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!!

Stanford Survey Generates Predictable Result: Doctors Want EHR Changes

Posted on June 11, 2018 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.

I know you’re going to have trouble believing this, but many PCPs think EHRs need substantial changes.

Such is the unsurprising conclusion drawn by a survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Stanford Medicine. The poll, which took place between March 2 and March 27 of this year, surveyed 521 PCPs licensed to practice in the U.S. who have been using their current EHR system for at least one month.

The physicians were recruited via snail mail from the American Medical Association Masterfile. Figures for years in practice by gender, region and primary medical specialty were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population of PCPs in the U.S.

According to the survey, about two-thirds of PCPs think EHRs have generally improved care (63%). Two-thirds said they were at least somewhat satisfied with their current systems, though only 18% were very satisfied.

Meanwhile, a total of 34% were somewhat or very dissatisfied with their system, and 40% of PCPs said that EHRs create more challenges than benefits. Also, 49% of office-based PCPs reported that using an EHR detracts from their clinical effectiveness.  Forty-four percent of PCPs said that primary value of EHRs is data storage, while just 8% said that the biggest benefits were clinically-related.

To improve EHRs’ clinical value, it will take a lot of effort, with 51% saying they think EHRs need a complete overhaul.  Seventy-two percent of PCPs said that improving user interfaces could best address their needs in the immediate future.

Meanwhile, 67% of respondents said that solving interoperability problems should be the top priority for EHR development over the next decade, and 43% reported wanting improved predictive analytics capabilities.

Nearly all (99%) of PCPs said that EHR capabilities should include maintaining a high-quality record of patient data over time, followed closely by providing an intuitive user experience. Also, 88% said that providing clinical decision support at the moment of care was important, followed by identifying high-risk patients in their patient panel (86%).

When asked what EHR features they found most satisfying, they cited maintaining a high-quality patient record (73%), offering patients access to medical records (71%), sharing information with providers across the care continuum (65%) and supporting practice/revenue cycle management needs (60%).

However, EHRs still have a long way to go in offering other preferred capabilities, including changing and adapting in response to user feedback, improving patient-provider interaction, coordinating care for patients with complex conditions and engaging patients in prescribed care plans through mobile technologies. Vendors, you have been warned.

IBM Watson Health Layoffs Suggests AI Strategy Isn’t Working

Posted on June 6, 2018 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.

IBM Watson Health is apparently making massive cuts to its staff, in a move suggesting that its healthcare AI isn’t working.

Watson Health leaders have argued that AI (which Watson Health leaders call “cognitive computing”) as the solution to many of the healthcare industry’s problems. IBM pitched Watson technology as a revolutionary tool which could get to the root of difficult medical problems.

Over time, however, it’s begun to look like this wasn’t going to happen, at least for the present. Among other high-profile goofs, IBM Watson has struggled with applying the supercomputing tech to oncology, which was one of its main goals.

Now IBM Watson Health has slashed up to 70% of its staff, according to sources speaking to The Register. The site reports that most of the layoffs are cutting staff within companies IBM has brought in an effort to build out its healthcare credentials. These include medical data company Truven, acquired in 2016 for $2.6 billion, medical imaging firm Merge, bought in 2015 for $1 billion and healthcare management firm Phytel, the site reports.

The cuts reflect a major strategic shift for Watson Health, which was one of IBM’s flagship divisions until recently. Having invested heavily in businesses that might have helped it dominate the health IT world, it now appears to be rethinking it’s all in approach.

That being said, no one has suggested that IBM Watson Health will disappear in a poof of smoke. IBM corporate leaders seem dedicated to an AI future. However, if this report is correct, Watson Health is being reorganized completely. Not too much of a surprise since given how hyped it was, it would have been almost impossible for it to live up to the hype.

To me, this suggests that rolling out healthcare AI tools might call for a completely different business model. Rather than applying brute force supercomputing tools to enterprise healthcare issues, it may be better to build from the ground up.

For example, consider Google’s approach to healthcare AI supercomputing. UK-based DeepMind is building relationships and products from the ground up. Working with the National Health Service DeepMind Health is bringing mobile tools and AI research to hospitals. Its mobile health tools include Streams, a secure mobile phone app which feeds critical medical information to doctors and hospitals.

In my opinion, the future of AI in healthcare will look more like the DeepMind model and less like IBM Watson’s top-down approach. Building out AI-based tools and platforms for physicians and nurses first just makes sense.

