This Just In: Patients Can Use the Internet Now.

Sometimes, the future arrives so swiftly that we don’t even notice the subtle revolutions unfolding before our eyes.

For years, the notion of patients searching for health information online was anathema to physicians. The slightest mention of patients as engaged consumers of health information would cue a noxious reflex from most providers, fueled, no doubt, by stereotypes of patients like these:

Screen Shot 2015-10-09 at 20.18.23

As recently as 2013, when I interviewed for medical school, stated interests and curiosities in healthcare social media, e-health, and participatory medicine were best, bold propositions, and at worst, toxic taboos.

“Do me a favor,” one dean of admissions quipped, “When you’re a third-year on clerkships, you’ll meet the man who’s been convinced by a WebMD search that his toe pain is diagnostic for brain cancer. Spend 15 minutes with that guy, then come find me and let me know if you’re still an optimist about online resources as tools for patient empowerment and engagement.”

Fast forward to 2015, where I’m now a clinical-phase student on an outpatient pediatrics rotation, and I finally have an answer for that dean–though it’s probably not the one he expected. I’m still an optimist in the power of online communities and digital content to equip patients with the information they need to engage in their clinical-decision making, as equals, with their providers.

Actually, after the conversations and clinical interactions I’ve witnessed these past weeks on pediatrics, that optimism has never held more firm.

Figure 1. An adolescent seen one week earlier for an acute infection and prescribed antibiotics returns with unresolved infection. The physician makes a diagnosis of antibiotic treatment failure. As she studies the literature for an appropriate second-line treatment, the patient’s mother does a Google search on her phone–and suggests a finding of her own. The physician reviews it, confirms it, prescribes it. Snap.

Figure 2. A child who is seen frequently for recurrent febrile illnesses presents for a well-child visit. The child’s parent mentions having searched online and identified a periodic fever syndrome consistent with the child’s clinical history. The parent shares printouts of relevant patient education materials, academic review articles, and diagnostic manuals with the physician. The physician agrees with the parent’s impression, and makes the diagnosis. Snap, crackle.

Figure 3. A neonate with a congenital condition arrives for a new-patient evaluation. The patient’s mother admits she selected this physician based upon reviews and recommendations from a local online patient community for disease-specific support. At the visit’s conclusion, the mother impresses the physician when she suggests a prescription for ondansetron–a tip she found through, yes, an online patient community. Snap, crackle, and pop.

As a health technologies optimist and medical futurist, it’s evident I’ve been so focused looking ahead to the future that I’ve missed the simple reality: in subtle ways, it’s already arrived.

We used to see e-health as synonymous with WebMD, the digital quack doc where all differential diagnoses lead to cancer. We used to think too much information would break the patient, break the doctor-patient relationship, or worst of all, break the monopoly on expertise that gave our profession relevance. We were, clearly, misguided.

The patient’s access to communities and open-access platforms for online health information is breaking healthcare–but not as doctors once thought it would. Instead, it’s breaking hierarchies, allowing patients to contribute to differentials and suggest treatments as engaged participants on their care team. It’s breaking barriers, connecting patients to insights and innovations previously sealed beyond paywalls and subscriptions. And it’s breaking the metaphorical walls of isolation, bringing patients in touch with others who understand the experience of living with illness and navigating a complex health system.

And every evening, as I drive home from another day in medical school, I’m inspired by the resilience of children, the resourcefulness of their caregivers, and the realization that I’m blessed to be entering medicine at a time of profound transformation, revolution, and creative destruction.

Advertisements

On Rounds | 4.26.2015

It’s the weekend after end of block exams, which means it’s time to dig through the 742 links in my Pocket queue. That also means it’s time for another edition of “On Rounds,” bringing you my favorite reads of the week.

On the new MCAT | Forbes
There’s a lot to like about the new Medical College Admission Test; with new content in psychology and sociology, MCAT 2015 acknowledges that there’s more to doctoring than biochemical pathways and physics equations. But are multiple-choice tests the best way to identify humanistic, socially aware aspiring doctors? What more we can do to foster diversity and holistic thinking among medical trainees? Allan Joseph and Karan Chhabra break down the good, the bad, and the path forward.

On quack science and journalistic ethicsVox
When it comes to pseudoscientists and their cults of personality, what’s a better-knowing journalist (or healthcare provider) to do? Speak out, and validate a quack? Or stay silent, and let faulty information rule the airwaves? Julia Belluz is on point with this one, and her insights and advice here ought to be required reading for every journalist, scientist, and clinician with a social media account.

On medical schools as laboratories of health transformationForbes
Esther Dyson once remarked that change in medicine happens one retirement at a time. She’s dead right. If we want our healthcare system to pivot from expensive care and late-stage interventions to systems-based practice, preventive care, and population health, the transition begins with how we train future doctors to think. At UT-Austin, the new Dell Medical School is bringing a ‘re-boot’ to a 100-year old model of medical education. David Shaywitz breaks down their educational approach, and what it could mean for medical schools nationwide.

On the value (or maybe not?) of health apps New York Times
There are two kinds of people. On one hand are those who own wearables and use health applications: the young, the affluent, the health-conscious. On the other hand are those who might often benefit from digital health but can rarely afford it: chronic disease patients, the elderly, and those with limited access to care. Today, the consumer market for health apps and devices is larger than ever. How do we connect tech fads to health outcomes? How do we balance rapid innovation with health equity? This NYT article doesn’t offer all the answers, but it raises many of the right questions.

