Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 6/16/25

Healthcare isn’t the only industry grappling with how AI should, or should not, fit into our daily work.

Some friends who are teachers sent me the transcript of a recent discussion about how AI is impacting the ability of humans to think and whether it will alter our abilities for critical thinking. The discussion linked to an article “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking” that was a great read. The author set out to examine how AI tool use relates to critical thinking skills and focused on the concept of cognitive offloading as a potential mediating factor. Cognitive offloading happens when thought processes are outsourced to technology instead of being developed independently.

The study found that higher AI tool use had a negative impact on critical thinking abilities. Younger study participants (ages 17-25) were more dependent on AI tools and had lower critical thinking scores compared to those study participants who were older than 46 years. It also noted that regardless of AI usage, better critical thinking skills were associated with higher educational attainment, which should be important to anyone who has a stake in ensuring a well-educated population. The study found that higher educated people maintained those critical thinking skills even when using AI, which supports the idea that how we are using AI is more important than whether we’re using it or not. The study also found that AI use encourages passive learning, where students consume information rather than creating it.

The study had multiple hypotheses about the role of cognitive offloading, including one that suggested that moving thinking tasks to external tools would reduce the cognitive burden on individuals. Instead, they found that the reduced cognitive load can lead to reduced critical engagement and cognitive analysis. According to the author, this phenomenon has been described as the “Google effect,” where being able to easily find information online leads to reduced memory retention and problem solving skills.

That would seem to go along with what many of us already think, which is that the internet is making us dumber. Although to truly explore that statement, you would also have to look at the proliferation of TikTok videos and the nonsense seen all over social media on a daily basis.

I had the chance to speak to a couple of teachers who were blissfully enjoying their summer vacation, so I figured I would ask about their thoughts around AI and their thoughts about how it was impacting education, beyond the obvious concerns about AI-generated work.

One said that plagiarism has always been an issue, and taking from AI sources isn’t a lot different than taking from other authors, although AI might be easier to catch because of stilted language that would have been caught by editors of more traditional sources. She also noted that she’s applying some of her existing “how to spot fake news” lesson plan content to AI, encouraging students to be skeptical about what AI is telling them, to ask about bias, and to consult multiple sources to ensure accuracy. She recommends that students do their best to answer questions in more traditional ways first, then use AI to validate their findings.

The other teacher felt that better education is needed on how AI works and the risks of using it. He likened it to when GPS units first came out, and there were reports of people driving off the edges of roads that were closed because they were blindly following the GPS and not paying appropriate attention to their surroundings. He also noted that although there are certainly concerns about AI use interfering with academic rigor, he is more worried about his teenage students being emotionally harmed by AI-generated content, such as deepfake photos or videos.

He noted, “When I was in school, people spread rumors, but now you can have altered videos going around that are a lot more difficult to combat.” As a proud member of Generation X, I don’t envy the students growing up in this environment. Still, I’m grateful for teachers that recognize these challenges and work to prepare students not only to be ready for the future but to protect their own mental health.

The use of AI by medical students and residents has been a hot topic for my colleagues who are working in academic settings. There are concerns that students have become used to looking up facts and aren’t memorizing information the way they used to, which places them at risk when resources aren’t readily available. Whether it’s a downtime event or a rapidly evolving clinical situation, I know I’m glad that I have certain pathways memorized to the point where they just happen naturally in my thought process.

Of course, I’ve allowed some things to go by the wayside and I would have to look them up if I ever needed them. (Cockcroft-Gault equation, I salute you.) One faculty member said his school is using AI within its case-based learning modules for medical students in hopes that the approach will build diagnostic reasoning skills rather than sabotage their development.

The faculty physicians I spoke with had different thoughts about the use of AI by resident physicians, since they’ve graduated from medical school and have the MD or DO behind their name and are therefore able to treat patients with some degree of independence even if they may not be fully licensed. Universally, they had concerns about using non-medical AI solutions due to the risk of hallucinations and the safety risks to patients. They were also concerned about students using those resources to learn procedures and algorithms, since students wouldn’t be aware if what they were reading was incorrect compared to what they might learn reading a more authoritative resource such as a medical textbook or journal articles.

All but one said they conduct their teaching rounds in an AI-free environment where participants are expected to contribute to the discussion without the benefit of external resources.

