Tag Archives: Accountable Care Organizations

Engage Your Patients And Members Where They Are…Not Where You Wish They Were

Not long ago, Lloyd Dean, president and CEO of the San Francisco-based health care-system Dignity Health announced the Dignity Health and Box Patient Education App Challenge. In the course of the announcement, Dean is quoted as saying:

“We recognize the immense potential that (health information) technology has to enhance our patients’ care and overall experience.”

Dean’s use of the term “immense potential” with respect to patient-facing technologies like health apps and patient portals got me thinking. Immense potential compared to what? [pullquote]Dean’s use of the term “immense potential” got me thinking. Immense potential compared to what?[/pullquote]

With all the hype in the health press about the patient engagement potential of patient-facing health information technologies, one could be forgiven for thinking that HIT is the best if not only path to patient engagement. But in fact there is another way. Another more immediate, less costly and proven way. And its potential to engage patients, enhance care and improve patient experiences dwarfs the “immense potential” of patient-facing HIT by comparison.

PC Communications vs HIT
Rediscovering the Power of Physician-Patient Exam Room Conversations

Here’s what I mean. The average office-based physician engages in some 4,224 face-to-face visit-related conversations with patients each year. Depending upon their communication skills, each of these conversations represents an opportunity for physicians to engage patients, enhance care and improve patient experiences.

In the case of Dignity Health’s 11,000 physicians, assuming they see an average of 20 patients/day/physician, this comes out to:
220,000 patient visit per day , 880,000 patient visits per week 45.7 million patient visits per year

Now factor in the 3-4 complaints each patient brings to the visit along with a myriad of beliefs, fears and expectations for service (tests, referrals, new medications, and so on). I hope you are starting to realize that each patient visit is pregnant with opportunities for clinicians – your clinicians – to engage, empower and excite patients…. sometimes by doing nothing more than listening to what the patient wants to say. Remember these are real opportunities that exist in the here and now…not some promise or dream of possibilities to come.
3-4 Complaints + 2-3 Requests + 4-5 Expectations = Lots Of Opportunities To Engage Patients

At this point you might be thinking that your physicians are already leveraging these exam room opportunities to build your organization’s brand, to refer patients to your specialists and ancillary services, and to direct patients to health information on your their/your patient portal. You would probably be wrong. Not because of the limited time available during the office visit…but rather because many physicians have never been trained or provided with the communications tools needed to recognize or facilitate these kinds of opportunities. But that is the topic for a separate post.
The Patient-Facing HIT Opportunity

Now consider the opportunities in Lloyd Dean’s brave new world…a vision shared by HIT professionals health developers, vendors and their respective professional organizations.

Staying with the Dignity Health example, let’s assume that each of Dignity Health’s 11,000 doctors have patient panels of 2,300 adults and that 10% of these people use their respective patient portals or smart health apps 5 times per year (a generous assumption). This comes out to approximately 12.6 million opportunities for Dignity to engage, empower and excite patients/consumers per year.

It’s doubtful that the opportunities for meaningful engagement afforded by a patient portal or health app compare qualitatively to the opportunities possible with a face-to-face physician visit. Being able to check one’s lab tests, schedule an appointment, or refill a prescription while convenient are do not afford the same therapeutic benefits of a listening ear or the touch of a clinician’s hand.
The Take Away

The real “immense opportunity” for engaging patients, enhancing patient care and improving patient experiences lies behind the closed exam room doors of physicians. That is the most frequent point of contact health care consumers have with the health care system. It is also where truly meaningful patient engagement and memorable patient experience take place.

Engaging patients, enhancing care and improving patient experiences is not an either or choice between more health IT or better physician-patient communications. Providers will need both in the long run. HIT will enable clinicians with good patient communication skills to touch more patients and get more done. Physicians in turn will recommend that patients go to their patient portals and smart apps for health information.

Imagine the ROI that organizations like Dignity Health’s could realize from their investments in patient portals and health apps if all 45.7 million annual patient visits were given a tailored information therapy prescription directing them to one or the other or both.

Now that is what I call IMMENSE POTENTIAL!

That’s what I think….what’s your opinion?

Helping physicians, hospitals and health plans do a better job of engaging patients, enhancing patient care and improving patient experiences in the exam room is the goal of the Adopt One! Challenge. The Challenge is a great way for physicians to get a comprehensive baseline assessment of their patient communication skills, find out how their communication skills compare to best practices, and get access to online skills development tools.

