Mighty Casey Media: Comedy Health Analyst

Stop screaming. Laughing hurts less.

Social media

Primary + People/Patients = Winning?

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been all over ever’where so far this year, invited to participate in a number of events that, taken together, seem to indicate there’s some progress being made on “healthcare system transformation,” even if it’s still happening at a glacial pace. One of these events was the Starfield Summit, put together by the Robert Graham Center, which is the policy think-tank arm of the American Academy of Family Physicians. I fielded an invite when the Graham Center reached out to the Lown Institute to ask if there was a patient-type human who might lend something to the conversation as an attendee.

So I took the “let patients help” rallying cry to DC for a couple days of lock-in with a bunch of primary care docs and the wonks who love them. Which, by the way, includes me, which you know if you’ve been paying attention. Primary care docs are the ideal partners for people/patients who are working to shift the USS Medical Industrial Complex aircraft carrier – both primary care MDs and patients are low on the medical-industrial complex power pole, so if we team up, we might be able to boost each other up to start showing up on the power radar.

If you’d like a good overview of the importance and impact of primary care on a health system, something that Ben Miller shared on the first day is a great précis. Money quote from the conclusion, IMO:

Primary care is imperative for building a strong healthcare system that ensures positive health outcomes, effectiveness and efficiency, and health equity. It is the first contact in a healthcare system for individuals […]. It provides individual and family-focused and community-oriented care for preventing, curing or alleviating common illnesses and disabilities, and promoting health.

What I heard, saw, and discussed over the two days tells me that a power amplification is not fully “there” yet, but it’s building. My ticket to the party is one indicator, the other is that I made it clear during my time there that I brought a penetrating view of the system as it is, the system as it could be, and how we might work together – primary care clinicians and people/patients – to turn our aircraft carrier away from grounding on the rocks of “sucks up 47 times its weight in GDP” economic disaster. Oh, and not kill folks in the process, since that’s also a good goal, right? Quality, lower cost, satisfied patients, satisfied *providers* – the quadruple aim that AAFP itself codified a few years ago.

The format of the event was refreshing – there was the usual “sit in a big room, listen to wonks, watch slide decks” stuff, but that was broken up over the two days by what I’ll call “working group breakouts” where we assembled in small groups, in separate rooms, to wrestle the Big Ideas under discussion, which were:

20160424_084730

Just a small topic, since it’s the core of everything, right? Primary care IS healthcare, but primary care clinicians are paid much lower reimbursement rates than, say, cardiac surgeons (thanks to the RUC, who make sure the *specialty* MDs get the big bucks re reimbursement), primary MDs/NPs/RNs have low-on-the-pole status when it comes to $$. And $$ = power in most cultures, including ours. My key takeaways from that segment of the session, which tackled

  1. Payment, measurement, and the primary care paradox
  2. What does effective primary care look like?
  3. Disruptive innovations in primary care payment
  4. Primary care payment, social determinants, and community risk

can be summed up in one statement from my breakouts, “we have internalized the oppressor.” This tweet also sums up the discussion pretty well.

Lunch featured a keynote by Shannon Brownlee of the Lown Institute. Ben Miller captured the essence here:

Next on the Big Ideas discussion list was the metrics of primary care. Specifically:

  1. Measuring primary care: lessons from the UK quality outcomes framework
  2. Payment reform, performance measurement, and delivery system transformation
  3. Measuring the three Cs: comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordination
  4. Payment and measurement innovations in the primary care of children

My takeaways from the 3+ hours we spent wrestling those ideas and input can be summed up with:

  • Embracing the concept of a Learning Health System is the only way forward (next time, they must invite Josh Rubin to the party!)
  • Without the community fully embedded in the creation and governance of a healthcare system, you’re measuring the wrong stuff
  • Adding health literacy – “how my body works” and “how doctors/nurses/care workers can help me” – to K-12 education HAS. TO. HAPPEN.
  • We have to stop admiring the problem and start actually CHANGING the system

