All Posts By

Joseph Gaspero

Dr. Jason Arora, CHI Research Group Member & Director at ICHOM Named to Forbes 30 Under 30 List

By | Healthcare Value, Volume-to-Value | No Comments

LONDON (January 19, 2017) – Jason Arora of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) and Member of the CHI Research Group, was named in Forbes’ second annual “30 Under 30 Europe” list, a list that features 300 young innovators, entrepreneurs and leaders across Europe who are under 30 years of age and who are transforming business, technology, science, finance, media, culture and more, as judged by some of the most accomplished and acclaimed individuals in each category.  For the full list, please visit:  www.forbes.com/30under30europe.

 

Jason Arora is a medical doctor, public health scientist and rising global expert in value-based healthcare, which focuses on delivering the best possible outcomes for patients at the lowest possible cost. Dr. Arora has helped grow ICHOM from a startup to innovative healthcare catalyst, successfully inspiring governments, hospitals and life-science companies to adopt the concept.

 

The Forbes 30 Under 30 Europe list covers 10 categories – Arts, Entertainment, Finance, Industry, Media, Policy, Retail & Ecommerce, Science & Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurs and Technology – with each of the honorees vetted by a panel of expert judges in their respective fields.

 

Randall Lane, Editor of Forbes, said “Researching, vetting and launching Forbes’ second annual 30 Under 30 Europe list was an incredible task.  We scoured the continent to find the most talented millennials and, with the help of our expert judges, are proud to honor 300 of the most important young entrepreneurs, creative leaders and brightest stars in Europe right now.”

The criteria for honorees making the list included leadership and disruption in their field; entrepreneurial mindset and results; and the likelihood of changing their field over the next half-century.

 

The judges have created a unique list of the 300 prodigious stars who are making a difference in our world.  The judges were:

 

  • Arts: Jeremy Till of University of the Arts London, Chef Heinz Beck, and Italian photographer Oliviero Toscani;
  • Entertainment: Forbes editor Mike Ozanian, Afrojack, and British director SJ Clarkson;
  • Finance: Klaus Hommels of Lakestar, Henning Potstada of DWS, and Sonali De Rycker of Accel Ventures;
  • Industry: Phillip Greenish of Royal Academy, Stephane Israel of Arianespace, and former 30 Under 30 Honoree Cornel Amariei of Continental Automotive Systems;
  • Media: Kai Diekmann of Bild, Antonia Rados of RTL Group, and Max Guen of Magna Carta TV;
  • Policy: Josef Janning of European Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Youngs of Carnegie, Endowment Europe, and Brigid Laffan of European University Institute;
  • Retail: Amber Atherton of My Flash Trash and Dharmash Mistry of blow LTD;
  • Science: Barbara Prainsack of King’s College London, Jason Levine of IT and Clinical Informatics at National Cancer Institute, and Iain Woodhouse of University of Edinburgh;
  • Social Entrepreneurs: Forbes Editor Randall Lane, Cheryl Green from Echoing Green, and Jean Case from Case Foundation;
  • Tech: Brent Hoberman of Lastminute.com, former 30 Under 30 Honoree Ophelia Brown at Local Globe, and Tom Hulme of Google Ventures.

 

The complete list, along with video interviews with some of the honorees, is online at www.forbes.com/30under30europe.

 

Forbes’ Under 30 franchise is a global multichannel platform, that comprises 30 Under 30 lists featuring young global game changers published in print and online all over the world; live summits in the U.S., Asia and Israel; an Under 30 channel on Forbes.com; and a Forbes Under 30 app. To access Forbes magazine’s 2017 30 Under 30 U.S. list, please visit www.forbes.com/30under30.

 

 

For these stories and more, visit www.forbes.com

Follow Forbes on Twitter (www.twitter.com/Forbes)

 

 

How Does Patient Engagement Drive Value?

