"The changing of customers habits and behaviours wrought by technology means the old ways just do not work anymore."
- Tomi Ahonen + Alan Moore, Communities Dominate Brands
This Washington Post article has extremely interesting implications about how 'personal' portability influences grounded interactions with geo-local delivery of medical services.
Let's look at the concept of communities and 'personal' portability first.
More than 70% of the 100,000 people tracked (secretly) via this study of cell phone usage never ventured more than 20 miles from their home turf.
That is an astonishing figure.
If almost 2/3rds of us stay within 20 minutes of home, local hospitals still have the opportunity to be concrete care monopolies, acting as 'medical homes' for a vast majority of grounded community members.
The portability of personal health records (PHRs) and electronic health records (EHRs) may have a much more community-based focus than previously supported by research from within the healthcare community (although RHIO organization would seem to implicitly rely upon an assumption that most medical care will be 'locally' delivered within a tight geographic base).
If this is the case, then why aren't RHIOs working?
Becaause siloed 'brick and mortar' communities of care no longer hold exclusive sway - where we live in 'real life' is no longer our only definition of 'home.'
And where we seek medical services in real life is no longer our sole definition of 'healthcare.'
The idea of 'local' community has expanded exponentially with web-based Health 2.0 technologies combining content + community.
Health 2.0 communities like Diabetes Mine and Patients Like Me have delinked healthcare and geographic limitations: intimate, everyday community interactions (which hold vital healthcare implications) no longer happen solely offline.
Even those of us who are homebound or live with 'limited' mobility now have expanded geographic communities in which to live with and learn about our health, enabled via web access.
While brick and mortar healthcare organizations address what's physically wrong with us, I'd argue that online healthcare sites and services allow us to rally additional support, which is accessible at will (when and where we need it most) and address the psychic issues related to illness and healing.
Online healthcare and wellness communities help patients and other consumer segments address a 'crisis of meaning' and reconcile challenges inherent in straddling two worlds.
If you have a chronic condition, in one world, you are a powerless 'patient,' defined by your diagnosis within the medical ecosystem. In another world, the real world, you are a person doing your best to live well, minimizing constraints caused by a lack of coherence between your 'patient' identity and your 'personal' identity.
It is largely the web-based communities which are generating debate about how to reframe healthcare as a conversation and reclaim our personal health narratives.
The good news is that these conversations are jumping offline, but not fast enough.
Those of us debating healthcare evolution in the blogosphere need to be doing more to cooperate with offline policy makers and implementers who can drive innovation from within the current hospital-based system. We need to push past our safe-haven comfort zones online.
Online, the e-patient experience is not automatically devalued. Instead, e-patients involvement with patient-centric, web-based 'medical homes' encourages constructive, community-based reconciliation of patient and personal identities.
E-patients are 'owning' health, recovery, and wellness goals rather than silently suffering the dehumanizing experience of being labeled a patient 'other.'
We are reclaiming what it means to be healing (or dying) in a system that devalues the "human-to-human" empathic approach, subverting recuperative effects of communication below clinical approaches to 'cure.'
Sharing our personal illness and recovery narratives, in sickness and in health, is a vital component to sparking healthcare change, at both an individual and a systemic level. Connections and online health/wellness communities are viral and exponential -people connecting people.
Nexthealth was started to address advantages of connecting innovators who want to spark healthcare change and are willing to drive "what's next," integrating healthcare design, planning, and delivery both online and offline.
Only through person-to-person interactions, 'connecting the dots' on the web, and in the real world, and creating a road-map to consumer-centric, patient-directed care can we support a healthcare delivery ecosystem that values conversation and cure equally - that supports both empathy and efficiency initiatives. That reconciles the patient and the personal experience.
Please join us. Nexthealth.nl does not aim to subvert or exclude any group - it will take a global hive community of firestarters to spark change and build roadmaps leading to "what's next" in healthcare.
Showing posts with label Diabetes Mine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diabetes Mine. Show all posts
1.5.08
Everyone Should Enter: 2nd Diabetes Mine Design Challenge
More info at MedGadget here...