Be sure to sign up for the Adopt One! Challenge Newsletter for more information. Health plans and hospitals are invited to sponsor the Adopt One! Challenge for physicians in their provider network, including PCMHs and ACOs.

The Lack Of Patient-Centered Communication Skills By Physicians in Your Provider Network Will Limit Your PCMH & ACO Performance

 

Betting the Ranch on your physician patient communication skills

Thoughts On Patient Engagement, Patient-Centeredness and Communication-Centered Medical Records

Sometimes I come across a post that I absolutely must share… such is the case with this re-print of a post by Rob Lamberts, MD, a primary care physician practicing “somewhere in the southeastern United States.” He blogs regularly at More Musings (of a Distractible Kind), where this post first appeared.

“Patient engagement.”

What is “Patient Engagement?”  It sounds like a season of “The Bachelor” where a doctor dates hot patients.  It wouldn’t surprise me if it was. After all, patient engagement is hot; it’s the new buzz phrase for health wonks.  There was even an entire day at the recent HIMSS conference dedicated to “Patient engagement.”  I think the next season of “The Bachelor” should feature a wonk at HIMSS looking for a wonkettes to love.

Here’s how the Internets define “Patient engagement”:

  • The Get Well Network (with a smiley face) calls it: “A national health priority and a core strategy for performance improvement.”
  • Leonard Kish refers to it as “The Blockbuster Drug of the Century” (it narrowly beat out Viagra) – HT to Dave Chase.
  • Steve Wilkins refers to it as “The Holy Grail of Health Care” (it also narrowly beat out Viagra) – HT to Kevin MD.
  • On the HIMSS Patient Engagement Day, the following topics were discussed:
    • How to make Patients Your Partners in Satisfying Meaningful Use Stage 2 Objectives; Case Studies in Patient Engagement, session #64;
    • Review Business Cases for Implementing a Patient-Centered Communication Strategy and Building Patient 2.0, session #84;: and
    • Engaging People in Health Through Consumer-Facing Devices and Tools, session #102.

So then, “patient engagement” is:

  • a strategy
  • a drug
  • a grail (although I already have a grail)
  • a “meaningful use” objective
  • something that requires a business case
  • something that requires “consumer-facing devices and tools” (I already have one of those too).

I hope that clears things up.

So why am I being so snarky about this?  Why make fun of a term used by many people I trust and respect?  I was recently discussing my ideas on a communication-centered medical record with a colleague.  At the end of my pontification, my friend agreed, saying: “you are right; communication is an important part of health care.”  I surprised him by disagreeing.  Communication isn’t important to health care, communication is health care. Care is not a static thing, it is the transaction of ideas. The patient tells me what is going on, I listen, I share my thoughts with the patient (and other providers), and the patient uses the result of this transaction for their own benefit.

But our fine system doesn’t embrace this definition.  We indict ourselves when we talk about “patient engagement” as if it’s a goal, as it reveals the current state of disengagement .  Patients are not the center of care.  Patients are a source of data so doctors can get “meaningful use” checks.  Patients are the proof that our organizations are accountable.  Patients live in our “patient-centered” medical homes.

Replacing patients as the object of our attention (and affection) is our dear friend, the medical record.  We faun over medical records.  Companies earn epic profits from medical records.  We hold huge conferences to celebrate medical records.  We charge patients money to get to see their own medical records.  We even build special booths (portals) where patients are allowed to peer in through a peep hole and see parts of their medical records.

This is why I’ve had such a hard time finding a record system for my new practice.  I want my IT to center on patients, but medical record systems are self-absorbed.  They are an end in themselves.  They are all about making records, not engaging patients.  They are for the storage of ideas, not the transfer of them.  Asking medical records to engage patients is like asking a dictionary to tell a story.

The problem is, documentation has taken over health care.  Just as the practice of a religion can overshadow its purpose: the search for God, documentation chokes out the heart of health care: the communication of ideas .  It did this because we are paid to document, not communicate.  Communication takes time and it is not reimbursed.  Communication prevents unnecessary care, which is a revenue stream.  Communication eliminates waste, and waste is food that feeds the system, the bricks that build the wings to hospitals, the revenue source that pads IT budgets.