On restoring the ‘joy of medicine’Medstro
When it comes to physician lifestyle, we keep hearing the same stuff: provider burnout is at a high; satisfaction is at a low; most doctors today wouldn’t recommend the profession to their children. We know all that; now, what are we going to do about it? Medstro and Geneia’s “Joy of Medicine Challenge” invites your ideas to restore joy to the practice of medicine, and they’re offering $1,000 for your thoughts. Instead of talking about how our healthcare system is broken, let’s ideate on how to fix it.

On Rounds | 3.24.15

In recent months, as I’ve transitioned from senioritis to sleep deprivation, I’ve come to appreciate the value of brevity. Goodbye, RSS; hello, Twitter, Circa, and BriefMe.

It’s with this perspective that I’m launching ‘On Rounds,’ a (hopefully!) weekly curation of big ideas, reflections, and byte-sized foods for thought. If you’re finding it tough to keep up with the world beyond the lecture hall or clinic, outsource that task to me.

On sitting with patients | New York Times
We often discuss empathy decline in medical training, and why it occurs; in this insightful, incisive piece, Dhruv Khullar absolutely nails it. Pre-meds don’t aspire to treat medical records and lab values, but people. But in medical school, knowing the patient takes a back-seat to knowing the pathophysiology, creating a rift between expectation and reality.

On MOOCs and medical training | Slate
While the MOOC is no longer a novelty, it’s still an enigma: what’s the place of online education in the knowledge market of the 21st century? This month, Yale raised the stakes by announcing its new online physician’s assistant program. In light of an imminent physician shortage and the ever-rising costs of higher education, one has to wonder: is there a place for online, or hybrid, education in medical training?

On re-designing deathCalifornia Sunday
Ideo, the legendary design firm, has built its brand on challenging assumptions and breaking the barriers of, “Well, we’ve always done it this way.” What happens when the strategies that have driven the design of products are instead applied to processes—say, death? And more crucially, how do we inspire and train clinicians to apply the design framework to the act of doctoring, itself?

On UX designMedium
What are the skills and roles that effective design requires? Irene Au breaks it down here, and spoiler alert—the parallels to patient care are remarkable. If we envision the bedside encounter as a co-design collaboration between a patient and provider, the implications and applications in this piece for clinical medicine are fascinating.

On health tech and how bad it isNew York Times
In most fields, the technologies work for the people; in healthcare, the people work for the technologies. Here, Bob Wachter explains why the transition to electronic health records has been a rough one, then lays a roadmap to realizing the value and potential of digital medicine. It’s a daunting task, but an essential one if we eventually hope to treat patients, rather than “iPatients.”

Medicine, Live-Streamed?

MeerkatAs a health tech optimist, I’m constantly fascinated—and completely stumped—by the science of ‘viral’ ideas. What is it that makes some innovations emerge, ignite, and transform, while others stumble, sputter, and fade?

Take live-streaming, for example. The concept of broadcasting one’s first-person perspective in real-time isn’t a novel notion. It’s existed since the early 1990s, when tech pioneers like Steve Mann strapped on cameras and webcast their lives to the world. And, if you’re a millennial in medicine, it’s how you attended medical school.

So what makes Meerkat, the latest ‘app of the moment,’ matter? The short answer: simplicity.

Until now, live-streaming has been done by big institutions for big events: the State of the Union, Apple product reveals, March Madness games. Sure, casual users have YouTube or Vine, but the real-time element of a live-stream takes engagement a step further.

Meerkat now empowers you, the viewer, to become the broadcaster. Open the app, click ‘stream,’ and cast via a link that’s available on your Twitter feed. It’s intuitive, instant, and inexpensive—it’s Meerkat.

How might we leverage this real-time capacity to share our perspectives to enrich medicine?

To transfer knowledge. Take it from a medical student: conferences cost. A lot. An academic conference is a buffet of food for thought, but learners and patients are often left to catch the leftovers through tweets and news releases. Now imagine a future where every presentation, pitch, and panel is immediately available. Imagine a future where your audience isn’t just a room of conference-goers, but the global Twitterati. And imagine the impact that will have on the time to translate insights from bench to bedside.

To foster empathy. Too often, the communication gaps and patient-provider tensions in healthcare are rooted in a failure to understand the other’s experience. Live-streamers invite their audience to watch the world through their eyes, to witness the challenges they face daily, and to respond accordingly. What if providers could observe the barriers that prevent their patients from adhering to treatments? What if patients could see why their doctor seems distracted, or doesn’t have an answer to every question? With Meerkat, it’s possible, quite literally, to walk a mile in someone’s shoes.

To promote accountability. When the world’s watching, we sit up straight and put on our best behavior. The ability to (broad)cast public scrutiny on any individual is powerful—perhaps, too powerful. Whether or not we should put others under this spotlight, the indisputable truth is that we can. That alone should make hospitals and providers pay attention.

Let’s be realistic: Meerkat isn’t likely to be the next Twitter or Facebook; it’s too ephemeral, too public, and too inconspicuous to replace more established forms of public dialogue. But it does open opportunities to communicate visually and to communicate live. And in a discipline where many of our biggest problems are communication problems, that’s worth thinking about.