Why You Shouldn’t Take Calculated Risks with Security

Posted on May 9, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Erin Gilmer (@GilmerHealthLaw).

Calculated risks are often lauded in innovation.  However, with increasing security breaches in the tech industry, it is time to reassess the calculated risks companies take in healthcare.

Time and again, I have advised technology companies and medical practices to invest in security and yet I am often met with resistance, a culture of calculated risk prevails.  To these companies and practices, this risk may make sense to them in the short term. Resources are often limited and so they often believe that they needn’t spend the time and money in security.  However, the notion that a company or a practice can take this chance is ill advised.

As a recent study conducted by HIMSS (and reviewed by Ann Zieger here) warns, “significant security incidents are projected to continue to grow in number, complexity and impact.” Thus in taking the calculated risk not to invest in security, companies and practices are creating greater risk for in the long run, one that comes with severe consequences.

As we have seen outside of healthcare, even “simple” breaches of user names and passwords as happened to Under Armour’s MyFitnessPal app, become relatively important use cases as examples of the impact a security breach can have. While healthcare companies typically think of this in terms of HIPAA compliance and oversight by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences reach far wider.  Beyond the fines or even jail time that the OCR can impose, what these current breaches show us is how easy it is for the public to lose trust in an entity.  For a technology company, this means losing valuation which could signal a death knell for a startup. For a practice, this may mean losing patients.  For any entity, it will likely result in substantial legal fees.

Why take the risk not to invest in security? A company may think they are saving time and money up front and the likelihood of a breach or security incident is low. But in the long run, the risk is too great – no company wants to end up with their name splashed across the headlines, spending more money on legal fees, scrambling to notify those whose information has been breached, and rebuilding lost trust.  The short term gain of saving resources is not worth this risk.

The best thing a company or practice can do to get started is to run a detailed risk assessment. This is already required under HIPAA but is not always made a priority.  As the HIMSS report also discussed, there is no one standard for risk assessment and often the OCR is flexible knowing entities may be different sizes and have different resource. While encryption standards and network security should remain a high priority with constant monitoring, there are a few standard aspects of risk assessment including:

  • Identifying information (in either physical or electronic format) that may be at risk including where it is and whether the entity created, received, and/or is storing it;
  • Categorizing the risk of each type of information in terms of high, medium, or low risk and the impact a breach would have on this information;
  • Identifying who has access to the information;
  • Developing backup systems in case information is lost, unavailable, or stolen; and
  • Assessing incidence response plans.

Additionally, it is important to ensure proper training of all staff members on HIPAA policies and procedures including roles and responsibilities, which should be detailed and kept up to date in the office.

This is merely a start and should not be the end of the security measures companies and practices take to ensure they do not become the next use case. When discussing a recent $3.5 million settlement, OCR Director Roger Severino recently emphasized that, “there is no substitute for an enterprise-wide risk analysis for a covered entity.” Further, he stressed that “Covered entities must take a thorough look at their internal policies and procedures to ensure they are protecting their patients’ health information in accordance with the law.”

Though this may seem rudimentary, healthcare companies and medical practices are still not following simple steps to address security and are taking the calculated risk not to – which will likely be at their own peril.

About Erin Gilmer
Erin Gilmer is a health law and policy attorney and patient advocate. She writes about a range of issues on different forums including technology, disability, social justice, law, and social determinants of health. She can be found on twitter @GilmerHealthLaw or on her blog at www.healthasahumanright.wordpress.com.

More Ways AI Can Transform Healthcare

Posted on April 25, 2018 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.

You’ve probably already heard a lot about how AI will change healthcare. Me too. Still, given its potential, I’m always interested in hearing more, and the following article struck me as offering some worthwhile ideas.

The article, which was written by Humberto Alexander Lee of Tesser Health, looks at ways in which AI tools can reduce data complexity and detect patterns which would be difficult or even impossible for humans to detect.

His list of AI’s transformative powers includes the following:

  • Identifying diseases and providing diagnoses

AI algorithms can predict when people are likely to develop heart disease far more accurately than humans. For example, at Google healthcare technology subsidiary Verily, scientists created an algorithm that can predict heart disease by looking at the back of a person’s eyes and pinpoint early signs of specific heart conditions.

  • Crowdsourcing treatment options and monitoring drug response

As wearable devices and mobile applications mature, and data interoperability improves thanks to standards such as FHIR, data scientists and clinicians are beginning to generate new insights using machine learning. This is leading to customizable treatments that can provide better results than existing approaches.