By | Collaboration, Global Healthcare Trends, Healthcare Innovation, Healthcare Value, Patient Engagement, Patient-Driven Healthcare, Patients, Volume-to-Value | No Comments

The 21st-century healthcare landscape is characterized by a consumer-driven, patient-centric model of care delivery, with patients, their caregivers, and advocacy groups playing a vital role in today’s healthcare ecosystem. Patients and their families are taking an active role in their healthcare and proactively interacting with providers and other healthcare stakeholders to improve health and wellness. Today’s patients are better informed and more financially invested than ever before, and they play a key role in decision-making processes that can positively impact health outcomes.

 

This paradigm shift has dramatic implications not only for patients – but also for providers, biopharma, and payers. As healthcare costs pressures continue to increase, incentives are shifting from a fee-for-service environment to a value-based healthcare system. More than ever, it is critical to understand how patient engagement drives value for patients, providers, biopharma, and payers, and ensure your organization is aligned to operate in the new healthcare economy.

 

The How Does Patient Engagement Drive Value? Healthcare Executive Roundtable on Thursday, 10/13/16 in Manhattan, NY, is an expert, cross-sectoral collaborative discussion designed to help healthcare stakeholders optimize engagement, communication, and collaboration. The exclusive, limited-attendance roundtable is designed to provide the top thought-leaders, visionaries, and executives from the patient advocate, provider, biopharma, and payer spaces with the latest insights and ideas on how patient engagement drives healthcare value for all stakeholders. The roundtable focuses on pragmatic and actionable ideas designed to empower you and your organization to understand the intersection of patient engagement and healthcare value. Additionally, the Healthcare Executive Roundtable helps healthcare stakeholders build open and collaborative relationships to positively impact healthcare delivery and outcomes.

 

We have a very limited number of registrations remaining. Please visit chisite.org/education/healthcare-executive-roundtable for more information. We invite you to join us for a day of thought-provoking discussion regarding patient engagement and healthcare value.

The Economist Explores: Why Has Cancer Not Been Cured?

By | Uncategorized | No Comments
In a recent article by The Economist, a simple question was asked: Why has cancer not been cured? Despite a forty year war against the disease, that questions has no simple answer. Research has taught us that more than a mutation of genes, cancer is a disease of specific organs. New therapies are increasingly providing personalized solutions to harness the body’s own immune system in fighting cancer, but more still needs to be understood about the molecular mechanisms that drive it.

On September 28th in Boston at the War on Cancer conference, editors of The Economist will gather more than 200 global health-care players, including Flatiron Health, Memorial Sloan Kettering, IBM, MD Anderson Cancer Center and others to discuss the technological advancements improving our ability to fight cancer and expand access to targeted, quality cancer care.

Some of our notable speakers participating in the event include:

  • Amy Abernethy, Chief medical officer and senior vice-president of oncology, Flatiron Health
  • Christina Åkerman, President, International Consortium For Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM)
  • Peter Bach, Director, center for health policy and outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering
  • Amitabh Chandra, Director, health policy research, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
  • Kathleen Kaa, Global head of pricing and market access, Oncology, Roche
  • Kyu Rhee, Chief health officer, IBM

You can save 15% on the current available rate when you register with our special code: CHI15

The Economist’s Healthcare Forum: War on Cancer

By | Global Healthcare Trends, Healthcare Innovation, Healthcare Value, Patients | No Comments

While advances in cancer treatment have come a long way, cancer remains among the leading causes of death worldwide. Though the promise of technology allowing for faster, more precise treatment and more collaborative health care models is inching us closer to victory, scaling the progress made thus far remains a critical next step.

 

On September 28th in Boston, editors of The Economist, experts and thought leaders from across the healthcare ecosystem will gather at the War on Cancer Forum to discuss and debate how innovation can be scaled across policy and financing, prevention, early detection, treatment and long-term management of this deadly disease. Don’t miss the opportunity to network with 200 of your peers and those making major progress in the war on cancer.

