  • Physician and staff resistance to change due to concerns about the impact on time and workflow, or unwillingness to learn new skills (70%)
  • High cost of rolling out IT infrastructure and services, and unproven ROI (64%)
  • Concerns that integrating complex new devices could lead to poor interfaces between multiple technologies, or that haphazard rollouts of new devices could cause patient errors (61%)

But if providers can get past these issues, there are several types of health IT that can boost ROI or cut cost, the ASQ respondents said. According to these participants, the following HIT tools can have the biggest impact:

  • Remote patient monitoring can cut down on the need for office visits, while improving patient outcomes (69%)
  • Patient engagement platforms that encourage patients to get more involved in the long-term management of their own health conditions (68%)
  • EMRs/EHRs that eliminate the need to perform some time-consuming tasks (68%)

Perhaps the most interesting part of the survey report outlined specific strategies to strengthen health IT use recommended by respondents, such as:

  • Embedding a quality expert in every department to learn use needs before deciding what IT tools to implement. This gives users a sense of investment in any changes made.
  • Improving available software with easier navigation, better organization of medical record types, more use of FTP servers for convenience, the ability to upload records to requesting facilities and a universal notification system offering updates on medical record status
  • Creating healthcare apps for professional use, such as medication calculators, med reconciliation tools and easy-to-use mobile apps which offer access to clinical pathways

Of course, most readers of this blog already know about these options, and if they’re not currently taking this advice they’re probably thinking about it. Heck, some of this should already be old hat – FTP servers? But it’s still good to be reminded that progress in boosting the value of health IT investments may be with reach. (To get some here-and-now advice on redesigning EMR workflow, check out this excellent piece by Chuck Webster – he gets it!)

One Example Of Improving Telehealth Documentation 

Posted on August 16, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Over the past year or two, the pressure has risen for providers to better document telehealth encounters, a pressure which has only mounted as the volume of such consults has grown. But until recently, telemedicine notes have been of little value, as they’ve met few of the key criteria that standard notes must meet.

The fact that such consults aren’t integrated with EMRs has made such an evolution even trickier. I guess doctors might be able to squeeze the patient’s video screen into one corner, allowing the clinician to work within the existing EMR display, but that would make both the consult and the note-taking rather inefficient, wouldn’t it?  The bottom line is that if telemedicine is to take its place alongside of other modes of care, this state of affairs is unsustainable.

For one thing, health plans that reimburse for telehealth services won’t be satisfied with vague assurances that such care made a difference – they’ll want some basis for analyzing its impact, which can’t be done without at least some basic diagnostic and care-related information. Also, providers will need similar records, for reasons which include the need to integrate the information into the patient’s larger record and to track the progress of this approach.

All of which is to note that I was happy to stumble across an example of a telemedicine provider that’s making efforts to improve its consult notes. While the provider, Doctor on Demand, hasn’t exactly reinvented the telehealth record, it’s improving those records, and to my way of thinking that deserves a shout-out.

As some readers may know, Doctor on Demand is a consumer-facing telemedicine provider which offers video visits with primary care doctors, counselors and psychiatrists. Its competitors include HealthTap and American Well. Because the company works with my health plan, United Healthcare, I’ve used its services to deal with off-hours issues as they arise.

Just today I had a video visit with a Doctor on Demand doctor to address a mild asthma care issue, after which I reviewed the physician’s notes. When I did so, I was happy to see that those notes included a ICD-10 diagnosis code. The notes also incorporated a consumer-level summary of what the diagnosed condition was, what to do about it, what its prognosis was and how to follow up. Essentially, Doctor on Demand’s notes have evolved from a sentence of two of informal suggestions to a more-structured document not unlike a set of hospital discharge instructions.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly well aware that these are just baby steps. Doctor on Demand will have to move a lot further in this direction before consult documentation offers much to other providers. That being said, adding a formal diagnosis code gives the company a better means for analyzing key patterns of utilization internally by presenting condition, which can help its leaders look at whom they serve. Doctor on Demand can also use this information to pitch deals with potential partners, by sharing data on its population and underscoring its capabilities. In other words, these changes should make an impact.

Ultimately, telehealth documentation will have to meet the same expectations that other healthcare documentation does. And it’s not clear to me how freestanding telemedicine firms like Doctor on Demand will bridge that gap. After all, generating complete documentation takes far more than a few useful gestures. Even if the company threw a high-end EMR at the problem, merging it with the existing workflow is likely to be a huge undertaking. But still, making a bit of progress is worthwhile. I hope Doctor on Demand’s competitors are taking similar steps.

