November 2nd, 2010 by StevenWilkinsMPH in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Research
Tags: Annals Of Internal Medicine, General Medicine, Healthcare Social Media, Mind The Gap, Online Support Groups, Peer Support, Social Media Advocates, Social Media and Personal Support, Social Media In Medicine, Social Networking For Patients, Steven Wilkins MPH
No Comments »
Over the last year or two, lots of people have been jumping on the social media bandwagon, i.e., Twitter, Facebook, and so on. There has been a lot of talk about how social media and social networking will revolutionize healthcare, but little evidence to back this talk up. Until now, that is.
Before I get to the evidence that I referred to, I need to clarify something. The goal of social media as I understand it is to get people talking, sharing information and creating new ideas. As applied to healthcare, one of the goals of social media is to get people/patients with like medical conditions taking, sharing and supporting one another. Healthcare researchers refer to this phenomenon as peer support. Peer support is not new to healthcare. Disease-specific support groups (breast cancer, diabetes, etc.) have been around for years. “Group” physician office visits comprised of patients with the same diagnosis have been around for years as well.
The Study
Now to the evidence. As anyone with a chronic condition or who treats patient with chronic conditions knows, patient self-care is critical. Knowledge, skills and confidence are prerequisites for effective self-care management. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Mind The Gap*
November 2nd, 2010 by DrRob in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
Tags: Broken Healthcare System, Dr. Rob Lamberts, Election 2010, Fixing American Healthcare, General Medicine, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare reform, Musings of a Distractible Mind, Politics and Medicine, U.S. Healthcare System
1 Comment »
The top vote-getting answer on my poll about what people feel about the election: Different lunatics, same asylum. We are getting jaded by our system. Being the “flaming moderate” that I am, I find it hard to hear the substance of the rhetoric on either side, just the shrillness and rancor of the voices.
From the physician’s perspective, it is very hard to know who to favor in this election. The democrats seem to love lawyers and hate tort reform, and they also favor an expansion of government. The republicans love big businesses and “free market,” accepting the bad behavior of insurance and drug companies as “the market working itself out.” They both seem hell-bent on sticking it to the other party at the expense of getting anything done — and this in a time of crisis for our industry.
The results of this playground brawl between the two gangs of bullies is that all of us wimpy kids (the ones without power) end up lying bloody in the dirt. Here are the facts as I see them about healthcare in our country:
1. It costs far too much. The top item on the agenda needs to be cost control. The only way to control cost is to stop paying for things that are unnecessary or for which there is a cheaper alternative. I know that’s not simple as it sounds, but so much of the discussion is about coverage and how things are paid, while the real issue is not who pays, it’s what and how much gets paid. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
November 2nd, 2010 by admin in Health Policy, Humor, Opinion, True Stories
Tags: Canada, Care Tips From A Patient, Carolyn Thomas, Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research, Consideration for the Patient, Direct Patient Care, Exam Room Etiquette, General Medicine, Guest Post, Healthcare Professionals, Heart Sisters, Hospital Staff, How To Treat Patients, Improving Patient Care, Medical Staff Behavior, Medicine and Humanism, Patient Care Etiquette, Professional Roles in Patient Care, Professionalism In Healthcare, Quality Patient Care, Respectful Patient Care, Successful Patient Care, The Ethical Nag
No Comments »
This is a guest post from Carolyn Thomas:
An Open Letter To All Hospital Staff
Dear hospital employees,
After a particularly bizarre experience undergoing a treadmill stress echocardiogram at your hospital recently, I decided to do something that I have never done before: I called the manager of the cardiology department to complain about her staff. (Incidentally, a recent opinion survey of international tourists found that Canadians were #1 in only one category: “Least likely to complain when things go wrong” — so you can appreciate that lodging an official complaint is a fairly big deal here!)
In my best PR fashion, I told the manager how distressing the appointment had been because of the behaviour of the two cardiac technicians in the room. It’s not so much that they were openly rude, but it was their insufferable lack of people skills that had pushed me over the edge. No introductions, no eye contact, no consideration of how awkward this test can be, no explanation of the test procedures or even the flimsiest effort at polite conversation. To them, I was merely the 1:00 o’clock appointment, the obstacle between them and their next coffee break, just a piece of meat on a slab — but worse, an invisible piece of meat. Read more »
November 2nd, 2010 by John Mandrola, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Humor, Opinion
Tags: Dr. John Mandrola, Election 2010, Fixing American Healthcare, Healthcare Administration, Healthcare reform, Medical Humor
No Comments »
Have you ever thought: “What if I won an election and was put in charge of an administration?”
Halloween weekend seemed the perfect time for considering the fantasy (or some would argue the horror) of a DrJohnM administration. (Let it be known, I have some leadership experience: I lead local group rides with some success. A community organizer of sorts.) But for the sake of college-like dreaming, let’s consider government under my realm.
First off, clearly the present-day political costumes would have to change. There would be a ban on suits, ties (MRSA-spreading), and uncomfortable shoes. People think better if they are dressed in comfy clothes. It works for Google.
Of course, since I am a practicing doctor, a focus of my administration would be on healthcare reform. And like our current president, I would also have “expert” panels — only my “fix healthcare” panel would look very different. To illustrate these phenotypical differences, let’s consider some of my panel’s inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Panel exclusions:
Anyone with a 4.0 GPA. You are out. Sorry, there are plenty of other think tanks for you, in pretty cool places too, like Cambridge, Ann Arbor, and Palo Alto. A very wise retired urologist once told me that B students nearly always make better doctors, and surely those who tried other things in life (besides the classroom) will make better real-life decisions. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr John M*
November 2nd, 2010 by Jennifer Shine Dyer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Data Interpretation, Determinants of Health, Dr. Jennifer Shine Dyer, Factors to Health, General Medicine, Health MacDonald, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Politics, Healthcare reform, Historical Intepretation, Individual Health Behaviors, Miasmaticians, Perceptions of Health, Public Health Pioneers, Public Health Quackery, Science Based Medicine, Socioeconomics, Traditional Science, What Determines Health, When Health Loses
No Comments »
I recently read an article by Heather MacDonald entitled “Public Health Quackery” that has not left my thoughts since. The truth in regards to what determines health is being argued in the article.
At the heart of the article, MacDonald seeks to contrast the traditional science approach with the miasmatician approach to the fundamental question of the role of individual behaviors vs. socioeconomics on the determinants of health. MacDonald summarizes the miasmaticians’ beliefs of health determinants as being exclusively influenced by socioeconomics thereby dismissing any and all influences on health by individual behaviors.
Her primary argument in favor of the traditional science belief in individual behaviors as determinants of health is as follows: Traditional science bases assumptions of truth on data that is valid by scientific standards vs. miasmaticians’ assumptions of truth from biased, “flimsy” data. In other words, “quacky” ideas come from “quacky” data thus are not likely to be true. Read more »