  • Monitoring health epidemics

While performing such a task would be virtually impossible for humans, AI and AI-related technologies can sift through staggering pools of data, including government intelligence and millions of social media posts, and combine them with ecological, biogeographical and public health information, to track epidemics. In some cases, this process will predict health threats before they blossom.

  • Virtual assistance helping patients and physicians communicate clearly

AI technology can improve communication between patients and physicians, including by creating software that simplifies patient communication, in part by transforming complex medical terminology into digestible information. This helps patients and physicians engage in a meaningful two-way conversation using mobile devices and portals.

  • Developing better care management by improving clinical documentation

Machine learning technology can improve documentation, including user-written patient notes, by analyzing millions of rows of data and letting doctors know if any data is missing or clarification is needed on any procedures. Also, Deep Neural Network algorithms can sift through information in written clinical documentation. These processes can improve outcomes by identifying patterns almost invisible to human eyes.

Lee is so bullish on AI that he believes we can do even more than he has described in his piece. And generally speaking, it’s hard to disagree with him that there’s a great deal of untapped potential here.

That being said, Lee cautions that there are pitfalls we should be aware of when we implement AI. What risks do you see in widespread AI implementation in healthcare?

London Doctors Stage Protest Over Rollout Of App

Posted on April 18, 2018 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.

We all know that doctors don’t take kindly to being forced to use health IT tools. Apparently, that’s particularly the case in London, where a group of general practitioners recently held a protest to highlight their problems with a telemedicine app rolled out by the National Health Service.

The doctors behind the protest are unhappy with the way the NHS structured its rollout of the smartphone app GP at Hand, which they say has created extra work and confusion among the patients.

The service, which is run by UK-based technology company Babylon Health, launched in November of last year. Using the app, patients can either have a telemedicine visit or schedule an in-person appointment with a GP’s office. Telemedicine services are available 24/7, and patients can be seen in minutes in some cases.

GP at Hand seems to be popular with British consumers. Since its launch, over 26,000 patients have registered for the service, according to the NHS.

However, to participate in the service, patients are automatically de-registered from their existing GP office when they register for GP at Hand. Many patients don’t seem to have known this. According to the doctors at the protest, they’ve been getting calls from angry former patients demanding that they be re-registered with their existing doctor’s office.

The doctors also suggest that the service gets to cherry-pick healthier, more profitable patients, which weighs down their practice. “They don’t want patients with complex mental health problems, drug problems, dementia, a learning disability or other challenging conditions,” said protest organizer Dr. Jackie Applebee. “We think that’s because these patients are expensive.” (Presumably, Babylon is paid out of a separate NHS fund than the GPs.)

Is there lessons here for US-based healthcare providers? Perhaps so.

Of course, the National Health Service model is substantially different from the way care is delivered in this country, so the administrative challenges involved in rolling out a similar service could be much different. But this news does offer some lessons to consider nonetheless.

For one thing, it reminds us that even in a system much different than ours, financing and organizing telemedicine services can be fraught with conflict. Reimbursement would be an even bigger issue than it seems to have been in the UK.

Also, it’s also of note that the NHS and Babylon Health faced a storm of patient complaints about the way the service was set up. It’s entirely possible that any US-based efforts would generate their own string of unintended consequences, the magnitude which would be multiplied by the fact that there’s no national entity coordinating such a rollout.

Of course, individual health systems are figuring out how to offer telemedicine and blend it with access to in-person care. But it’s telling that insurers with a national presence such as CIGNA or Humana aren’t plunging into telemedicine with both feet. At least none of them have seen substantial success in their efforts. Bottom line, offering telehealth is much harder than it looks.

Should Apps with Personal Health Information Be Subject to HIPAA?

Posted on April 10, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Erin Gilmer (@GilmerHealthLaw).

With news of Grindr’s sharing of user’s HIV status and location data, many wonder how such sensitive information could be so easily disclosed and the answer is quite simply a lack of strong privacy and security standards for apps.  The question then becomes whether apps that store personal health information should be subject to HIPAA? Should apps like Grindr have to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules as doctors, insurance companies, and other covered entities already do?

A lot of people already think this information is protected by HIPAA as they do not realize that HIPAA only applies to “covered entities” (health care providers, health plans, and health care clearininghouses) and “business associates” (companies that contract with covered entities).  Grindr is neither of these. Nor are most apps that address health issues – everything from apps with mental health tools to diet and exercise trackers. These apps can store all manner of information ranging simply from a name and birthdate to sensitive information including diagnoses and treatments.