Great to see 2 categories (under/over 18). Amy Tenderich will judge; winners get a ticket to Health 2.0 and IDEO design consultation.
Please - design tools to help consumers with diabetes live the sweet life.
Great to see 2 categories (under/over 18). Amy Tenderich will judge; winners get a ticket to Health 2.0 and IDEO design consultation.
Please - design tools to help consumers with diabetes live the sweet life.
31.1.08
It's All About the Networks
Why are P2P social networks important in healthcare?
Docs network. Nurses network. Hospital administrators network.
But until relatively recently, patients didn't network.
"Users" of hospital and healthcare services, especially those challenged with mobility issues, lacked a convenient way to connect and share experiences.
Until, that is, people like Amy of Diabetes Mine decided they had valuable information to share, and built web-based platforms where first-person perspective data could be reciprocally distributed.
I like the idea of viral networking that coalesces around a specific healthcare-related purpose, both personally (as a patient) and professionally (as an early careerist in H/HC).
When I can tell what a networking site's goal is (and what they'll do with my information if I decide to register), I can select whether or not I would find time spent there valuable.
Obvious conclusion, no?
One would think. However, in analyzing emerging Health 2.0 companies (including sites in private Beta), I've encountered much more difficulty discerning motivation than I expected.
It should be, and has been, relatively easy to pick up on the primary goals of most sites ("become the best site for people with diabetes in Canada"), but it's much harder to discern secondary motivations centered around revenue gain.
Many of the sites seem to be gathering more data about users than necessary for a basic registration (on one site I actually had to enter conditions of interest before I was permitted to proceed), and this makes me a bit nervous.
When I see that a relatively newly birthed site gathering this much info about me already has large splashy animated ads from big pharma and other industry heavy-hitters, I'm wondering if you're really aiming to aggregate a ton of marketable data and then sell the firm, making money by sharing your users info. Most of us wouldn't find out our data had been sold until after the fact.
That's why a few new partnerships that expand functionality and combine user-bases in the wider social/professional networking world are so interesting.
These firms are laying out a roadmap of what works and what doesn't. H2.0 companies can follow their lead and then forge ahead once a strong user base is developed.
First, there's the Wall Street Journal and Facebook partnership (VentureBeat). One cross-vertical opportunity might be constructing a widget which lets your H2.0 users connect to favorite articles on MedScape, Blogspot blogs, Digg, etc.
WSJ and Facebook cross the age boundary to partner on widget — The venerable Wall Street Journal will be adding a new feature to its site showing readers which stories are popular with their Facebook friends that day, powered by a company called Loomia. Not the most likely-sounding partnership, but Andy Beal has some possible explanations. The most likely: “The WSJ is just desperate to attract some hip under 30-year old readers.”
Then there's Hoover's purchase of VisiblePath, a company-centric LinkedIn (also from VentureBeat). One cross-vertical opportunity might be the acquisition of other H2.0 sites that are struggling to pull in user-bases but have better platform functionality a la TaskBin (easier to use, better throughput via links/sign-ins, etc). From what I've seen, plenty of Health 2.0 sites could use some serious design/functionality help - EDs aren't the only healthcare areas with clogged throughput.
Confirmed: Visible Path acquired by Hoover’s — Visible Path has been a sort of low-key competitor to LinkedIn, offering a corporate social networking experience centered around companies rather than individuals. We mentioned late last year that it might have been picked up by a large corporation, which turns out to be Hoover’s, a well-known resource for information about companies. Visible Path, based in Foster City, Calif., had raised a total of $22.4 million, but the acquisition price was not disclosed. Hoover’s also announced that it has launched Hoover’s Connect, another business social network.
Yes, I use LinkedIn, regularly. I have a Facebook page, which I use very seldom and am considering nixing. I do not have a MySpace page.
I use LinkedIn because it actually has helped me stay in touch with people I've only met virtually (other Idea Crossing Innovation Challenge judges, for example).