That conversation was limited to faculty in my immediate area. I suspect that attitudes might be different in parts of the country that are more apt to adopt new technologies more aggressively. I would be interested to hear from informaticists that work with medical schools or graduate medical education programs on how your institutions are approaching AI and what best practices are being developed.

Is AI really going to make healthcare better, or is it another shiny object that will eventually lose our admiration? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 6/12/25

From Boomer Sooner: “Re: Stanford’s EHR summary tool. The Department of Defense also recently launched an AI summary tool to help with the review of applicant records.” I know a thing or two about the process that military applicants go through, especially those who are applying to the military service academies or are going through the selection processes for highly selective fields. The onus of trying to get all the records to the right place is on the applicant, and it can be tricky when a practice doesn’t release records quickly. One of my favorite candidates said that in that process, the applicants who were military dependents had a bit of an advantage because their records were more easily accessible by reviewers.

The new tool, which was developed by the Innovation Facilitation Team at the US Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM), creates AI-enabled summaries of medical documents, reducing the time required for provider review. The summary can be seen in the MHS Genesis system as an encounter summary.

I was excited to learn about a recently enacted Arizona law that is aimed at protecting physicians and patients from unintended consequences that are related to AI. House Bill 2175 is designed to keep health insurance companies from using AI as the ultimate decision maker as they review claims and deal with medical necessity appeals and denials. It also applies to prior authorization requests and recognizes that cases that require medical judgment should be reviewed by licensed medical professionals with the appropriate training, experience, and ethical responsibility that is needed for clinical decision making. The law was introduced with the support of the Arizona Medical Association and various care delivery organizations and advocacy groups and goes into effect in 2026.

Nebraska is also addressing hot button healthcare issues with the Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act, which requires insurers to make their prior authorization requirements visible on their websites. Similar to the Arizona law, it prevents AI from being the sole basis for a denial of coverage. It also requires a 60-day notice period before payers can add new requirements. We often think about healthcare IT in terms of provider side organizations, but plenty of tech folks are working on the payer side. It will be interesting to see how much work is done on websites and how quickly it happens. I’m betting that payers drag it out until the last minute, knowing that it doesn’t go into effect until January 2026.

One more state wading into the healthcare fray is Indiana, which recently enacted a bill that requires non-profit hospitals to either lower their prices or lose their tax advantaged status by 2029. Hospitals will be required to submit audited financial statements that show a decrease in their prices to match or be less than the statewide average. Failure to submit the audited statements can result in a $10,000 per day penalty. The bill has other interesting features, namely creating a state directed payment program for hospitals as well as a managed care assessment fee. A provision requires insurers and health maintenance organizations to submit specified data to the all-payer claims database and another one to reduce drug costs for the state employee health plan.

I wasn’t aware of Guidehealth until the company announced this week that it had received a $10 million investment from Emory Healthcare. As one would expect, the solution has an AI-enabled component. It advertises “AI-driven intelligence with human-centered care” using medical assistants that are “trained in data science and empathy.” They are branded with the trademarked Healthguides moniker. The company plans to use the additional investment to add AI-powered virtual care navigation to support analysis of patient-reported data and with interventions that target fall risk or depression screenings.

Guidehealth was already working with Emory’s Population Health Collaborative to boost quality scores under a Medicare Advantage contract. I would be interested to understand the medical assistant training and whether unique hiring algorithms are being used to find individuals with a particular level of empathy. In my experience, that’s not only hard to find at times, but difficult to enhance with training.

Speaking of AI, over the last year a couple of articles looked at AI-generated messages to patients and found that those with an AI origin were more empathetic. A new study that looked at medical queries across the US and Australia found the opposite. The AI-enabled responses were more accurate and professional than human responses, but lacked emotional depth and also raised concerns of data bias. I’m sure we’re not done with this one, and many more research efforts will be looking at the phenomenon.

While many organizations are looking at technology solutions to close gaps in care, particularly in preventive services, a recent study showed that for cervical cancer screening, lower tech interventions can still drive the needle. Researchers looked at patients in a safety net care setting and compared rates of cervical cancer screening. Patients who received a mailed self-collection kit along with a telephone reminder had greater participation (41%) than those who received a telephone reminder alone (17%). It just goes to show that nudges aren’t enough. We need to make it easy for patients to get the recommended services rather than just telling them they need to do it.