 

Some of our notable speakers participating in the event include:

  • Amy Abernethy, Chief medical officer and senior vice-president of oncology, Flatiron Health
  • Christina Åkerman, President, International Consortium For Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM)
  • Peter Bach, Director, Center for health policy and outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering
  • Roy Beveridge, Senior vice-president and chief medical officer, Humana
  • Amitabh Chandra, Director, health policy research, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
  • Sally Cowal, Former Ambassador, US Government and senior vice-president of global cancer control, American Cancer Society
  • Jason Efstathiou, Director, Genitourinary division, department of radiation oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Gilles Frydman, Co- founder, Smart Patients
  • Kathy Giusti, Founder, Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
  • Kathleen Kaa, Global head of pricing and market access, Oncology, Roche
  • Kelvin Lee, Co-leader, tumor immunology and immunotherapy, Roswell Park Cancer Center
  • Greg Matthews, Managing Director, MDigital Life
  • Josh Ofman, Senior vice-president, global value, access and policy, Amgen
  • Kyu Rhee, Chief health officer, IBM
  • Lowell Schnipper, Chair, value in cancer task force, ASCO

Save 15% on the current available rate when you register with our special code: CHI15

Lack of Diversity among Healthcare Providers Impacts Healthcare Disparities

By | Diversity & Inclusion, Health Insurance, Healthcare Access, Healthcare Providers, Patients | No Comments

The U.S. faces great changes in the 21st century.  High levels of immigration from Asia, Central, and South America have dramatically shifted U.S. demographics.  According to the U.S. Census survey, the U.S. may be a majority non-White nation by as early as 2043.  By 2060, the relative percentage of non-Hispanic Whites in the population is expected to decrease to just 43% from 63% in 2010, whereas the relative percentage of Hispanics will nearly double, from 17% in 2010 to a predicted 32% (1).  Despite the rapidly growing minority populations within the U.S., there remain relatively few minority healthcare providers, such as nurses, physicians, and technicians.  For example, as of 2013, 70% of physicians identified as White, while only 6.4% identified as Hispanic and 5.9% as African American (2).

 

The lack of diverse and culturally competent healthcare providers may adversely impact the efficacy and frequency with which this care is administered.  A patient’s language and culture dictate how they express and explain their symptoms, as well as the degree to which they are comfortable seeking medical assistance.  Patients and providers who understand one another’s core principles – especially with regards to medicine – and can communicate effectively have a better chance of achieving a better patient outcome (3).  When asked the question, “do you think that African American and Hispanic patients receive a lower quality of care, the same quality of care, or a better quality of care than White patients?”, A majority of African American patients answered lower, along with around 40% of Hispanic patients (4).  Even 25% of White patients felt that they received a higher quality of care than their minority counterparts (4).  Perhaps even more convincingly, as early as 2005, over 75% of physicians felt that minorities were receiving a lower level of care than White patients, and that figure has been steadily rising (4).  This is an alarming trend.  While these numbers do not necessarily indicate a systemic discrimination within the healthcare industry, it may show a mistrust and lack of communication between minority patients and the mostly White male dominated healthcare industry.

 

This mistrust and miscommunication can manifest itself in other ways, such as insurance coverage.  While Hispanic people make up a mere 17% of the U.S. population, they represent 33% of all uninsured Americans (4).  Lack of insurance coverage, borne of distrust for a largely White-dominated medical system only makes access to adequate care more difficult for minorities.  While the solutions to such endemic issues cannot be solved overnight, the first steps can be taken to rebuild trust between the healthcare industry and minorities, beginning with making provider diversity a priority to bridge the many cultural gaps spanning this great melting pot of a nation.

 

On June 22, 2016, the Center for Healthcare Innovation will be further exploring these issues at the 6th annual Diversity, Inclusion & Life Sciences Symposium, which is the leading annual, collaborative event for life sciences and healthcare executives, physicians, HR professionals, clinical trial professionals and patients, entrepreneurs, patient groups, researchers, academics, and diversity and inclusion advocates to discuss diversity and inclusion in healthcare. Please visit chisite.org/education/diversity-symposium/ for more information.