Core issue? This:

Day 2 kicked off with an examination of how primary care teams can impact the success or failure of a system of care. The pieces of that puzzle:

  1. Innovations in primary care teams
  2. Linking primary care, public health, and the community
  3. Integrated teams (primary care + mental health)
  4. Training a diverse primary care team

My time on the board of Virginia Supportive Housing (2004 – 2010) gave me a close-up view of the power of the “housing first” model in health/mental health care in an underserved population, and the exponential impact that addressing the social determinants of health has on the actual health of an individual, and therefore that person’s community at large. Help someone get off the street – “housing first” – and provide them with wraparound services, including basic healthcare, and magic happens. Yeah, it’s complicated, but as Winston Liaw said in his welcome on Day 2:

My takeaway from that morning round of robust discussion lined up as:

  • Effective teaming will take agitation from the lower depths (citizens, community health workers) to shake up status quo
  • A shared leadership model has to emerge, one that includes PEOPLE (the ones called “patients) in system leader positions
  • “It takes time” can’t supersede the desperate need for rapid-cycle change in the healthcare system (stop admiring the problem!)
  • Until healthcare includes mental health, full-stop, we’ll be stuck in cycling #fail

The afternoon sessions tackled:

  1. Building primary care teams
  2. Advancing teamwork between the medical home and the medical neighborhood
  3. Shifting culture of primary care teams
  4. Statewide innovations in primary care payment

My favorite quick-hit presentation from that set was Andrew Morris-Singer from Primary Care Progress, who said, among many other things, that

On the topic of building primary care teams, he said this:

That one in the lower right – “trust” – is bedrock. Without trust, none of this will happen, and trust only happens when you have face-time to build a relationship. That’s true inside the medical team, and double-true when you’re talking care team/community relationship building.

Elephants, middlemen, and systems – oh, my!

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been MIA here, but I’ve been loud/proud pretty much everywhere else in the last few months. Including here and here.  What follows is a rant based on what I’ve been seeing/doing since last seen on this page.

Elephants

There’s an old joke that goes like this: “What’s an elephant?” “It’s a mouse designed by a government committee.” There’s also the old “elephant in the room” bromide about topics that are not to be mentioned under any circumstances, despite their obvious impact on the issue under discussion. And the “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” motivational meme, along with the “blind guys describing an elephant” metaphor used to explain the impact of silo-ed thinking.

We’re up to our parietal bones in pachyderms in the healthcare transformation discussion. The biggest one – you can call him Jumbo, or you could call him Dumbo – is always in the room. What I call him is Huckster Nation.

elephant in the room by banksy
Image: Banksy

What do I mean? I mean the underpinning of pretty much all of American culture – the carnival barker sales guy (guy in this usage is gender neutral). We are a nation of flacks, flogging everything from Sham-Wow to space stations, and that includes our healthcare system. Hell, I’m selling myself, or at least I’m offering to rent out the contents of my cranium in exchange for coin of the realm, as are we all, in one way or another.

Americans have taken this to the level of a cultural art form, in that we’ve built our national myth around economic freedom. That it works out to be a literal myth for too many of us – income divide, I’m talking to you – is part of what I’m calling out here, but for the moment let’s focus on the carnival barkers sales guys in US healthcare, shall we?

I’m taking about the ….

Middlemen

Who are the middlemen in healthcare? Apart from the obvious ones – the health insurers, including Medicare, who administer the payment/money side of healthcare delivery – there are a metric sh*t ton of middlemen of all sorts threaded throughout the system. To use a biology metaphor, let’s call the ones that help Good Bacteria and the ones that don’t help Ebola Outbreaks. By the way, I’m defining “help” as an effort at improving something: making care more accessible, creating technology that improves care/care process, research that discovers new treatments.

