The Lost Art of Face-to-Face Conversation

Imagine you are in a restaurant and at the next table over you see a family of four. There appears to be a father, mother, and two children. However, no one is talking, laughing, or making eye contact with one another. Instead, they are all looking down at their smart phones. Now imagine you are visiting a healthcare office or hospital and the provider is doing the same thing. This has become a recurring scenario in many health care settings. Doctors, nurses, even therapists interacting with computer screens more than they do with their patients is pretty much the norm. According to a Forbes article, this is known as the “iPatient” phenomenon1.

“i” (iPad, iPhone), has been marketed by Apple® since 1998. Created by Steve Jobs, the “i” in iMac stood for Internet. These days, anything associated with technology, often has either an “i” or an “e” (i.e. eRecords) in front of the word. By putting an “i” or “e” in front of patient, does that take the “human” out of patient and make the “human” more like a “thing”?

Stepping back a second, why are we discussing experiences about less eye contact between patients and healthcare professionals? Oh yes, now I remember, the implementation of the EHR. Technology designed to streamline patient care, produce legible records for other providers caring for patients, and to help health professionals be able to “see” the whole patient (i.e. know what tests have been performed, diagnoses already ruled out, medications tried and determined not to be effective). checklist-2077023_1920It is also supposed to help decrease healthcare costs by reducing redundancy in services by multiple providers and improve healthcare outcomes by allowing the sharing of information across disciplines. All great goals, but are we losing the care in healthcare?

As we grow increasingly reliant on computers to help make decisions, today’s healthcare professionals spend more time in front of the monitor charting and examining tests results and less time meeting the real live person. Remember the days before digital when you could actually hold “data” in your hands? Radiologists used to go over chest films with the medical team. Now a radiologist may be reviewing films at home in the evening alone. Provider rounds are slowly disappearing, along with the time allowed for clinicians to be able to think collectively about what something may mean. Is technology causing us to make decisions faster without giving our human brain time to think and rationalize? Humans are not computers and everything is not according to the textbook or black and white.

Nurse friends of mine that still provide direct patient care in today’s environment state that charting via the “old” paper way actually took less time and gave them more time with the patient. Time with the patient was what they enjoyed and why they became a nurse. E-paperwork was not the care they wanted to provide.  From their perspective, valuable information that they could gather from direct human-to-human contact has suffered. Bedside skills appear to have dropped in inverse proportion to the technology available as evidenced by hospitals having to implement Medical/Surgical Skills Day to ensure that staff remember how to correctly perform basic tasks learned in nursing and medical school.

Based on my own recent office visit, less direct human communication levels started when I walked up to the front desk to check in for my appointment. I was handed an electronic tablet and told to review and sign the documents and make corrections for any data that is wrong. Soon afterwards, my name was called and I headed back to an exam room. My Provider entered the room and went directly over to the computer, pulled up my records (that I just put in) including the reason why I was at the office in the first place. comicNot taking her eyes from the computer, she asked me questions of what brought me there. As I was explaining my symptoms, I noticed that my provider was not even looking my way. She was concentrating on her computer screen and clicking boxes. Yes, being a healthcare professional myself, I understand why she has to do that and yes, I appreciate that it is important that she does it; however, I thought to myself, was my provider even listening to what I was saying.

Back when I was growing up and again later, when I was in nursing school (before computers, as my son would say, “old”), I was taught that if you are not looking at the person that is speaking to you, then you are not listening. Experience has taught me that active listening involves more than the ears. To really understand what a person is telling you, you have to see their facial expressions. It feels like yesterday when I was taught this, but in technology time, it was a lifetime ago. Technology time changes quickly and more frequently. What was here today is gone tomorrow. My Provider did a quick hands on examination, ordered a diagnostic test, and a prescription that was directly sent to the outpatient diagnostic office and pharmacy of my choice according to my healthcare plan. I did not have to do a thing. I was taken completely out of the picture. Almost like I was never even there.

 

What’s your experience?

 

Disclaimer: This Blog is for educational purposes only as well as to provide general information and a general understanding of the topics discussed.  The Blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice and you are advised to seek additional information from your insurance carriers, Medicare and/or Medicaid agencies for additional criteria and regulations regarding these services.

Practice Makes Perfect – But We’re Not There Yet

In my last blog, we looked at the ability to demonstrate meaningful use that includes specific objectives, milestones, and metric requirements to monitor use of health information. We discussed technology, the certified EHR, the tool to help demonstrate meaningful use by having a place to document health care data that can be easily shared across disciplines, thus, allowing healthcare professional to “picture” the entire patient, not just fragments of them. All this aims to demonstrate, through EHR data metrics, that healthcare costs are decreasing (or at least not rising so fast) and healthcare outcomes to the population are improving. It’s all because we are becoming more efficient.

files
Any nostalgia for paper charts out there?

Because we can “see” data real-time and it’s not stored in paper charts at some doctor’s office or in boxes in a storage facility. We can show through data that multiple providers are not performing the same diagnostics tests, less medical errors are occurring, and readmissions to hospitals are on the decline. Can the EHR really do this?