E-Patient Update:  Registration Can Add Value To Care 

Posted on August 15, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

For those of you who end up seeking care in hospital emergency departments now and again, the following will probably be familiar. You’re spending the precious few minutes you get with the ED doc discussing your situation, having a test done or asking a nurse some rather personal questions, and a hapless man or woman shows up and inserts themselves into the moment. Why? Because they want to collect registration information.

While these clerks are typically pleasant enough, and their errand relatively brief, their interruption has consequences. In my case, their entry into the room has sometimes caused a nurse or doctor to lose their train of thought, or an explanation in progress was never finished. As if that weren’t irritating enough, the registration clerk – at least at my local community hospital – typically asks questions I’ve already answered previously, or asks me to sign forms I could easily have reviewed at an earlier stage in the process.

Not only that, there have been at least a couple of situations in which a nurse or doctor was so distracted by the clerk’s arrival that some reasonably important issues didn’t get handled. Don’t get me wrong, the skilled team at this facility recovered and addressed these issues before they could escalate, but there’s no guarantee that this will always happen, particularly if the patient isn’t used to keeping track of their care process.

Also, given that alarm fatigue is already leading to patient care mistakes and near-misses, it seems odd that this hospital would squeeze yet another distraction into its ED routine. At least the alarms are intended to serve as clinical decision support and avoid needless errors. Collecting my street address a second time doesn’t rise to that level of importance.

Of course, hospitals need the information the clerk collects, for a variety of legal and operational reasons. I have no problem signing a form giving it permission to bill my insurer, affirming that I don’t need disability accommodations or agreeing to a facility’s “no smoking on campus” policy. And I certainly want any provider that treats me to have full and accurate insurance information, as I obviously don’t want to be billed for the care myself!  But is it really necessary to interrupt a vital care process to accomplish this?

As I see it, verifying registration information could be done much more effectively if it took place at a different point in the sequence of care – at the moment when physicians decide whether to discharge or admit that patient.  After all, if the patient is well enough to answer questions and sign forms while lying in an ED bed, they’re likely to remain so through the admissions process, and verify their financial and personal information once they’re settled (or even while they’re waiting to be transported to their bed). Meanwhile, if the patient is being discharged, they could just as easily provide signatures and personal data as they prepare to leave.

But the above would simply make registration less intrusive. What about adding real value to the process, for both the hospital and the patient? Instead of having a clerk gather this information, why not provide the patient with a tablet which presents the needed information, allowing patients to enter or edit their personal details at leisure.

Then, as they digitally sign off on registration, it would be a great time to ask the patient a few details which help the facility understand the patient’s need for support and care coordination. Why not find out, before the patient is discharged, whether they have a primary care doctor or relevant specialist, whether they can afford their medications, whether they can get to post-discharge visits and the like? This improves results for the patient and ties in with a value-based focus on continuity of care.

These days, it’s not enough just to eliminate pointless workflow disruptions. Let’s leverage the amazing consumer IT platforms we have to make things better!

Modern Day Healthcare Tools and Solutions Can Enhance Your Brand Integrity and Patient Experience

Posted on August 11, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Chelsea Kimbrough, a copywriter for Stericycle Communication Solutions as part of the Communication Solutions Series of blog posts. Follow and engage with them on Twitter: @StericycleComms
Chelsea Kimbrough
Digitally speaking, the healthcare market is more crowded than ever – and finding the perfect provider, practice, or physician online can quickly become an arduous task for even the most tech-savvy patient. But healthcare organizations that dedicate the time, effort, and resources to create a unique digital presence, enhance their search engine optimization (SEO), and reinforce their brand integrity can cut through oversaturated search results to acquire and retain more patients.

In today’s consumer-driven world, shopping for the ideal healthcare organization is quickly becoming the norm. More and more frequently, patients are turning toward the internet during their hunt. In fact, 50 percent of millennials and Gen-Xers used online reviews while last shopping for a healthcare provider. And with 85 percent of adults using the internet and 67 percent using smartphones, accessing this sort of information is easier than ever before.

This ease of access has led patients to adopt more consumer-like behaviors and expectations, such as valuing quality and convenience. Healthcare organizations that proactively ensure their brand image, digital presence, and patient experience cater to these new expectations could be best positioned to thrive. By providing convenient, patient-centric healthcare tools and services, organizations can help facilitate this effort throughout every step of the patient journey.