Here are some examples of Good Bacteria:

  • Organizations that build health literacy tools to improve people’s access to and understanding of healthcare (click here for an example)
  • Open-access scientific journals (click here and here for examples)
  • Companies that build tech that helps patients, or clinical teams, or patients AND clinical teams (click here and here for examples)

Here are some Ebola Outbreaks:

  • Any commercial enterprise operating the healthcare sector that puts ROI above human lives (click here for an example)
  • Not-for-profit healthcare systems that treat humans solely as profit modules (click here for an example)
  • Health insurance companies that allow games of “gotcha” where their covered lives are the game pieces (click here for a Modern Healthcare piece on the issue)

Systems

Which brings me to the whole US healthcare system conundrum, which was summed up pretty well by my friend Dan Munro:

system isn't broken image
Image: Dan Munro

I attended the Population Health Alliance Forum conference recently in DC. I was surrounded by middlemen – some Good Bacteria, some Ebola Outbreaks – as I sat and listened to clinicians, analytics geeks, policy wonks, and carnival barkers sales guys talk about issues in population health. Population health is defined as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.” Meaning that in most conversations where the phrase appears, you’re talking about Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI), or Medicare. So the attendees were heavy on the big insurer and big health provider side, with a strong showing in the “we want to sell our stuff to big insurers and big health providers” cohort.

I was, as far as I could tell, the only person wearing the “I’m a patient here, myself” label. I guess I was the patient voice carnival barker sales guy. Hey, we’re all selling something, even if it’s only an idea.

Meanwhile, I’m surrounded by system players in a series of hotel ballrooms in DC. I found myself getting a little shouty with frustration on Twitter:

That last one – the “what’s the ROI?” thing – was fueled by rage. The US healthcare system, which sucks up $3 trillion-with-a-T every year – making it the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but 11th on the Top 10 list on health outcomes – is stuck on a “what’s the ROI?” loop, driven by the carnival barkers sales guys, while human lives sink below the metric radar. In other words, loot trumps lives.

In the metaphor I’m using in this post, Ebola Outbreaks are overwhelming the Good Bacteria. So here’s what we gotta do – we gotta call out Ebola Outbreaks when and wherever they appear. If you see one, shout it out – preferably in public, like on Twitter! – and tag me. I’ll be “Nurse with the Good Bacteria,” and whistle up both some outrage, and some common sense solutions.

Let’s not keep the insanity that is $3T+/year in exchange for “sorta OK” on a lather/rinse/repeat cycle. Who’s with me?

UPDATE: Patients ARE smarter (and louder) … here’s proof

by 1 Comment

It’s been a fun week here in Mighty Casey Media Land. We kicked off the week a little early (on Sunday) – the 411 on that is available here, and some of the social exhaust is available on Storify here and here. One member of the e-patient posse worried that the guy was gon’ have to enter witness protection, given the avalanche of opprobrium aimed his way from the expert-patient community.

In an email thread among a group of expert patients working on aggregating and curating patient-useable outcomes reporting tools, Dr. Corrie Painter said she had called the Brookings Institution, the think tank where the author of the US News piece that set my hair on fire does his think-tank thing, and left a terse message on the Governance Studies main line about pontificating patriarchal putzes (technical term).

Given my willingness to talk to anyone, any time, if it moves the needle on healthcare system transformation, I went one better and called the *other* number on the guy’s bio page. I expected to wind up leaving a voicemail, but …

He. Answered. The. Phone.

We talked for about 30 minutes, during which I assured him that I did *not* think that Yelp reviews were the ne plus ultra, or even a thing, when it came to outcome metrics on physicians and other clinical providers of medical services. But, as I pointed out in my “I’m channeling Lewis Black, with boobs, in healthcare here: righteous rage + cutting humor = driving that point home!” post, what real metrics are *available* to patients seeking intel on the expertise and outcomes of the doctors they go to for care?

There are PQRS and Physician Compare data sets, but they’re pretty small beer. Physician Compare serves up Medicare data – just *try* to find intel on a pediatrician, or an obstetrician, in that reporting tool.