 

 

References

  1. U.S. Population Projections: 2012-2060 | George Washington University https://www.gwu.edu/~forcpgm/Ortman.pdf
  2. Diversity in the Physician Workforce: Facts and Figures 2014 | AAMC http://aamcdiversityfactsandfigures.org/section-ii-current-status-of-us-physician-workforce/#fig16
  3. Missing Persons: Minorities in the Health Professions | Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Workforce, pgs. 13-27 http://health-equity.pitt.edu/40/1/Sullivan_Final_Report_000.pdf
  4. Eliminating Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare: What are the Options? | The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation http://kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/eliminating-racialethnic-disparities-in-health-care-what/

What Changing U.S. Demographics Mean for Clinical Trials

By | Clinical Trials, Diversity & Inclusion, Healthcare Access, Informed Patient, Patients | No Comments

The Food and Drug Administration has declared a renewed focus for 2016 exploring diversity in clinical trials. [1] Data gathered from FDA shows that there is still a significant lack of patient diversity in clinical trials.  “While African-Americans/Blacks represent 12% of the total U.S. population, they comprise just 5% of clinical trial participants. Hispanics account for 16% of the total population but just 1% of trial participants.” [2]

 

As researchers aim to understand how a drug’s effectiveness can vary in different patient groups, it is important to consider how U.S. demographics have begun dramatically shifting. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest projection “It is predicted that by 2043, the U.S. will be a majority non-white nation. [3] White Americans will have gone from comprising 85% of the U.S. population in 2012 to just 43%. Hispanic and African Americans/Blacks will have grown substantially over that period, together making up 45 percent of the population with Hispanics being one of the fastest growing groups making up 31%.”[4] Therefore the inclusion of minorities in clinical trials will only become more critical. To demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a new treatment, healthcare industry leaders should ensure the inclusion of a diverse population in clinical trials. Underrepresentation of minorities can skew vital trial and treatment data.

 

Some causes for lack of diversity and inclusion in clinical trials stem from lack of trust in trials, lack of awareness of what trials are, and barriers to participation of minority population in trials. For example, based on the history of medical research in the Tuskegee study, an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service studying the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama under the guise of receiving free health care from the United States government, there is a fear of exploitation in medical research.[5] Second, there is often a lack of misunderstanding about the process of clinical trials. Third, there are barriers to participation or feasibility for minority populations to enroll in clinical trial.

 

To attempt solve these complex diversity and inclusion issues, it is critical to go beyond the current one-size fits all approach and raise awareness, build trust, and reach out to under-represented population. Increased diversity in the population pool of clinical trials might just even result in greater confidence in the results and benefits of drugs to the population.

 

The Center for Healthcare Innovation’s Diversity, Inclusion, & Life Sciences Symposium on June 22, 2016 will address these issues in-depth. The Symposium is the leading annual, collaborative event for life sciences and healthcare executives, physicians, HR professionals, clinical trial professionals and patients, entrepreneurs, patient groups, researchers, academics, and diversity and inclusion advocates to discuss diversity and inclusion in healthcare. Please visit chisite.org/education/diversity-symposium/ for more information.

 

 

References

  1. 2016: The Year of Diversity in Clinical Trials | FDA Voice. http://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2016/01/2016-the-year-of-diversity-in-clinical-trials/.
  2. Bridging the Diversity Gap in Clinical Trials | Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry – EyeforPharma. http://social.eyeforpharma.com/clinical/bridging-diversity-gap-clinical-trials.
  3. Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043 – U.S. News. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043.
  4. A Study On The Changing Racial Makeup Of “The Next America.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/13/changing-racial-makeup-_n_5142462.html.
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

Improving Access for LGBT Clinical Trial Initiatives

By | Clinical Trials, Diversity & Inclusion, Patients | No Comments

In early April of 2016, Washington State lawmakers passed a bill to improve health research for individuals of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community. Since the state of Washington has a significant LGBT population (more than 173,000 LGBT individuals in Seattle alone), Washington State lawmakers felt it was time to include the LGBT community into patient-centered research initiatives. The legislation requires the National Institutes of Health to coordinate a research strategy that addresses the lack of minority patient populations in current clinical trials in the state of Washington, promoting a more inclusive health-research environment where the needs of the LGBT community are specifically assessed in different clinical trial initiatives.