So, H2.0 companies, or H/HC firms looking do integrate consumer-centric H2.0 practices, here's my recommendation, and it's blindingly simple - be sure you offer an easy-to-use networking functionality with a purpose.
That purpose, and appropriate privacy safeguards, should be clearly stated to engender trust in patients/users.
I'll go a step further and say for your most active, involved users you should also include a statement regarding revenue, and how you do NOT expect to earn it by selling my data. (Yes, this issue is a big deal - this isn't the first time I've talked about it, and it probably won't be the last - Click here to read my Open Letter to Health 2.0 Companies).
We healthcare consumers are a notoriously fickle lot, and if your functionality provokes even a vague sense of distrust, we'll jump ship and wait for the next best site to come along.
If you have a concept for an H2.0 site in the works, never fear - there's money out there to fund your H2.0 venture (VentureBeat), and from inside the industry:
Clarian Health Partners launches VC unit with $25M – Clarian Health Partners, an Indianapolis hospital chain, launched a venture-capital arm, Clarian Health Ventures, with an initial $25 million investment. The release is here.
As an example of how to do a health networking site the right way, I provide Exhibit A: the Health on the Net Foundation's HON Code for medical and health websites.
Not all of the 8 principles will apply, depending on your business model, but I suggest you pay close attention to the "Privacy" and "Financial Disclosure" recommendations, in addition to the Advertising Policy.
Oh, and always, always identify authors of your content and cite sources when appropriate.
Yes, Health Management Rx is HONCode compliant.
It took me 3 tries to fulfill all the requirements. HONCode has made this a better site, and me a better blogger for requiring me to reexamine the purpose of the blog and my motivation for blogging.
Exhibit B: I'm Too Young For This.org.
You can easily find the site's purpose, and look at funders by clicking on the "Our Supporters" tab.
Plus, founder Matthew Zachary has organized a site that dares to counterattack the debilitating effects of cancer with sarcasm and dry humor.
The fact is, decreasing global economies of scale have made it easy to build an H2.0 site, and integrate it into your brick and mortar hospital model. The issue now is how you build a site with a clearly stated purpose that invites users to demonstrate trust?
Luckily, examples are out there. Please excuse me while I go poll my social network to find some more.
Docs network. Nurses network. Hospital administrators network.
But until relatively recently, patients didn't network.
"Users" of hospital and healthcare services, especially those challenged with mobility issues, lacked a convenient way to connect and share experiences.
Until, that is, people like Amy of Diabetes Mine decided they had valuable information to share, and built web-based platforms where first-person perspective data could be reciprocally distributed.
I like the idea of viral networking that coalesces around a specific healthcare-related purpose, both personally (as a patient) and professionally (as an early careerist in H/HC).
When I can tell what a networking site's goal is (and what they'll do with my information if I decide to register), I can select whether or not I would find time spent there valuable.
Obvious conclusion, no?
One would think. However, in analyzing emerging Health 2.0 companies (including sites in private Beta), I've encountered much more difficulty discerning motivation than I expected.
It should be, and has been, relatively easy to pick up on the primary goals of most sites ("become the best site for people with diabetes in Canada"), but it's much harder to discern secondary motivations centered around revenue gain.
Many of the sites seem to be gathering more data about users than necessary for a basic registration (on one site I actually had to enter conditions of interest before I was permitted to proceed), and this makes me a bit nervous.
When I see that a relatively newly birthed site gathering this much info about me already has large splashy animated ads from big pharma and other industry heavy-hitters, I'm wondering if you're really aiming to aggregate a ton of marketable data and then sell the firm, making money by sharing your users info. Most of us wouldn't find out our data had been sold until after the fact.
That's why a few new partnerships that expand functionality and combine user-bases in the wider social/professional networking world are so interesting.
These firms are laying out a roadmap of what works and what doesn't. H2.0 companies can follow their lead and then forge ahead once a strong user base is developed.
First, there's the Wall Street Journal and Facebook partnership (VentureBeat). One cross-vertical opportunity might be constructing a widget which lets your H2.0 users connect to favorite articles on MedScape, Blogspot blogs, Digg, etc.