In a follow-up post of his own, Yaraghi clarified his position on online review sites like Yelp *not* being the right place for medical provider ratings based on medical training, outcomes, or efficacy of care. His closing graf is the money shot for me:

Patients’ involvement in their medical care is the best thing that could happen to our severely sick health care system. Patients should have access to reliable and valid data to help them decide about their medical provider. They should have the capacity to shop around and visit multiple providers. Healthcare is the most important service we obtain in our life and being able to choose who provides it, in my opinion, is a fundamental patient right. Currently available online patient reviews however, are not the correct measure to rely on when making such a decision.

Net/net here: Niam Yaraghi is a guy with an open mind on the idea of patient expertise. In the days and weeks to come, I hope that the e-patient community turns out in force to engage him in conversation, and to make their case for both patient expertise and the deep need for effective, accessible physician scoring – on number of procedures, on patient satisfaction, on recurrence rates, on all stats relating to the efficacy and humanity of their care – that people can use to find the best doctor for their healthcare needs.

If you’d like proof of the kumbaya here, [now updated with video capture] here’s the Google Hangout on Air  hosted by David Harlow, HealthBlawg, who started this whole thing with a Twitter DM.


Print

From the Patients Are Smarter Than You Think Desk …

by 8 Comments

See this UPDATE, too.

Sundays are pretty quiet here in Mighty Casey Media Land. Yeah, there are those Sundays where I read my wall calendar without my glasses on, and totally think it’s Father’s Day when it’s really Flag Day … but that’s about as exciting as it gets most weeks.

Today is one of the latter Sundays, where I not only cause a Father’s Day panic on Facebook (yeah, that’s a thing), but also get Twitter DMs that set my hair on fire. Which you know, if you’ve been hangin’ round this water cooler for a while, is never a good thing.

This morning, I picked up my phone while I was waiting for my coffee to brew, and what ho – a DM from my friend HealthBlawg with a link to a “stupid patients, don’t Yelp doctors” piece on US News with the headline “Online Doctor Ratings Are Garbage.” The piece is by Niam Yaraghi, whose pieces on US News usually have me nodding along in full agreement … but not this time.

In the “don’t Yelp, bitch” piece, Yaraghi essentially tells people they’re too stupid to understand medical care’s value and outcomes, that we should just lie back and think of England and let those nice doctors do their work.

Let’s take ’em in order, shall we?

Patients are neither qualified nor capable of evaluating the quality of the medical services that they receive.

Seriously?? Does Yaraghi know any cancer patients, or people with MS, or ALS, or rheumatoid disease, or diabetes? I’m pretty sure the answer there is “no,” that he knows a whole bunch of polysyllabic “experts” due to his work at Brookings, but very few ASPs (Actual Sick People). The patient community is teaching the clinical community constantly about both medical research and business operations.

I’ll say it again: input from the patient community is, daily, saving the bacon of MDs/NPs/PhDs and other letter-after-name denizens of the medical-industrial complex and their minions.

So slow your roll, Niam, and the next time you meet an ASP, thank them for their *own* work on healthcare quality improvement.

If patients are not qualified to make medical decisions and rely on physicians’ medical expertise to make such decisions, then how can they evaluate the quality of such decisions and know that their doctor’s decision was the best possible one?

It’s spelled S-C-I-E-N-C-E, bitch.

But hey, most of gen-pop (people who are temporarily, not permanently, ASP – like when they break their leg, or get pneumonia) might not be as UpToDate (yes, many of us read PubMed, and even understand it) as a practiced e-patient ASP. So what do most people do when they need to find some on-the-ground help for a health issue? They hit the web … and usually find us. Or Dr. Oz, which is regrettable, but that snake oil PR machine has got a big f**king ad budget. But even if they hit Oz first, they usually wind up with us.