 

The importance of inclusive legislation in regards to clinical trial participants cannot be understated. A large percentage of clinical trials are failing to meet benchmarks necessary to represent patient populations as a whole. In fact, for clinical trials across the United States, it was determined that less than two percent of trials funded by the National Cancer Institute reached the benchmarks the NIH has set for including minority participants. By excluding minority populations from clinical trials, the health of LGBT members, as well as the health of men and women of color, are put at risk.

 

While Washington State has passed legislation to require inclusive clinical trials for LGBT members, the vast majority of the U.S. has not seen a similar progression. To accurately represent the U.S. patient population, both the federal government and state governments should make it a priority to pass legislation that requires LGBT member participation in clinical trials. Other state governments and the federal government could utilize the bill passed in Washington State as a model to catalyze bipartisan collaboration between the NIH and the minority populations across the nation. Diversity in clinical trials is not just a necessity for the LGBT population, but it is also a necessity for men and women of color and expecting mothers. Legislation is necessary to ensure the validity of clinical trial findings; clinical trials must represent patient populations in their entire diverse nature. The state of Washington has taken a step in the right direction towards promoting more inclusive clinical trials, will the rest of the nation follow suit?

 

The Center for Healthcare Innovation’s Diversity, Inclusion, & Life Sciences Symposium on June 22, 2016 will address these issues in-depth. The Symposium is the leading annual, collaborative event for life sciences and healthcare executives, physicians, HR professionals, clinical trial professionals and patients, entrepreneurs, patient groups, researchers, academics, and diversity and inclusion advocates to discuss diversity and inclusion in healthcare. Please visit chisite.org/education/diversity-symposium/ for more information.

 

 

_________

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/health-care-inc/2016/04/washington-state-lawmaker-pushes-bill-to-improve.html

 

The Urgency in Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials

By | Clinical Trials, Diversity & Inclusion, Health Insurance, Healthcare Access, Healthcare Quality, Patients | No Comments

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the key regulatory authority in bringing new drugs to the market, must balance between introducing life-saving treatments to people who need them as soon as possible and ensuring that these drugs have been thoroughly tested and are safe for the general population. A drug must undergo extensive testing in clinical trials before it gets approved as both safe and effective. These trials document how well the treatment works on individuals and also of the likelihood of the occurrence of severe side effects.1 The FDA has programs to accelerate the usually rigorous process needed to test drugs that are the first proven treatment of an ailment or have a significant advantage over already approved drugs.2

Often clinical trials fail to achieve adequate representation for minorities. African Americans represent 12% and Hispanics represent 16% of the U.S. population, but are only represented as 5% and 1% of clinical trial participants, respectively.3 Caucasians are still overly represented in clinical trials.4 The FDA and National Institute of Health (NIH) must urgently address this situation.

Significant genetic variations in various ethnic groups may cause different reactions to certain treatments. This difference puts people at risk as certain treatments’ side effects affect various groups differently. Differences in individuals’ genetic codes can alter the effectiveness of drugs as genes affect how a drug is metabolized and how an individual responds to a drug.5 A recent study on anti-HIV drugs revealed that genetic differences could render drugs completely ineffective in patients.6 These genetic differences can differ between individuals of difference races and/or ethnicities.5 Thus it makes difficult for the physician to determine if the drug will be effective for their minority patients if minorities are not tested thoroughly with that drug in the clinical trials.

One of the reasons as to why there is a lack of minority representation is mistrust of the established medical system. This is most notably seen with the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study in which physicians knowingly withheld treatment for African Americans infected with syphilis.7 Physicians’ bias also plays a role in the low amount of minority participants in trials. Physicians combine prior experiences treating patients of similar race, age, gender, and socioeconomic status into a stereotype in how to treat their current patients.8 Physicians use this bias to determine which patients to recommend for clinical trials. A study determined that physicians believe African Americans are two-thirds as likely to adhere to a clinical trial regimen compared to their Caucasian counterparts.9 In addition, minority populations have historically had poor access to healthcare. Minorities are less likely than Caucasians to have access to health insurance, a requirement for some Phase III clinical trials. This lack of insurance restricts many minorities to only receive health care in emergency rooms and unable to participate in trials.10

These and other obstacles prevent accurate minority representation in clinical trials need to be addressed and solved. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 by Congress meant to solve this problem by mandating women and minority representation in clinical trials, but the results are not promising as the proportion of minorities in clinical trials is still significantly lower than the proportion of minorities in the United States.11 Thus, before different methods other than passing acts in Congress will be implemented, minorities will continue to be at risk with their treatments.