It is not as simple as it may sound to put this into practice and be able to get the metrics needed to demonstrate what’s being requested from the healthcare arena, or at least into today’s healthcare setting. Until recently, health care records were paper located at the individual provider’s office. Providers worked in silos, not sharing with others except by fax transmission or postal mail. Even the patients were not provided copies of their information until HIPAA came along and mandated that a patient be allowed to see and have their own information. But even then, the patient had to request it and pay for it. When a patient was referred to see a specialist, one still could not rely on the information getting back to the primary care provider or what did get communicated was just a summary (without all the details).

Even today, the EHR is not a comprehensive record for each patient. Clinical notes and tests ordered by a patient’s various health care providers cannot be viewed from a single record by all providers, nor is there one patient portal for the patient to access their comprehensive medical record. A patient cannot go to Walgreens® and request their pharmacy records from CVS®. As a result, this can provide an incomplete picture of a patient’s health and behavior. Becoming electronic does not prevent health records from being fragmented, which could affect milestones and metric requirements. In addition, the tool itself does not make the data for the measurements; it still takes a human to enter the data into the tool. At least for now (to learn more about that tale visit our Machine Minded blog). However, with little or no standards on data entry, accurate measurements are a challenge. The old saying still holds true, “garbage in is garbage out”.

On the more positive side, while the EHR is not perfect, we are heading in the right direction. It is still much better than paper and it’s a step closer in regards to being able to demonstrate meaningful use. Having a health record available in real-time to providers and patients is far more useful.

 

 

Disclaimer: This Blog is for educational purposes only as well as to provide general information and a general understanding of the topics discussed.  The Blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice and you are advised to seek additional information from your insurance carriers, Medicare and/or Medicaid agencies for additional criteria and regulations regarding these services.

Does new health IT adoption in hospitals actually impact patient outcomes?

In my last post we talked about how to employ a successful health IT implementation at a hospital. After hospital staff accept and get accustomed to the new processes that are brought by the health IT solutions, a natural question that follows would be how effective these health IT solutions are. In other words, how does health IT adoption in hospitals impact patient outcome? Researchers McCullough, Parente, and Town published an article in 2016 on the RAND Journal of Economics examining exactly this question.

To study this question, they compiled IT adoption data from 4000 hospitals as well as diagnosis and outcomes of their Medicare, fee-for-service (FFS) patients during 2002-2007. The IT solutions they looked at are the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE). necEMRs systematically collect patients’ health information replacing traditional medical charts. CPOE allows providers to electronically enter medical orders for patient services and medications, thus reducing opportunities for miscommunication between disparate care providers. They studied the effect of EMR and CPOE on 3 types of patient outcomes: 60-day mortality rates, length of stay and 30-day hospital readmission.

They hypothesize that Health IT solutions positively affect patient outcomes through two mechanisms: 1) clinical decision support, and 2) information management and care coordination. Clinical decision support can include things like providing rule-based treatment guidelines or preventing drug prescribing errors. Health IT can support information management and care coordination because many conditions require extensive monitoring and testing, and generation of large quantities of clinical information. Health IT solutions can be used to capture and organize these data, therefore expediting and improving treatment decisions. When patients need multiple specialists to work together to come up with a treatment plan, IT solutions can help physicians access their colleague’s treatment decisions, therefore reducing communication and coordination barriers.

In studying patient outcome, they focus on 4 conditions: acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary atherosclerosis (CA) and pneumonia. These conditions were selected because they are common, mortality is a common outcome and health IT can plausibly reduce medical errors and improve the quality of care.

At first, their research findings suggests that health IT adoption does not affect outcomes for the median patient. As they dug deeper, they found that the actual impact of health IT adoption on patient outcomes is more subtle. They decomposed patient conditions at different severity levels and found that while health IT has no measurable benefits for relatively healthy patients, it significantly decreases mortality for relatively high-risk PN, CHF and CA patients. In other words, the effect of healthcare IT is small for low-severity patients but the benefits from IT adoption increase with severity. Their results also show little support for the hypothesis that health IT improves quality through rules-based decision support. Rather, health IT improves quality by facilitating coordination and communication across providers and by helping providers manage clinical information.

Their findings also showed that health IT adoption affects patient outcomes differently and the effect on conditions varies, too. They found no effect on AMI and no relationship between health IT and either readmissions or length of stay. Rather, they found an average mortality reduction of approximately 200 deaths per 100,000 admissions from IT adoption. The impact is largest for PN where IT adoption is estimated to prevent 500 deaths per 100,000 admissions while IT adoption reduces approximately 10 deaths per 100,000 admissions for both CA and CHF.

These days more and more hospitals are adopting health IT solutions like the EMR (https://healthintegrity.blog/author/hihealtherecords/). This research shows that they are most effective for patients with severe diagnoses and they can reduce mortality rate by improving information management and coordination.

 

 

Citation:

Jeffrey S. McCullough, Stephen T. Parente, and Robert J. Town. “Health Information Technology and Patient Outcomes: The Role of Information and Labor Coordination.” The RAND Journal of Economics. Vol. 27, no. 1 (2016): 207-236.

  • Disclaimer: This Blog is for educational purposes only as well as to provide general information and a general understanding of the topics discussed.  The Blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice and you are advised to seek additional information from your insurance carriers, Medicare and/or Medicaid agencies for additional criteria and regulations regarding these services.

Up ↑