And hey, are DOCTORS even the real experts when it comes to evaluating the efficacy of their treatments? Plenty of evidence suggests that clinicians get as stuck in Usual Suspects-ville as does any other profession. I call it We’ve Always Done It This Way syndrome. It takes 17 years, on average, for proven science to arrive at the point of care. If you get diagnosed with [pick a really big disease], do you want to just trust that your MD is up on all the latest treatment options, or do you want to be *sure* s/he is? Welcome to Dr. Google, dude. Yelp reviews don’t turn up on condition-specific searches, but *we* sure do.

Since patients do not have the medical expertise to judge the quality of physicians’ decisions in the short run and are neither capable of evaluating the outcomes of such decisions in the long run, their feedback would be limited to their immediate interaction with medical providers and their staff members.

I’ve addressed the “science, bitch!” thing above, but let’s drill in on that “outcomes” point, shall we? Have you, yourself, ever tried to find outcomes data on a doctor? Pack a lunch. A lunch that can last for days. Physician Compare on Medicare’s (CMS) site looks like it could serve up some stats … but it doesn’t serve up much beyond “has EHR tech that fulfills Meaningful Use requirements.” Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS – another CMS data bank project) serves up a whole lotta data – in table or spreadsheet form – but it’s pretty hard to parse “quality” from “takes Medicare” or “participates in PQRS” or “participates in eRX.” No notations as to whether s/he is Dr. Hodad.

How about, rather than bitch about patients who want to serve up UX (User Experience) data on their clinical teams, you use your keyboard to help create some clarity on quality reporting that can be understood BY. AVERAGE. HUMANS.

Instead of the quality of the medical services, patients would evaluate the bedside manners of physicians, decor of their offices and demeanor of their staff.

Bedside manner is no indication of the value of the care received at the hands of a clinician. I’ve had doctors look deep into my eyes, hold my hand, and then do a hard sell for a pharmaceutical product of questionable efficacy for my condition. I’ve taken a show about that on the road (sort of), which you can read about here.

Office decor reviews for doctors’ offices will only add ordnance to the arms race that US healthcare has become, where providers build more and more luxurious settings for us to get questionably effective care in … and then charge us higher fees for that care, since marble is really expensive.

To choose the best medical provider, patients are encouraged to rely on measures of medical expertise and avoid invalid online reviews. 

And just how the French-pressed **** are we supposed to do that, Niam? Having the whole alphabet after your name on a list of medical specialty MDs is no guarantee, at all, of either efficacy of care, or basic humanity.

Dr. Farid Fata had a solid platinum set of credentials as an oncologist – residency at Maimonides Medical Center, an oncology fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and a respected practice in the Detroit metro area for over a decade – until the FBI burst into his offices on August 6, 2013 to arrest him for fraud. He’d diagnosed and treated people for cancer who did not have cancer. BTW, there were no Yelp reviews for his practice.

Here’s the thing: patients KNOW STUFF. Rather than telling us to shut up and stop Yelping, how about you recommend *listening* as a cure for what ails US healthcare? I’m a Yelp Elite reviewer – that and $4 will get me a crap fancy coffee at Starbucks – who’s a globally recognized patient voice, and I’ve posted four reviews of health/medical facilities (a 3% rate of review in my total number of 141 reviews to date). Two of those facilities are mammography practices. I’ve had breast cancer, so as experts go … yeah, I am one.

I don’t use Yelp reviews on my checklist for choosing a new member of my clinical care team, because I’m an e-patient expert with a massive global network in both the medical and patient communities.

So, hey, Niam, what’s your recommended roll for someone who’s got [insert suspected diagnosis here] and is looking for credible, actionable information to inform their decision tree? Until the clinical side of the house gets their outcomes reporting sh*t together … people gon’ Yelp.

Shut up and deal.

yelp welcome screen

Shared decision making, please

by 2 Comments

You’ve heard me before (here, here, and here for a start) on the subject of shared decision making (SDM). Short version: I’m an advocate for partnership in medical care. Partnership that includes the values, outcome goals, and cost considerations of THE. PATIENT. Which means shared decision making.