References

  1. “Clinical Trials: MedlinePlus.” S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 21 July 2015. Web. 5 Aug. 2015.”U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
  2. Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review. 18 Sept. 2014. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
  3. “U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” Clinical Trials Shed Light on Minority Health. 1 Apr. 2015. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
  4. Culp-Ressler, T. “There Are Too Many White People In Clinical Trials, And It’s A Bigger Problem Than You Think.” ThinkProgress RSS. 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
  5. Bradford, L. DiAnne. “Race, Genetics, Metabolism: Drug Therapy and Clinical Trials – MIWatch.” Race, Genetics, Metabolism: Drug Therapy and Clinical Trials – MIWatch. MIWatch, 10 Apr. 2008. Web. 18 Aug. 2015.
  6. “New Evidence That Genetic Differences May Help Explain Inconsistent Effectiveness Of Anti-Hiv Drug.” John Hopkins Medicine. 15 July 2015. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
  7. Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S.B., Williams, M.V., Moody-Ayers, S.(1999) Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research.  Gen. Intern. Med.14, 537–546.
  8. Smedley, B.D., Stith, A.Y., Nelson, A.R., editors. ,Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2003.
  9. van Ryn, M., Burke, J.(2000) The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians’ perceptions of patients.  Sci. Med. 50, 813–828.
  10. Regenstein, M., Huang, J.Stresses to the Safety Net: The Public Hospital Perspective. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2005.
  11. Chen, M.S., Lara, P.N., Dang, J.H. T., Paterniti, D.A. and Kelly, K. (2014) Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: Enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): Laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual. Cancer 120, 1091–1096.

How Can We Boost Patient Engagement?

By | Healthcare Innovation, Healthcare Quality, Informed Patient, Patient Engagement, Patient-Driven Healthcare, Patients | No Comments

Young smiling doctor consoling patient sitting on wheel chair outdoor

Many industries today focus on strengthening consumer engagement with their products and services. Whether it’s via social media, websites, mobile apps, video media, or televised commercials, companies across the globe know the importance of marketing their products, services, and technological advances in maintaining profit margins and consumer satisfaction levels. The healthcare industry would be wise to follow similar industry strategies in order to strengthen patient engagement.

There are a numerous views on what exactly defines patient engagement. Broadly speaking, patient engagement is defined as the degree to which patients are involved in their own care. A generally accepted, comprehensive definition provided by HIMSS Analytics states “An organization’s strategy to get patients involved in actively and knowledgeably managing their own health and wellness and that of family members and others for whom they have responsibility. This includes reviewing and managing care records, learning about conditions, adopting healthy behaviors, making informed healthcare purchases, and interacting with care providers as a partner.1 Essentially, patient engagement refers to the tools and technologies healthcare organizations use to engage patients before or after acute episodes of care and during the time between in-person visits.

The time between visits is a particular challenge in patient engagement. During provider-patient visits, discussions with care providers and increased involvement with the patient tends to lead to higher levels of engagement. As months pass after visits, active participation is no longer necessary and engagement becomes less of a priority. The result is often forgotten instructions provided during the visit. The effectiveness of continuous engagement with patients after their treatment was tested with a program that delivered text messages three days a week to 700 gastroenterology patients who were trying to lose weight during a six month period from November 2012 to April 2013. The objective was to analyze the effectiveness of prolonged engagement by comparing the success of the treatment between those who received texts and remained engaged with a control group who was left alone. The results showed that patients who received the text messages dropped 0.5 more on the Body Mass Index (BMI) than patients who did not participate.2 This simple example of increased communication depicts the drastic impact that engagement can have on the patient’s long-term, perceived value of the treatment and instructions given.