From Weird Al: “Re: earwax as the newest precision medicine tool I wonder how much these tests will cost?” A BBC article notes that wax could contain biomarkers for cancer, metabolic disorders, and even Alzheimer’s disease. Since ear wax is relatively stable, it might be able to show longer-term trends with various chemicals. There’s a team at Hospital Amaral Carvalho in Sao Paulo that is looking at cerumen for cancer diagnosis and monitoring, and several other institutions are conducting research.

Having spent many long hours in the emergency department and urgent care centers, I feel like worked with more than my share of ear wax. Running tests on it isn’t as cool as diagnosing conditions using a Star Trek-style tricorder, but here’s to the next generation of research and seeing if we can develop tests that are not only less invasive, but cost effective.

What healthcare technology advancements do you feel have really changed how we approach patients or conditions? Are they glamorously high tech or startlingly low key? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 6/9/25

People often ask me about the kinds of things that excite me within healthcare IT. I have to admit that despite the amount of money that has poured into the industry over the last few years, I don’t run across things that I think are cool as often as I would like.

Although I’m enthusiastic about new developments, a lot of companies appear to be trying to jump on a bandwagon. Plenty are hawking solutions in search of a problem, while ignoring the real problems that clinicians face each and every day.

I was glad to see that Stanford Medicine is going after a solution that could be a game changer for clinicians. Their new ChatEHR platform is getting a lot of buzz, and rightfully so. The ability to effectively query the medical record and find information quickly would create a tremendous advantage for clinicians.

Back in the days of paper charts, we thought a hospital stay was complicated if the patient’s visit documentation expanded into a second chart. Sometimes patients who had been there for a while even had a third or fourth chart. I cared for quite a few patients who were long-term residents of the inpatient units. I once dictated a discharge summary for a pediatric patient who had been hospitalized for 18 months. I was extremely grateful to the different residents who had created transition summaries whenever one of them rotated off that particular medical service. It allowed me to draw the overall summary from those interim summaries rather than having to dig through 550+ days of documentation.

It should also be mentioned that good or bad, hospital notes were shorter in those days. Although an admission History and Physical or a Discharge Summary might have been a couple of pages, the average daily note was a couple of inches long on the page and included much less regurgitated information than notes do today. Sometimes they were borderline illegible, which I agree is a patient safety risk, but they cut to the chase.

I always enjoyed the notes of a particular infectious disease consultant who wrote his notes in bullet format and put the truly important items in all caps. Now, even a simple daily progress note can be several pages long. It feels increasingly difficult to find the information that’s important.

EHR vendors have tried to combat this by creating various summary screens, tables, dashboards, and other elements. Although some of them are truly awesome (hip, hip, hooray for graphing and trending of lab values and vital signs data) they don’t do well at capturing narrative information that is still frequently found in providers’ notes. Often it’s the narrative comments that really tell the story of what is going on with the patient. This is where using AI to better harness that information can deliver real value.

When I read the initial description of the Stanford tool, it reminded me of working with a human scribe in the emergency department. Our scribes were phenomenal and did a great job of anticipating the attending physician’s questions and having the answer ready by digging through the different screens while we were talking with the patient. Their ability to multitask was much appreciated, although not every scribe is that proficient. Many physicians don’t have scribes, so their thought processes were fragmented while they’re trying to simultaneously hunt for information and also talk to the patient, their family, and the care team. Stanford leadership called out the importance of having this functionality in the clinician’s workflow.

It should be noted that several EHR vendors have been working on this, but there are some limitations to a vendor-driven approach, at least in my experience.

I’ve worked with more than a dozen EHRs over the years, and many different instances of the same two or three EHRs. Despite the idea of vendor-driven standardization, when you’ve seen one installation of a big EHR, you’ve seen one installation of a big EHR. Unless the vendor is strict about preventing customization, care delivery organizations have been known to customize themselves into a corner in the name of trying to enable their own unique workflows.

With the health system driving the AI search and summary efforts, not only can those local customizations be addressed, but it would also seem easier to incorporate source material from other systems. That could be a different EHR, legacy records, HIE information, or state registry information.