My buddies over at Software Advice have just published the results of a survey* they did in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic’s Knowledge and Evaluation Research (KER) Unit that took a deep dive into what’s happening in the real world with SDM, and what patients who are exposed to the process think of it.

The key findings:

  1. A majority of patients (68 percent) say they would prefer to make collaborative decisions about treatment options with their healthcare provider.
  2. Forty percent of patients say they have participated in SDM before, and 21 percent have done so within the past year.
  3. Most patients surveyed say that SDM improves their satisfaction (89 percent) and makes them feel more involved in the care they receive (87 percent).
  4. Nearly half (41 percent) of patients report that they would be “much more likely” to adhere to a treatment plan developed using SDM.
  5. 47 percent of patients would be “extremely” or “very likely” to switch to a provider whose practice offers SDM.

If you click through to the full article in the 2nd graf, you’ll see a number of graphs and charts reporting on patients’ responses to questions about provider choice and treatment protocol adherence – one of my least favorite words, but it’s a favorite of pharma and healthcare system peeps, so there it is. The pie chart that stood out for me was this one:

Likelihood to Switch to SDM Provider

11-likelihood-switch

 

For the math-challenged, 80% of the patients surveyed were moderately, very, or extremely likely to switch to a healthcare provider who practices SDM. Physicians and other clinicians who interact with patients at the point of care need to digest this: fully informing patients of the treatment options available to them, and working with patients to craft a treatment plan TOGETHER, is a survival strategy for the clinician. Ignore SDM principles at the peril of your continued professional relevance.

This is particularly timely given my upcoming attendance at the Lown Institute’s Road to RightCare: Engage, Organize, Transform conference in San Diego March 8 through March 11. I’ll be hearing from researchers, clinical teams, patient voices, and policy wonks on how to create a right-care healthcare system whose bedrock is shared decision making.

Also, the recent JAMA Oncology articles on the myth of the demanding patient, which myth has formed some of the institutional-side (translation: dinosaur providers) pushback against the wide adoption of patient input on their treatment (in other words: SDM) in the U.S. and elsewhere, are starting to knock down the walls that have kept SDM from becoming the standard medical practice model it should be.

“Nothing about me, without me” is a rallying cry of the participatory medicine movement. Shared decision making is, I believe, part of an overall civil rights issue, since patients who aren’t asked their goals and preferences for treatment are being given care that isn’t their choice. A real hurdle for SDM is going to be the inevitable end-of-life conversation – life is, after all, 100% fatal – that we all have to have, unless we die suddenly in a plane crash or car wreck.

Where are you on the SDM spectrum? Does your doctor talk you through all your options, or just write you a prescription or send you for a scan? “Shut up and do as I say” medicine needs to be consigned to the scrapheap of history. Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts in the comments.

*Source: Practice Management systems consultancy Software Advice

EHR technology: Match.com without a happy ending?

by 3 Comments

My last two posts explored the question of the doctor/patient relationship in the context of romantic relationships. The first one asked if we were anywhere close to getting engaged, the second looked at the possibility that the whole enchilada needed some intervention-level relationship counseling.

In the couple of weeks since, I’ve had some interesting digital and face to face conversations about digital communication tools, patient engagement, and the doctor/patient relationship that have led me to ask if the crop of EHR (Electronic Health Record) systems in current use across the land, as part of Obamacare’s drive toward healthcare system quality, safety, and access (or, as I like to put it, to the tune of “Old McDonald Had a Farm,” EHR, HIE, E-I-E-I-O!), aren’t analogous to online dating sites like Match.com.

healthcare cupid imageWhich leads me to the observation that the EHR tech I see – all of it, from Epic to Practice Fusion to athenahealth to NextGen to Cerner – can in many ways be compared to Match.com. You put in personal data – name, personal details, outcome goals – and the technology (supposedly) helps you toward your goal. With EHR, that’s best-health, with Match.com, it’s a romantic relationship, but both take data input, digitize it, and claim to provide solutions based on that input.