The ability to remain in contact with patients through text messaging is an example of how changes in technology offer new opportunities to increase patient engagement. Yet, despite numerous new systems used today, raising patient engagement remains a challenge. In part, this is due to the complexity and scope of effective long-term engagement. According to Dan Housman, Director at Deloitte, the biggest challenges of the historically accepted model of provider and patient relationships stem from assumptions which fail to account for the uniqueness of the individuals involved. These assumptions include that a patient must be obedient and that a physician should act with authority.3 This way of thinking undermines patient-centricity and fails to develop a healthy relationship which promotes patient engagement. By addressing the flaws in the traditional model and revising those to better reflect trending patient-focused values, healthcare providers can more effective communicate the value of continued patient engagement, which ultimately results in its increase.

IBM Watson Health is an example of one of the countless companies in healthcare making efforts to change this model and enhance patient engagement initiatives. This September, they launched a population health program, expanding their online cloud capabilities to provide a more accessible, relevant platform for accessing industry-specific trends and innovations. It is staffed with a team of professionals that engage with users, answering any questions very quickly. This results in more informed patients and addresses the issues with the assumptions in the traditional provider-patient relationship model. Furthermore, the program promotes and records user feedback on treatment which can be used to further improve the methods of care and provide tangible results in healthcare outcomes. Michael Rhodin, Senior Vice President of IBM Watson Group, stated in a press release “This newest expansion of the IBM Watson Health Cloud makes it an even more robust and flexible platform for the life sciences and healthcare industries and explains its rapid adoption among leading organizations in these fields.4 The value added to the interaction helps to promote further patient engagement over time.

Patient engagement is an important aspect the healthcare. It leads to better health outcomes for patients by increasing their understanding of the value in instructions from providers and promotes adhering to suggested preventative measures. Healthcare providers must continuously reach out to patients, keeping them motivated and increasing both parties understanding of the other. CHI will be further exploring patient engagement and its challenges in today’s dynamic healthcare industry at its upcoming Healthcare Executive Roundtable on October 15, 2015 in Manhattan. For more information, please visit http://www.chisite.org/education/healthcare-executive-roundtable.

References

  1. Noteboom, Michelle Ronan. “From Patient Engagement to Telehealth, What Does It All Mean?” Healthcare   IT News. 18 Sept. 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2015
  2. Fellows, Jacqueline. “Meeting the Challenge of Patient Engagement.” HealthLeaders Media. 26 Aug. 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2015
  3. Gruessner,Vera. “What Obstacles Stand in the Way of Patient Engagement? ” MHealth Intelligence. 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2015
  4. Gruessner, Vera. “Could a Population Health System Improve Patient Engagement?” MHealth Intelligence. 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2015.

How Do You Define and Measure Patient Experience?

By | Healthcare Quality, Healthcare Value, Patient Engagement, Patient-Driven Healthcare, Patients | No Comments

Happy senior citizen having a casual small talk with the friendly doctor

In today’s dynamic healthcare industry, with fundamental policy changes and ground-breaking technological advances occurring more than ever, it is vital to reevaluate the metrics used in determining the quality of care given to patients. Determining and measuring healthcare quality is a multi-faceted challenge, which must consider all aspects of care from patient treatment to administration and policy. The patient experience is among the core metrics used today, which is considered the sum of all interactions, shaped by an organization’s culture, that influence patient perceptions across the continuum of care.1 The continuum of care considers every step in the healthcare process from arrival to outcome. As trending healthcare values continuously place a heavier focus around patient-centricity in all aspects of care, accurately measuring the patient experience is increasingly vital. This begins with addressing value discrepancies between provider and patient perspectives, assessing limitations in traditional data gathering methods, and better understanding patient standards of evaluation. A higher level of patient experience has shown yield direct benefits in long-term recovery, compliance with recommended treatment, and many other care outcomes dependent on trust and acceptance from the patient.2