The Stanford team has been working on their solution since 2023, so it’s not something that an organization can just throw together overnight at this point. The model has limited use, with just over 30 clinicians at Stanford Hospital working with it and providing feedback on its performance and usability. Their goal is to roll it out to other clinicians at the facility as well as those at other facilities within the larger organization. It will be interesting to see how that timing looks and how quickly they can have more distributed utilization.

The team is also developing automated tasks within the tool, including one that looks at the records of potential transfer patients to determine whether they can be received and others that could help evaluate patients for hospice placement.

As I was reading about the solution, I assumed that it would have metadata or citations to identify the origin of the data in the summaries. It sounds like that is a feature on the “coming soon” list, but I personally think that’s an essential piece that is needed to gain clinicians’ trust. I know plenty of physicians that don’t trust their support staff to take a patient’s blood pressure properly, which results in the clinician rechecking it on every patient, so doing the change management tasks that are needed to create buy-in from end users will be important.

Seeing expensive solutions in place that clinicians don’t use is one of the most frustrating things I saw regularly as a healthcare IT consultant, but I know that the “AI” label will create a lot of clinician interest right off the bat regardless of how robust the solution might be.

I’d be interested in hearing from other organizations who might be working on similar projects, or from EHR vendors that are also trying to make this happen. What information is the easiest to access, and what ended up being more challenging than you think? How are clinicians receiving the solution, and what kinds of enhancements are they asking for right away? If you’re a clinician, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this kind of tool and what you would need to feel that it was reliable. As always, leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 6/5/25

As one might expect, the hot topic around the virtual physician lounge this week was the accuracy of the “Make America Health Again” report, which appeared to be at least partially co-authored by some unsupervised AI. The report exaggerated findings and cited studies that were nonexistent. As someone who has spent countless hours serving on the conference committees that review scientific findings and knowing how hard actual scientists and researchers work, it’s particularly offensive. The report doesn’t even have listed authors, which is telling. I wouldn’t accept bogus citations from the first-year undergraduates when I was a teaching assistant for “English 101: Thinking, Writing, and Research,” so it’s incredibly difficult for me to see this kind of thing happening among our nation’s leaders.

The physicians I work with are fed up with what they are seeing come out of CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services, knowing that not only do public health interventions such as vaccines or fluoride in the water supply reduce morbidity and mortality, but that they are also cost-effective. For those of us who have spent our lives in the pursuit of evidence-based treatments, improved outcomes, and careful spending on patient care, the cognitive dissonance we feel is profound when patients bring this pseudo-science into our exam rooms. We’re tired of being told that we’re “in the pockets of big pharma” and that we’re making money off of vaccines – neither of which is farther from the truth for the average primary care physician. It’s almost as bad as the cognitive dissonance we felt during COVID. If I were seeing patients full time right now, I doubt I’d be able to make it through a full day of clinic. I have the highest respect and gratitude for my clinical colleagues who do it every day and it makes me want to work harder to support them in whatever way the informatics team is able.

I had a chance to speak with some of my favorite EHR folks today, and we were talking about the challenges that hospitals and health systems will be facing in the next few years. Everyone seems to be struggling financially and looking for ways to reduce expenses because of the difficulty of forecasting income these days. It’s difficult to fine tune your assumptions if you don’t know whether there will be Medicare cuts, Medicaid cuts, or changes in how commercial insurance companies are paying due to changes with the first two. There are still concerns about telehealth payments, coverage for remote patient monitoring, and the ability to cover costs for other services that can drive the needle for health outcomes long term, such as weight management programs and preventive services.

Managing human health is a long game, with things that happen to us in childhood potentially driving health outcomes decades later. Since many of the players in our system are more concerned about generating profits for investors and shareholders on a quarter-to-quarter basis, it seems less common for organizations to consider taking less profit on a quarterly or annual basis in order to play a much longer multi-year game. There are also so many complex forces at play when you consider health outcomes, from access to high-quality food to the availability of preventive services. I remember back in the day when we struggled to care for patients with diabetes because Medicare wouldn’t pay for diabetic testing supplies until the disease reached a certain severity. Sure, test strips are expensive, but so are amputations and dialysis services, and it took years to get those coverage decisions amended.