And I have to say that my observed success ratio on both EHR technology and online dating is similar. As in: mostly it feels like “failure to launch.”

So … go grab a cup of coffee, or a bottle of water. This will be a lengthy look at that question, but I promise to bring it home with at least a couple of laughs along with my pointed observations.

The leading lights of healthcare IT haven’t made the doctor-patient relationship any easier to create and maintain than Match.com has for romatic relationships. For every success story, there are hundreds (thousands? millions?) of examples of bitter frustration. With the billions (yes, with a B) spent on buying and implementing EHR systems, the phrase “meaningful use” – which was supposed to be the demonstration of clinical and patient communication tools to enable better quality healthcare – has become a punchline.

A couple of weeks ago, I shared a post from The Health Care Blog by Bob Wachter, an interview with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center CIO John Halamka, on my social media channels. In it, Halamka said that only 3% of patients wanted their health records kept locked up tight behind virtual doors, so he had to lock up the data of the other 97% to keep the 3% happy. When I shared that post on my LinkedIn profile, it opened a conversation about that statement, such as what the heck the underlying facts to support it were.

“It’s interesting that the 3% figure was not referenced. I am not in the health informatics field, nor do I have time to do an in depth literature review for discussion. However, a quick Google search yields several informative studies. One small study (n=30) of patient preferences found that patients wanted granularity in terms of what they want to share, or not share. No participant wanted to universally share ALL information. Another study (n=105) reported that 1 in 2 patients hid medical information from their own doctors.”

In other words, is that 3%/97% statement the equivalent of creating convenient details about yourself on an online dating profile? When I asked a few people in the e-patient zone about this, I heard this story about how a major health records system in Boston [spoiler alert: Halamka’s IT system] basically spewed garbage instead of useful patient health history data when they opened the data taps to the now-dead Google Health. So, apparently it’s exactly like confabulating facts on an online dating profile. Also, some additional reading led me to a story on CIO about an epic system failure, also in Boston [spoiler alert: I’ll let you figure out what/why], that tied up an entire hospital network’s system for five long days in November 2002.

Back to my metaphor, of EHR tech being analogous to online dating. If the communication partner you’re talking to says they’re a 42 year old architect in Cambridge, or the lab that’s just completed the path report on your biopsy, can you trust what they’re saying? Is there accessible, verifiable information to support the claim? Can you believe what you’re seeing? Can you even SEE what’s really there?

Both of those scenarios rely on trust, and a sense of security. And the ability to actually SEE. WHAT’S. GOING. ON. As Mordac, the “preventer of information services” in the Dilbert comic strip, says, “Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no one would be able to use anything.”

I had the opportunity last week to be part of the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)’s first Patient Engagement Summit in Orlando. Yep, more acronyms – E-I-E-I-O. The two panels I was part of talked about the current state of the doctor/patient relationship, and the overall event was all about how technology can either support, or hinder, that relationship. The crazy part is that both the clinical side of healthcare – doctors, nurses, researchers – and the patient side – the rest of us – are desperately determined to get engaged (with each other), get married (create the best possible outcomes), and live happily ever after (better community health for EVERYBODY!).

The trouble is, I’m afraid, that the tools that are supposed to be the grease on the rails to making that happen – the digital communication systems that hold our care data – are set up by Mordac. Screaming headlines about stuff like the recent Anthem breach are like screaming headlines about sharp rises in sexual assault figures – they’re a real buzz-kill for trust between possible relationship partners.

If you actually know me, you know I’ve taken a rather extreme step toward fostering relationship clarity, doctor/patient-wise. It’s the image that is my Twitter avatar (click that link to see it), and it is a real 3×3″ QR code tattooed on my chest. I can’t say that it has any effect on my dating profile (I bailed on online dating years ago), but it has made many of my healthcare-relationship interactions … interesting.

Can I, or any of us, trust health IT and EHRs to help make our healthcare relationships happy and successful? Or are we stuck in the slough of despond that is Match.com?

Give me your thoughts in the comments …