WSJ and Facebook cross the age boundary to partner on widget — The venerable Wall Street Journal will be adding a new feature to its site showing readers which stories are popular with their Facebook friends that day, powered by a company called Loomia. Not the most likely-sounding partnership, but Andy Beal has some possible explanations. The most likely: “The WSJ is just desperate to attract some hip under 30-year old readers.”
Then there's Hoover's purchase of VisiblePath, a company-centric LinkedIn (also from VentureBeat). One cross-vertical opportunity might be the acquisition of other H2.0 sites that are struggling to pull in user-bases but have better platform functionality a la TaskBin (easier to use, better throughput via links/sign-ins, etc). From what I've seen, plenty of Health 2.0 sites could use some serious design/functionality help - EDs aren't the only healthcare areas with clogged throughput.
Confirmed: Visible Path acquired by Hoover’s — Visible Path has been a sort of low-key competitor to LinkedIn, offering a corporate social networking experience centered around companies rather than individuals. We mentioned late last year that it might have been picked up by a large corporation, which turns out to be Hoover’s, a well-known resource for information about companies. Visible Path, based in Foster City, Calif., had raised a total of $22.4 million, but the acquisition price was not disclosed. Hoover’s also announced that it has launched Hoover’s Connect, another business social network.
Yes, I use LinkedIn, regularly. I have a Facebook page, which I use very seldom and am considering nixing. I do not have a MySpace page.
I use LinkedIn because it actually has helped me stay in touch with people I've only met virtually (other Idea Crossing Innovation Challenge judges, for example).
So, H2.0 companies, or H/HC firms looking do integrate consumer-centric H2.0 practices, here's my recommendation, and it's blindingly simple - be sure you offer an easy-to-use networking functionality with a purpose.
That purpose, and appropriate privacy safeguards, should be clearly stated to engender trust in patients/users.
I'll go a step further and say for your most active, involved users you should also include a statement regarding revenue, and how you do NOT expect to earn it by selling my data. (Yes, this issue is a big deal - this isn't the first time I've talked about it, and it probably won't be the last - Click here to read my Open Letter to Health 2.0 Companies).
We healthcare consumers are a notoriously fickle lot, and if your functionality provokes even a vague sense of distrust, we'll jump ship and wait for the next best site to come along.
If you have a concept for an H2.0 site in the works, never fear - there's money out there to fund your H2.0 venture (VentureBeat), and from inside the industry:
Clarian Health Partners launches VC unit with $25M – Clarian Health Partners, an Indianapolis hospital chain, launched a venture-capital arm, Clarian Health Ventures, with an initial $25 million investment. The release is here.
Clarian aims to make early-stage investments that will benefit its parent company and to support economic development and innovation in Indiana. The fund expects to make initial investments in the range of $250,000 to $500,000, and as much as $3 million over the life of an investment. Clarian’s first investment was in the cancer-biomarker biotech CS-Keys, which we covered yesterday.
As an example of how to do a health networking site the right way, I provide Exhibit A: the Health on the Net Foundation's HON Code for medical and health websites.
Not all of the 8 principles will apply, depending on your business model, but I suggest you pay close attention to the "Privacy" and "Financial Disclosure" recommendations, in addition to the Advertising Policy.
Oh, and always, always identify authors of your content and cite sources when appropriate.
Yes, Health Management Rx is HONCode compliant.
It took me 3 tries to fulfill all the requirements. HONCode has made this a better site, and me a better blogger for requiring me to reexamine the purpose of the blog and my motivation for blogging.
Exhibit B: I'm Too Young For This.org.
You can easily find the site's purpose, and look at funders by clicking on the "Our Supporters" tab.
Plus, founder Matthew Zachary has organized a site that dares to counterattack the debilitating effects of cancer with sarcasm and dry humor.
The fact is, decreasing global economies of scale have made it easy to build an H2.0 site, and integrate it into your brick and mortar hospital model. The issue now is how you build a site with a clearly stated purpose that invites users to demonstrate trust?
Luckily, examples are out there. Please excuse me while I go poll my social network to find some more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