The patient experience is influenced heavily by the culture and policies set by the provider. Whether a county hospital or day clinic, the success of various patient-centric initiatives and, in turn, impact of the overall atmosphere determined by administrators contributes directly into how personnel view and interact with patients. Yet these are a reflection of the staff’s values, which are not necessarily aligned with the values of the patients they treat.3 Therefore, it is imperative to give proper consideration to patients’ perspectives. The healthcare industry’s recent policy changes reflect this ever-growing necessity by offering new reimbursement programs for providers based on metrics that evaluate the patient experience.4 Yet, policy changes at the top can take a long time to trickle down and to patients. By continuously working to understand the difference between the patient’s and provider’s perspective, and its value in relation to patient experience, all healthcare providers can begin to bridge the gap by providing a higher quality level of care that is focused on the patient’s needs.

Understanding the value of the patient’s perspective in the quality of healthcare is limited to the effectiveness of the means used to gather the data. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey stands as the current standard in gathering data on patient experience. However, the data gathered is greatly dependent upon the level of patient satisfaction; which, while important, does not consider all the elements of the continuum such as quality, safety, and service outcomes.5 This results in a skewed assessment of the current level of patient experience and leads to new initiatives and corrective actions that do not properly address the needs of the patient. To address this disconnect, providers are encouraged to create patient advisory councils that add power to the voice of the patients, adjust CAHPS analysis techniques to account for known limitations, and increase the frequency of leadership rounds that prompt patient interaction.6 These suggestions are based on current efforts that have been implemented based on patient-centricity and represent just a few of the countless possibilities.

Regardless of the accuracy of the data gathered, properly evaluating the level of the patient experience requires understanding what quality of care is to the patient. An extensive research initiative in 2014, led by the Patient Experience Journal, highlighted six key performance indicators patients used when assessing the quality of their care. These were the level of provider participation in care, staff courtesy, self-reported health status, staff follow-up, waiting, and medical explanations.7 Based on these findings, it is apparent that patients place a much higher value on interpersonal interaction than the provider. This is understandable considering the limited knowledge they often possess regarding healthcare services coupled with stress and anxiety that come with health issues. Given an a greater appreciation of these key performance indicators used by patients in evaluating their experience, researchers can better differentiate between patient experience and patient satisfaction while properly aligning efforts to reflect a more accurate picture of patient values.

As the healthcare industry continues to drastically evolve, the challenge of effectively keeping the focus on the patient has grown equally complex. Factors and metrics long since accepted as industry standards have come into question at the same time that industry innovation has created entire new directions to consider. Regardless, the patient experience remains as important as ever. It serves as an essential gauge of quality, that when properly managed, can have profound effects on long-term recovery, patient follow-through, and overall care success. CHI will be further exploring the issues and values associated with the patient experience and many other related topics at our upcoming Healthcare Executive Roundtable on October 15, 2015 in Manhattan. The Roundtable will discuss what patient-centric healthcare value means in the 21st century. This consumer-focused Roundtable Discussion brings the best and brightest healthcare leaders from around the globe together to share their ideas and expertise on the intersection of healthcare value and patient-centricity. Please visit chisite.org/education/healthcare-executive-roundtable for more information.

References

  1. The Beryl Institute. “Defining Patient Experience.” The Beryl Institute. 28 Sept. 2015.
  2. Beattie, Michelle, Douglas J. Murphy, and Iain Atherton. “Instruments to Measure Patient Experience of Healthcare Quality in Hospitals: A Systematic Review.” National Center for Biotechnology. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 23 July 2015. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
  3. Brown, Claire R. “Where are the Patients in the Quality of Health Care?” International Journal for Quality in Health Care3 (2007): 125-26. Oxford University Press. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
  4. “Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS).” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 8 June 2015. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
  5. Wolf, Jason A. “Patient Experience, Satisfaction Not One and the Same.” Hospital Impact. 24 July 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
  6. Merlino, James I., and Ananth Raman. “Understanding the Drivers of the Patient Experience.” Harvard Business Review. 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.
  7. Van De Ven, Andrew H. “What Matters Most to Patients? Participative Provider Care and Staff Courtesy.” Patient Experience Journal1 (2014): 131-39. Print.