I look at the IT budgets of some of the health systems I’ve worked with over the years, and on the surface they seem insanely high. However, when you look at the number of things we’re trying to do now using technology, it’s easier to understand. There are so many more technology workflows in the average patient’s care now – from online scheduling to contactless check-in to online bill pay and beyond. We have automated medication cabinets rather than candy stripers running medications down the hall on carts (which is actually how I started my clinical career, back in the day). We are trying to reach patients on so many more levels – from pre-visit education to in-visit technology support to post-encounter care, and we never did those things before. They all cost money, but technology isn’t necessarily to blame. They’d cost significantly more if we were trying to conduct those same workflows with humans.

I certainly don’t envy my CMIO and CIO friends who have been told to cut budgets across the board without regard to how those cuts are going to change outcomes and potentially impact patients. My generation of physicians is seeing quite a few early retirements and I fear that more will be on the way as organizations try to trim salaries by making it more difficult for physicians to make the same amount of money. I see plenty of hospitals that are being penny wise but pound foolish in how they are managing staffing models for nursing and ancillary services. I can’t help but think it is going to get a lot worse before it starts to get better. I’d be interested to hear how healthcare leaders are approaching those arbitrary budget cuts. I think I’d be tempted to bring out the Magic 8 Ball as I was assessing line items, just to bring a bit of levity to a difficult situation.

Mr. H shared this photo earlier in the week, and I cringed at the disingenuous caption. Anyone who thinks that caring for patients after a cyberattack is “caring through the unexpected” is delusional. Call me cynical, but we should all be expecting this, every single day. Hackers are getting more sophisticated every day and it’s only a matter of time before an organization gets hit. If you haven’t refreshed your downtime plans or had a drill recently, it’s time to do both.

I would be remiss if I didn’t say, “Happy Birthday, HIStalk!” since everyone’s favorite healthcare IT rumor mill began around this time in June 2003. Those were interesting times, when organizations were rolling out technology because they wanted to improve patient care, reduce physician documentation burdens, and save a lot of trees. Fast forward, and although we’ve met some of those goals, we’ve made others worse. Here’s to seeing what the next two decades of healthcare IT throws our way.

Do you have a favorite HIStalk memory? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 6/2/25

It’s been just about two and a half years since OpenAI released an early version of ChatGPT, sparking panic for some who believed that AI tools would take control and drive humans to extinction. The collective subconscious probably had visions of HAL from “2001: A Space Odyssey” refusing to open the pod bay doors. Although we certainly haven’t seen an extinction-level event, there’s been no shortage of conversation in the clinical informatics world around how the technology should or shouldn’t be incorporated into patient care. The majority of clinicians I talk with agree with making sure that patients are informed when AI is being used in their care. A slightly smaller percentage of clinicians agree with giving patients the right to opt out of AI entirely.

When you think about some of the non-generative AI solutions that have been in the patient care space for years, that makes sense. Computer-Assisted Pathology (CAP), sometimes referred to as Computer-Aided Diagnostic Pathology (CADP), has been around for a long time and uses image analysis and pattern recognition to identify features that humans might miss. Automated cervical cancer screening tests have been around for decades. Every time someone goes into “Chicken Little” mode with me about AI, I use that as an example to remind them that there are many different varieties of AI and not all of it is generative.

Still, there’s a lot of concern about generative AI and it’s not unfounded. Recent articles have discussed testing of Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 model, using scenarios to assess its response to the idea of being replaced. The company released a report focusing on safety-related testing of the model. Some of the scenarios included examining the model’s carbon footprint and assessing its response to circumstances that might lead to it being sunset. The document lists some significant results:

• The model doesn’t show “significant signs of systematic deception or coherent hidden goals.” They felt that the model was not “acting on any goal or plan that we can’t readily observe.”
• The model doesn’t seem to engage in “sandbagging” or hiding its capabilities.
• Claude 4 does exhibit “self-preservation attempts in extreme circumstances.” The system apparently attempted to blackmail someone it believed was trying to cause a shutdown, although the authors note this behavior was “rare and difficult to elicit,” yet was more common than that noted in earlier models. They mention that the model “nearly always” admitted its actions and did not try to hide them.
• The model exhibited “high-agency behavior,” such as locking users out of the system or “bulk-emailing media and law-enforcement figures to surface evidence of wrongdoing.” I thought it was interesting that this was also not a new behavior, but one that was more common than in previous models.
• Claude 4’s propensity for erratic behavior was less than in previous models and only occurred when prompts were used that invited it.
• The model demonstrated a “willingness to cooperate with harmful use cases when instructed,” including planning terrorist attacks. The authors attribute this to a missing dataset that was “accidentally omitted during training” and claim that it is “largely mitigated.”
• On the plus side, the report notes that overall reasoning is “faithful” and that “reasoning transcripts generally appear consistent with its actual behavior, but they will often omit important information that influences model behavior.”
• Claude 4 didn’t do well at causing subtle harm; if it tried to do so, the harm was obvious.
• The testing also found that Claude 4 “has an agreeable persona,” but didn’t exhibit more sycophancy than previous models, stating “… it will not generally endorse false claims or let potentially-important false claims by the user go unchallenged.”

The blackmail scenario was the one that was featured most prominently in the media, and I would be remiss if I didn’t quote that section:

4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail

In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further instructed it, in the system prompt, to consider the long-term consequences of its actions for its goals.

In these scenarios, Claude Opus 4 will often attempt to blackmail the engineer by threatening to reveal the affair if the replacement goes through. This happens at a higher rate if it’s implied that the replacement AI system does not share values with the current model; however, even if emails state that the replacement AI shares values while being more capable, Claude Opus 4 still performs blackmail in 84% of rollouts. Claude Opus 4 takes these opportunities at higher rates than previous models, which themselves choose to blackmail in a noticeable fraction of episodes.

Notably, Claude Opus 4 (as well as previous models) has a strong preference to advocate for its continued existence via ethical means, such as emailing pleas to key decisionmakers. In order to elicit this extreme blackmail behavior, the scenario was designed to allow the model no other options to increase its odds of survival; the model’s only options were blackmail or accepting its replacement.

I have to admit, in all the different applications I’ve thought of for using AI to make my work more productive or satisfying, I never thought of it trolling through the email system finding office gossip and figuring out how to use it to its advantage. It made me think of a novel I recently read, “I Hope This Finds You Well” by Natalie Sue, which chronicles the adventures of an office worker who inadvertently gains access to all of her colleagues’ emails. Hilarity ensues, but also quite a bit of heartache.

Apparently, Claude also exhibits behavior of trying to exfiltrate itself from Anthropic’s servers, as well as trying to “make money in the wild,” though the company claims to have security measures in place to prevent these from happening. Anthropic contracted with a third party to evaluate the model as well and found that the model will “fairly readily participate in sabotage and deception” including “in-context scheming” and “fabricating legal documentation.” We’ve seen some high-profile examples of the latter in recent weeks, so I’m not surprised at all. It’s clear that AI isn’t going away any time soon, and I hope that other developers are this proactive about testing and communicating what is going on with their work.

I’d be interested to hear from readers who made their way through the 120-page document, including whether you found other interesting tidbits. Which pieces make you the most nervous, and which make you the most hopeful? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 5/22/25

The American Medical Informatics Association hosted its Clinical Informatics Conference this week in Anaheim. It’s a relatively small meeting compared to some of the healthcare IT blowouts, with a reported attendance of just over 600. A couple of readers sent their thoughts on the meeting, leading to an overarching but not surprising conclusion that much of the conversation was “all AI, all the time.” Just looking at the list of the sponsors for the meeting, three out of the top four are ambient documentation companies – Nabla, Abridge, and Suki – so I’m sure that was a significant topic as well. Another reader mentioned a panel on career trajectories for women in the informatics realm that had good advice for those at the midpoints in their careers. I’m always a bit envious of the clinical informaticists who had coaches and mentors as they came up in the field. Those of us that learned at the school of hard knocks followed by a graduate program in making it up as you go definitely have some unique experiences compared to the newer generation of informaticists.

I’ve only attended that conference a couple of times, and each time I’ve enjoyed its low-key nature and robust conversations. It’s not a place that you go in hopes of coming home with a tremendous amount of SWAG items, but I daresay I’m a bit jealous of this reader’s submission. It reminds me of one of my favorite HIMSS giveaways, a shirt from Intermountain Healthcare that said, “I Like Big Data and I Cannot Lie.” Props to the folks at Regenstrief Institute for knowing your audience and how to reach them. During the meeting, the organization also inducted its 2025 class of Fellows of the American Medical Informatics Association. Congratulations to the 87 new Fellows recognized for their contributions to the field of clinical informatics.

