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!!

Consumer Health Devices versus Medical Devices

Posted on January 20, 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.

I think there’s a major confusion in the current health app and device marketplace right now. The problem stems from consumers who draw conclusions even though claims aren’t really being made. I’ll use an example from my Healthcare Scene blog network.

I get asked all the time what I do for a job (like I’m sure most of you). I usually say that I’m a blogger and people then ask me what I blog about. I usually answer that I blog about healthcare IT. While people’s minds are blown by the fact that I’m a professional blogger, I can see in their eyes and often hear in their response that they didn’t really understand what it meant to blog about healthcare IT.

The most common interpretation is that I blog about health and wellness. I guess in some ways I tangentially blog about health and wellness, but no doubt in these people’s minds they’re picturing me writing about nutritional supplements, diet, fitness, and other health and wellness topics that they read in their magazines or favorite blogs online.

I never told them that I blogged about health and wellness, but they often interpret it that way since they don’t know the term healthcare IT to know what I really mean. When I try to clarify it for them, I often say that I write about how doctors use technology. That usually gets them closer.

I’ve found the same thing is happening with many consumer health devices. When you say that something is a consumer health devices they immediately draw their own conclusion that it must be a medical device that can be used by consumers. Unfortunately, the reality today is that consumer health devices are very different from medical devices.

As I’ve thought about the differences, I’ve come to realize that there’s one major difference that causes a lot of problems for those that misinterpret what they’re using. A medical device produces clinically relevant data that would be accepted and trusted by a medical professional. A consumer health device might or might not. We don’t know and therefore many medical professionals won’t use that data.

I don’t think it’s a problem that these consumer health devices don’t put out clinically relevant data. There seems to be a great business model for consumers to take a peak at their health data (regardless of how accurate it is). Plus, there are plenty of anecdotal stories about how this has helped individuals. That’s great.

The problem however comes in when we try to say that a consumer health device is something that it’s not. I think we’ll see this come into sharp focus over the next few years. Consumers will finally start to understand that not all devices are created equal. They’ll realize that some devices are clinically relevant (ie. their doctor will want and care about the data) and other devices are more for fun and intrigue than they are actually improving their health. Unfortunately, it’s just going to take us a while to get there.

Workflow Redesign Is Crucial to Adopting a New Health IT System – Breakaway Thinking

Posted on I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Todd Stansfield, Instructional Writer from The Breakaway Group (A Xerox Company). Check out all of the blog posts in the Breakaway Thinking series.
Todd Stansfield
Workflow analysis and redesign have long been touted as essential to health IT adoption. Most organizations recognize the importance of modifying current workflows to capitalize on efficiencies created by a new application and identify areas where the system must be customized to support existing workflows. Despite this recognition, there remains room for improvement. In fact, last month the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) identified the impact of new IT systems on clinical workflows as one of the biggest barriers to interoperability (ouch).

A successful redesign includes both an analysis of current workflows and desired future workflows.

Key stakeholders – direct and indirect – should take part in analyzing existing workflows. An objective third party should also be present to ask the right questions and facilitate the discussion. This team can collaborate to model important workflows, ideally in visual form to stimulate thorough analysis. To ensure an efficient and productive meeting, you should model workflows that are the most common, result in productivity losses, have both upstream and downstream consequences and involve multiple parties. The National Learning Consortium recommends focusing only on what occurs 80 percent of the time.

Once you document current workflows, you can set your sights on the future. Workflow redesign meetings are the next step; you need them to build a roadmap of activities leading up to a go-live event and beyond – from building the application to engaging and educating end users. Individuals from the original workflow analysis sessions should be included, and they should be joined by representatives from your health IT vendor (who can define the system’s capabilities) and members of your leadership team (who can answer questions and provide support).

After the initial go-live, you need to periodically perform workflow analysis and continue adjusting the roadmap to address changes to the application and processes.

Why should you spend all the time and effort to analyze and redesign workflows? Three reasons:

  1. It makes your organization proactive in your upcoming implementation and road to adoption. You’ll anticipate and avoid problems that will otherwise become bigger headaches.
  2. It’s the perfect opportunity to request customizations to adapt your application to desired workflows.
  3. It gives your staff a chance to mentally and emotionally prepare for a change to their daily habits, increasing buy-in and decreasing resistance to the switch.

Thorough and disciplined workflow redesign is an important step to adopting a new health IT application, but of course it’s not the only one. You’ll still need leadership to engage end users in the project, education that teaches learners how to use the new application to perform their workflow, performance metrics to evaluate adoption, and continual reinforcement of adoption initiatives as the application and workflows change over time.

Xerox is a sponsor of the Breakaway Thinking series of blog posts.