So what’s a doctor to do?  I’m not sure.  I am still looking for a solution that will meet the central goals of my practice:

  • Communication – health care is a hassle,  with communication relegated to the exam room.  I want care to be easily accessible for my patients,using IT in one of its strongest areas: tools for easy communication.
  • Collaboration – the patient should be engaged, but in a two-way relationship.  This means they not only should have access to their records, they should contribute to those records.
  • Organization – I want a calendar documenting visits, symptoms, problems, medications, past and future events in each patient’s record.  I also want a task-management system I share with patients to make sure care gets done.
  • Education – I want to practice high-quality medicine, care that is informed by good information and the best evidence.  Why not do a yearly stress test?  There’s evidence for that.  Why not use antibiotics for sinus infections?  There’s evidence there.  Why use an ACE inhibitor to control the blood pressure?  I need to be able to support my recommendations with data, not just “because the doctor said so.”

The point of all of this is the moving of medicine from an industry where money is milked from disease to a communications network where diseases are prevented.  ”Patient engagement” that is done to the patient for the sake of the doctor or hospital is a sham.  Engagement is about interaction, listening, and learning in relationship to another person.  Engagement is not a strategy, it is care.

If only I could find the tools to make this happen.

Shared Decision Making – Not Ready For Prime Time – Nor Evidently Is Patient-Centered Care

When it comes to delivering truly patient-centered care…how are providers supposed to know when they have “arrived”?   According to Michael Berry, MD, President of the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, providers will know they have achieved the “pinnacle of patient-centered care” when they routinely engage their patients in shared decision-making (SDM).

Pinnicle of patient-centered communications

In theory, shared decision-making (aka collaborative decision-making) is what is supposed to happen between patients and their doctors when faced with a difficult choice.  Clinicians engaging in shared decision-making would provide patients with information pertaining to the need for the treatment, the available options, as well as the benefits and risks.  But patient-centered clinicians would also do something else. They would attempt to work with patients to arrive at a decision they could both live with.  A kind of “shared mind” that takes into consideration their clinical perspective as well as the patient’s perspective – their preferences, needs, and values (which ideally have been captured over the course of the patient-provider relationship).

The Problem Is That Most Physicians Don’t Really Engage Patients In Either Shared Decision Making  

 A 2003 study surveyed U.S. physicians (N=1,217) preferences and actual practices regarding shared decision-making.  Table 1 presents a summary of findings from this study.

Table 1

Decision Making Style

What Physicians Preferred

What Physicians Actually Do

Shared decision-making

58%

37%

Physician-dominant decision-making

28%

43%

No patient involvement

9%

13%

Patient dominant decision-making

5%

7%

While most physicians in the study may philosophically believe in and prefer shared decision-making…as this data indicates that is not what most physicians in the study reported actually doing.  In fact, 56% of physicians reported that they actually engaged in decision-making that was physician-dominated (with some patient involvement) or totally physician-dominated decision-making behavior (absent any patient involvement).

The Barriers To Shared Decision Making?

The barriers to SDM include the usual suspects:

  •  Lack of time during the visit
  • Not having access to the right decision support aids tools and training their use
  • Physician attitudes about patient’s willingness to engage in shared decision-making
  • Provider reliance upon a physician-directed (versus patient-centered) style of communicating with patients

AdoptOneBigButtonThe Take Away – Why Shared Decision Making Matters

  •  SDM is the right thing to do – the benefits associated with SDM include better outcomes, lower utilization and cost, lower malpractice risk and enhanced patient trust and satisfaction
  •  SDM is a great way to be engaging to patients – it is a way to get patients involved in their care in a meaningful way they can relate to.
  • To be eligible to participate in Medicare’s Shared Savings Program, Accountable Care Organizations must implement processes to promote patient engagement, including shared decision-making.

As readers of Mind the Gap know, I am a proponent of the adoption of patient-centered communication by providers, beginning with primary care.   Shared decision-making has rightly been identified as a leading indicator when it comes to assessing the “patient-centeredness’ of a physician practice.   So before you go around telling everyone how patient-centered your provider teams are first do a reality check.  Because if you aren’t regularly engaging your patients in shared decision making you are not there yet.

That’s my opinion…what’s your?

Sources:

Heisler, M. et al. Physicians’ participatory decision-making and quality of diabetes care processes and outcomes: results from the triad study. Chronic Illness. 2009 Sep;5(3):165-76

Street, R. et al  The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17 (2011) 579–584.

Frosch, D., et al. An Effort To Spread Decision Aids In Five California Primary Care Practices Yielded Low Distribution, Highlighting Hurdles. Health Affairs. 32, no.2 (2013):311-320.