Grindr is particularly striking because under HIPAA, there are extra protections for information including AIDS/HIV status, mental health diagnoses, genetics, and substance abuse history.  Normally, this information is highly protected and rightly so given the potential for discrimination. The privacy laws surrounding this information were hard fought by patients and advocates who often experienced discrimination themselves.

However, there is another reason this is particularly important in Grindr’s case and that’s the issue of public health.  Just a few days before it was revealed that the HIV status of users had been exposed, Grindr announced that it would push notifications through the app to remind users to get tested.  This was lauded as a positive move and added to the culture created on this app of openness. Already users disclose their HIV status, which is a benefit for public health and reducing the spread of the disease. However, if users think that this information will be shared without explicit consent, they may be less likely to disclose their status. Thus, not having privacy and security standards for apps with sensitive personal health information, means these companies can easily share this information and break the users’ trust, at the expense of public health.

Trust is one of the same reasons HIPAA itself exists.  When implemented correctly, the Privacy and Security Rules lend themselves to creating an environment of safety where individuals can disclose information that they may not want others to know.  This then allows for discussion of mental health issues, sexually transmitted diseases, substance use issues, and other difficult topics. The consequences of which both impact the treatment plan for the individual and greater population health.

It would be sensible to apply a framework like HIPAA to apps to ensure the privacy and security of user data, but certainly some would challenge the idea.  Some may make the excuse that is often already used in healthcare, that HIPAA stifles innovation undue burden on their industry and technology in general.  While untrue, this rhetoric holds sway with government entities who may oversee these companies.

To that end, there is a question of who would regulate such a framework? Would it fall to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) where HIPAA regulation is already overseen? The OCR itself is overburdened, taking months to assess even the smallest of HIPAA complaints.  Would the FDA regulate compliance as they look to regulate more mobile apps that are tied to medical devices?  Would the FCC have a roll?  The question of who would regulate apps would be a fight in itself.

And finally, would this really increase privacy and security? HIPAA has been in effect for over two decades and yet still many covered entities fail to implement proper privacy and security protocols.  This does not necessarily mean there shouldn’t be attempts to address these serious issues, but some might question whether the HIPAA framework would be the best model.  Perhaps a new model, with new standards and consequences for noncompliance should be considered.

Regardless, it is time to start really addressing privacy and security of personal health information in apps. Last year, both Aetna and CVS Caremark violated patient privacy sending mail to patients where their HIV status could be seen through the envelope window. At present it seems these cases are under review with the OCR. But the OCR has been tough on these disclosures. In fact, in May 2017, St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center Inc. paid the OCR $387,200 in a settlement for a breach of privacy information including the HIV status of a patient. So the question is, if as a society, we recognize the serious nature of such disclosures, should we not look to prevent them in all settings – whether the information comes from a healthcare entity or an app?

With intense scrutiny of privacy and security in the media for all aspects of technology, increased regulation may be around the corner and the framework HIPAA creates may be worth applying to apps that contain personal health information.

About Erin Gilmer
Erin Gilmer is a health law and policy attorney and patient advocate. She writes about a range of issues on different forums including technology, disability, social justice, law, and social determinants of health. She can be found on twitter @GilmerHealthLaw or on her blog at www.healthasahumanright.wordpress.com.

CES Really Scared Me. Will HIMSS Make Me Feel Any Better?

Posted on February 22, 2018 I Written By

Mike Semel is a noted thought leader, speaker, blogger, and best-selling author of HOW TO AVOID HIPAA HEADACHES . He is the President and Chief Security Officer of Semel Consulting, focused on HIPAA and other compliance requirements; cyber security; and Business Continuity planning. Mike is a Certified Business Continuity Professional through the Disaster Recovery Institute, a Certified HIPAA Professional, Certified Security Compliance Specialist, and Certified Health IT Specialist. He has owned or managed technology companies for over 30 years; served as Chief Information Officer (CIO) for a hospital and a K-12 school district; and managed operations at an online backup company.

Are Consumer Health Care Products Accurate & Safe Enough for Your Healthcare?

At CES, the monstrous electronics show, I saw lots of consumer devices advertised for personal fitness and healthcare. There was even a Digital Health Summit, with a wide range of industry experts.

Some companies were promoting their ability to send data to healthcare providers. That’s scary, since there are no standards governing many of these devices.