One such tool is real-time, online appointment self-scheduling, which 77 percent of patients think is important. In addition to adding a degree of convenience for digitally-inclined patients, online self-scheduling tools can support your healthcare organizations’ key initiatives – including driving new, commercially insured patient growth. By using an intuitive way to quickly schedule an appointment, potential patients’ shopping process can be halted in its tracks, ensuring more patients choose your organization over a competitor’s. And with the right tool, your search rankings and discoverability, or SEO, could be significantly enhanced.

Reaching patients where they are most likely to be reached is another way to improve your brand experience. Like consumers, patients are often connected to their phones – so much so that text messages have a 98 percent open rate. Organizations that leverage automated text, email, and voice reminders can successfully communicate important messages, boost patients’ overall satisfaction and health, and improve appointment and follow-up adherence – ultimately setting themselves apart from competitors.

Other digital tools, technologies, and communication strategies can help fortify your brand’s digital standing and patients’ satisfaction, including social media outreach, useful email campaigns, and more. Whatever method – or methods – best serve your organization, it’s important they help improve your SEO, enhance patients’ overall accessibility and experience, and support your brand values and initiatives.

The Communication Solutions Series of blog posts is sponsored by Stericycle Communication Solutions, a leading provider of high quality telephone answering, appointment scheduling, and automated communication services. Stericycle Communication Solutions combines a human touch with innovative technology to deliver best-in-class communication services.  Connect with Stericycle Communication Solutions on social media:  @StericycleComms

ONC Announces Winners Of FHIR App Challenge

Posted on August 3, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

The ONC has announced the first wave of winners of two app challenges, both of which called for competitors to use FHIR standards and open APIs.

As I’ve noted previously, I’m skeptical that market forces can solve our industry’s broad interoperability problems, even if they’re supported and channeled by a neutral intermediary like ONC. But there’s little doubt that FHIR has the potential to provide some of the benefits of interoperability, as we’ll see below.

Winners of Phase 1 of the agency’s Consumer Health Data Aggregator Challenge, each of whom will receive a $15,000 award, included the following:

  • Green Circle Health’s platform is designed to provide a comprehensive family health dashboard covering the Common Clinical Data Set, using FHIR to transfer patient information. This app will also integrate patient-generated health data from connected devices such as wearables and sensors.
  • The Prevvy Family Health Assistant by HealthCentrix offers tools for managing a family’s health and wellness, as well as targeted data exchange. Prevvy uses both FHIR and Direct messaging with EMRs certified for Meaningful Use Stage 2.
  • Medyear’s mobile app uses FHIR to merge patient records from multiple sources, making them accessible through a single interface. It displays real-time EMR updates via a social media-style feed, as well as functions intended to make it simple to message or call clinicians.
  • The Locket app by MetroStar Systems pulls patient data from different EMRs together onto a single mobile device. Other Locket capabilities include paper-free check in and appointment scheduling and reminders.

ONC also announced winners of the Provider User Experience Challenge, each of whom will also get a $15,000 award. This part of the contest was dedicated to promoting the use of FHIR as well, but participants were asked to show how they could enhance providers’ EMR experience, specifically by making clinical workflows more intuitive, specific to clinical specialty and actionable, by making data accessible to apps through APIs. Winners include the following:

  • The Herald platform by Herald Health uses FHIR to highlight patient information most needed by clinicians. By integrating FHIT, Herald will offer alerts based on real-time EMR data.
  • PHRASE (Population Health Risk Assessment Support Engine) Health is creating a clinical decision support platform designed to better manage emerging illnesses, integrating more external data sources into the process of identifying at-risk patients and enabling the two-way exchange of information between providers and public health entities.
  • A partnership between the University of Utah Health Care, Intermountain Healthcare and Duke Health System is providing clinical decision support for timely diagnosis and management of newborn bilirubin according to evidence-based practice. The partners will integrate the app across each member’s EMR.
  • WellSheet has created a web application using machine learning and natural language processing to prioritize important information during a patient visit. Its algorithm simplifies workflows incorporating multiple data sources, including those enabled by FHIR. It then presents information in a single screen.

As I see it, the two contests don’t necessarily need to be run on separate tracks. After all, providers need aggregate data and consumers need prioritized, easy-to-navigate platforms. But either way, this effort seems to have been productive. I’m eager to see the winners of the next phase.