Want Your ACO To Succeed? …Then You Better Focus On Improving How Your Doctors & Patients Communicate

The basic premise of the Accountable Care Organizations is simple enough.  By incentivizing providers (physicians and hospitals) to assume financial responsibility for coordinating the health care of a defined patient population, it is possible to increase the quality of care while decreasing the cost of care delivery.

For ACOs to succeed, experts tell us that 3 things are required: 1) health information technology is needed to track and manage patient populations, 2) redesigned care delivery processes are needed to support patient care coordination, and 3) the right set of provider financial incentives must be in place.

do thisBut The “Experts” Have Overlooked Perhaps The Most Important Requirement

The improvements in quality and cost effectiveness in large part are predicated upon providers being able to engage patients with the goal of changing their health behavior.  

The problem is that most physicians lack the patient-centered communication skills needed to engage patients in their own health care not to mention persuade patients to change their health behavior. 

An Example – Physician and Patient “Meeting of the Minds” 

I think we can all agree that “telling patients what to do” is not an effective patient engagement or behavior management strategy.  After all, if patients don’t agree with or understand the rationale for a recommendation from their doctor, they are not likely to comply with it.

Rather, a meeting of the minds by physicians and patients is needed…and that requires physicians  understanding the patient’s perspective.  The evidence bears this out.  Higher ratings of trust, satisfaction, and intention to adhere occur when patients see themselves as similar to their physicians in personal beliefs, values, and communication.[1]

The problem is that physicians and patients often disagree on even the most fundamental issues…and herein lies the problem:

  • Doctors & patients disagree on the principal reasons for office visits 53% of the time.[2]
  • There is “substantial discordance” between the problems patients describe to physicians and the symptoms that physicians document in the EMR.[3]
  • For diabetic patients who cited pain or depression as their top health concern their physicians rated these conditions “as likely to affect the patient’s health outcomes” in only 9% and 32% of cases respectively. (Remember, 95% of the treatment for diabetes is patient self care). [4]
  • 41% of patients disagree with their physician as to whether their presenting symptoms represented a psychological versus a medical problem. [5]
  • Physician perceptions of “how pleased, cheerful, relieved, worried, angry, and disappointed” they thought the patients were during office visits differed significantly from patient rating of how they actually felt. [6]
  • Physicians tend to underestimate the patient’s desire for health information in 65% of visits.[6]

So What’s The Take Away?

Many physicians today are ill prepared to assume the role or financial responsibility of care coordination (or care management) given their lack of patient-centered communication skills.  Notice I didn’t mention lack of time since effective use of patient-centered communication skills over time can actually save providers time.

Unless and until medical groups, hospitals, health plans, CMS, and ACOs address this critical shortcoming through providing physicians with the  training, tools and resources needed to develop and refine patient-centered communication skills, ACOs will not deliver on their promise of more effective and efficient medical care.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Sources:

[1] Street, R. et al. (2008) Understanding Concordance in Patient-Physician Relationships: Personal and Ethnic Dimensions of Shared Identity. Annals of Family Medicine. 6:198-205.

[2] Greer, J. and H. R. (2006). Predictors of Physician-Patient Agreement on Symptom Etiology in Primary Care. Psychosomatic Medicine, 282, 277-282.

[3] Stein, T. et al. (1999) Inaccuracies in physicians’ perceptions of their patients. Medical Care.  Nov;37(11):1164-8.

[4] Keulers, B. J., Scheltinga, M. R. M., Houterman, S., Van Der Wilt, G. J., & Spauwen, P. H. M. (2008). Surgeons underestimate their patients’ desire for preoperative information. World Journal of Surgery, 32(6), 964-70.

[4] Street, R. et al. (2008) Understanding Concordance in Patient-Physician Relationships: Personal and Ethnic Dimensions of Shared Identity. Annals of  Family Medicine, 6:198-205.

[5] Freidin, R., et al. (1980). Patient Physician Concordance in Problem Identification. Annals of Internal Medicine, (93), 490-493.

[6]Stein, T. et al., Inaccuracies in Physicians’ Perceptions of Their Patients.  Medical Care. 1999 Nov;37(11):1164-8.

[7] Pakhomov, S. et al. (2008). Agreement between Patient-reported Symptoms and their Documentation in the Medical Record. American Journal Of Managed Care, 14(8), 530-539.