A clear message from CES is that the divisions between ‘technology’ and ‘devices’ are diminishing. Alexa, Google Home, and Siri, won’t be tied to stand-alone devices for long. They will be integrated into a wide range of consumer products across a home network, your car, portable devices, and the Internet. It’s not a big leap of the imagination to think that you will be telling Alexa, in your refrigerator, to reset the alarm clock in your bedroom, for an early meeting. And that Alexa will be telling you that you gained a pound, and send that data to your doctor.

Considering the recent news about Amazon getting into healthcare, with Warren Buffet and JP Morgan, it’s logical to think that Amazon will be delivering our healthcare along with our packages. Will you get a colonoscopy notification from Amazon because someone orders a 50th birthday card for you? (Will they only use lubricant if you have Prime? Ok, that might have been a little harsh.)

Loud and clear from CES is the consumerization of healthcare, and it’s scary.

Will data from your consumer products be accurate enough for a health care provider to form a professional opinion?

Will your devices be safe from hacking and interference?

Who will be liable if something bad happens to you because your data wasn’t accurate, or was delayed in transmission?

Should there be a government or industry-based organization setting standards and certifying devices?

ACCURACY

Valencell makes biometric sensor chips for companies to use in their consumer products. They displayed stylish brand-name smart watches that imbed their biometric-sensor chips.

Valencell’s President, Steven LeBoeuf, said that there are no standards for consumer heart monitors. His chips are voluntarily lab-tested and certified for accuracy. He said that some of their competitors’ products can confuse a person’s steps, as they are walking or running, as a heartbeat.

While that might not matter too much to a person casually checking their own vitals, what will happen if incorrect data is sent upstream to your healthcare provider?

This diagram, produced by iHealth, a company that makes ‘consumer-friendly, mobile personal healthcare products that connect to the cloud’, clearly shows their expectation that your data will be communicated to hospitals.

iHealth aptly describes this as a Systematic Framework. Think about how many vendors will be involved in the system. Device manufacturers, chip manufacturers, software designers, programmers, computer companies, communication networks, Internet service providers, cloud services, and more, all before data gets to the hospital.

What if there is a failure? What happens to you if your healthcare is depending on a consumer device? Who is responsible for the security and accuracy of the data through the system? Wanna bet that everyone will be pointing their finger at someone else?

SAFETY

What will protect you from your devices? There are an increasing numbers of stories of consumer products and autonomous cars – the Internet of Things (IoT) – being hacked.

In August, 2017, the FDA issued a warning that a pacemaker was vulnerable to hackers who could remotely kill the battery or modify the performance of the pacemaker. Killing the battery could kill the patient. Remember that this recall occurred because a pacemaker is a medical device governed by the FDA, which doesn’t govern consumer healthcare products.

The Equifax breach, the Spectre and Meltdown flaws in computer microchips, and hackers hijacking baby monitors and surveillance cameras, all show the importance of being able to apply software and firmware patches and updates.

It took a long time for the government to require car companies to recall vehicles for safety problems. How many people will be hurt, or die, before consumer health care products get regulated?

LIABILITY

At CES, AIG Insurance presented this graphic of survey results showing who is liable for a driverless vehicle crash.

Imagine personal injury attorneys salivating over consumer health care product failures. Imagine new types of insurance coverage – or new types of policy exceptions – related to managing healthcare based on consumer product data.

STANDARDS & REGULATIONS

What’s the difference between a medical device and a consumer health care product? What defines a heart monitor? How accurate is a scale? How will a consumer health care product receive security patches? How will consumers be notified their health care products aren’t safe?

Do we want the federal government involved? In 1966, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act required auto manufacturers to notify the government and consumers of safety defects, and recall vehicles. Could our dysfunctional Congress ever agree on a plan to regulate consumer health care products?

What about the industry policing itself? At his annual briefing at CES, electronics industry veteran Shelly Palmer made his case for a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO) to create and enforce standards to protect consumers from risks associated with the Internet of Things.

The model for this could be PCI-DSS, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards, that govern organizations that accept and process credit cards. This standard is self-regulated by a council founded by the credit card companies, and is not overseen by federal or state agencies. It covers credit card processing from end-to-end, from certifying the swipe device on the store’s counter all the way through the merchant processors and banks.

According to its website, the council “provides critical tools needed for implementation of the standards such as assessment and scanning qualifications, self-assessment questionnaires, training and education, and product certification programs.

If you are a healthcare professional, isn’t this the level of integrity and security you want for consumer products sending patient data to you?

Who would take on the responsibility, not to mention the liability, of policing consumer products sending data to healthcare organizations? The Consumer Technology Association (CTA), or the Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS)?

Will it take a disaster for us to find out?

Maybe I will find some answers at the HIMSS health IT conference. I sure hope so.

Hospitals Still Lagging On Mobile

Posted on January 18, 2018 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.

One would think that these days, when the desktop computer is an extension of mobile devices rather than the other way around, hospitals would have well-defined, mature plans in place for managing mobile technology. But according to one survey, that’s definitely not the case.

In a study sponsored by Spok, which provides clinical communication services, many healthcare providers are still in the early years of developing a mobile strategy.

The study, which drew on contacts with more than 300 healthcare professionals in the US, found that 21% had had a mobile strategy in place for less than one year, 40% for one to three years,14% for 3 to 5 years and 25% for more than five years. In other words, while one-quarter of organizations had settled in and developed a mobile approach, an almost equal amount were just getting their feet wet.

Not only that, many of those who do have a mobile strategy in place may be shooting from the hip. While 65% of those surveyed had a documented mobility strategy in place, 35% didn’t.

That being said, it seems that organizations that have engaged with mobile are working hard to tweak their strategy regularly. According to Spok, their reasons for updating the strategy include:

* Shifting mobile needs of end-users (44%)
* The availability of new mobile devices (35%)
* New capabilities from the EHR vendor (26%)
* Changes in goals of mobile strategy (23%)
* Challenges in implementing the strategy (21%)
* Changes in hospital leadership (16%)

(Seven percent said their mobile strategy had not changed since inception, and 23% weren’t sure what changes had been made.)

Nonetheless, other data suggest there has been little progress in integrating mobile strategy with broader hospital goals.

For example, while 53% wanted to improve physician-to-physician communications, only 19% had integrated mobile strategy with this goal. Fifty-three percent saw nurse-to-physician communications as a key goal, but only 18% had integrated this goal with their mobile plans. The gaps between other top strategies and integration with mobile plans were similar across the strategic spectrum.

Ultimately, it’s likely that it will take a team approach to bring these objectives together, but that’s not happening in the near future. According to respondents, the IT department will implement mobile in 82% of institutions surveyed, 60% clinical leadership, 37% doctors, 34% telecom department, 27% nurses and 22% outside help from consultants and vendors. (Another 16% didn’t plan to have a dedicated team in place.)

The whole picture suggests that while the hospital industry is gradually moving towards integrating mobile into its long-term thinking, it has a ways to go. Given the potential benefits of smart mobile use, let’s hope providers catch up quickly.

iOS vs Android Infographic

Posted on June 7, 2017 I Written By

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

The iOS and Android debate is a good one that never seems to end. The good news is that the debate is really only iOS and Android now. However, the reality in my mind is that most healthcare app developers need to do both regardless.

That said, I think that this infographic illustrates some differences in the culture of the iOS ecosystem and the Android ecosystem. It’s not really surprising when you realize that there are only expensive iOS devices and so it’s no surprise that people with iOS devices have more money. Whereas there are high end Android devices and there are low end Android devices. I wonder if the numbers would be very similar between those who have high end Android devices and iOS. I bet those populations would be very similar.

What are your thoughts on the debate between iOS and Android? Does it really matter at this point?


Via: InvestmentZen.com

Could the Future of Healthcare Not Include Telemedicine?

Posted on May 3, 2017 I Written By

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

Recently the ATA (American Telemedicine Association) held their annual conference which looks at the telemedicine and telehealth industry. I’ve always wanted to attend the event, but they’ve never had it at a time or a location that worked out well for me. One of these days I’m going to add it to my schedule of healthcare IT conferences. Until then, at least I can follow along with the conference on Twitter.

Coming out of the opening plenary session was this really interesting quote about telemedicine tweeted by the ATA twitter account:

I’d probably add that Telemedicine is the natural evolution of healthcare and technology. In fact, it’s clear to me that there’s no practical reason we shouldn’t be doing telemedicine for a large portion of our interactions with the healthcare system. It won’t replace all of them, but it should replace a lot of them.

The title of this post asks the question “Could the Future of Healthcare Not Include Telemedicine?”

My answer to that question is that I see no healthcare future where telemedicine doesn’t play a major role. It’s taken us forever to figure out telemedicine reimbursement. We’ve made progress but still have a long way to go. However, I don’t see any reason why telemedicine would not be a part of the future of healthcare.

Or as Andrew Watson, MD said, “Telemedicine is the natural evolution of healthcare.” We’re going to naturally go there whether people like it or not. It’s hard to kick against evolution and that’s true for telemedicine too.