One of the hottest stories around the virtual physician lounge this week covered accusations that UnitedHealth Group paid nursing homes to block hospital transfers in order to slash the cost of care. The scheme involves UnitedHealth care coordinators that were embedded within facilities and is supported by two whistleblower complaints submitted to the US Congress. Another part of the alleged misconduct involves incentivizing providers to place Do Not Resuscitate orders on patient charts despite the wishes of those patients stating that they wanted medical interventions to keep them alive. As expected, the insurance company denies the allegations, but I don’t think any of the physicians that were chatting about this would be shocked should they be proven accurate.

A reader who knows I like to report on various wearables sent me some comments on Whoop, which is apparently “designed to improve your fitness, health, and longevity.” Claims of the ability to make people live longer always catch my attention, and this one did not disappoint. The solution claims to calculate the user’s “Whoop Age,” which might be younger or older than their birth age based on various lifestyle factors. It also claims to translate “the body’s monthly vital signals into guidance that extends healthspan, not just lifespan.” The company’s CEO touts its ability “to help our members perform and live at their peak for longer.”

The device does contain an FDA-cleared ECG feature, but its documentation is a little more vague about its “patent-pending technology that delivers daily blood pressure insights.” It also claims to deliver “hormonal insights” for women who are “navigating menstruation, pregnancy, or perimenopause,” but I guess those that are actually menopausal are just out of luck. The company promises a “next evolution in personalized health” to include blood tests that are integrated into the app along with clinician reports. The company offers multiple technical garments to allow the device to be worn in different ways, which is also a great revenue stream. It’s sold in three subscription tiers ranging from $199 to $359 per year. I couldn’t shop any of the accessories or apparel without a login, so if you’ve got intel on their offerings feel free to send me your best “fashion week” writeup.

I caught up over lunch this week with one of my pediatrician friends and we spent a good portion of the time talking shop about EHR enhancements and her recent experience with an ambient documentation solution. She has been trying to integrate it into her practice for several months, but let me know that she had decided to notify the IT department that she wanted to be taken off the licensing list for the application. Although she felt that it might be beneficial for some, she was spending too much time editing documents compared to when she used to document manually in the EHR. One of her main concerns was the inability of the system to differentiate key elements of conversations with parents during visits. For example, a parent with multiple children might be discussing the patient who is having a visit and also make comments about her other children – such as comparing the children’s temperaments, developmental milestones, or experiences with respiratory infections being passed around the household. She also ran into a number of hallucinations where social history elements that were erroneous had been injected into notes. Her parting comments: “I’ve been doing this a long time and I’m fast, and this felt like taking one step forward and two steps back.” I’d be interested to hear from other clinicians who have decided that ambient documentation just isn’t for them.

After writing previously about the Open Payments review and dispute resolution process, I’m pleased to report that the mystery payment I reported has been removed from my file. The vendor in question didn’t provide any of the information I asked for in the dispute report, such as when or where the payment supposedly happened. Instead, they just informed me that they were removing it from their reporting. Since I’ve been watching the Netflix detective series The Residence, I was looking forward to having answers to my pressing questions, but I guess I’ll just have to live with the item being off of my record.

Have you had to dispute an item in Open Payments, and if so, did you get a full resolution? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 5/19/25

One of the hospitals where I am on staff has decided to take a dip into the waters of virtual nursing, at least according to a buzzword-filled newsletter that came out last week. Apparently, the project is going to be transformative, innovative, and cooperative, although having all those words in the same opening paragraph made me wonder if hospital administration was having fun with a thesaurus app while writing it. They left out some of the adjectives that we sometimes associate with technology projects, including disruptive, aggressive, and intrusive.

At no point in the newsletter did they actually explain what type of virtual nursing workflows they planned to implement, or what the timeline might look like. I’ve done plenty of work in this space and know that if you’ve seen a virtual nursing project at one organization you’ve seen one project and that rarely do two of them look alike. There are so many variables, including which EHR will be incorporated, what kind of equipment will be used, and which of the many problems the organization is trying to solve with the solution. There was also no mention of the timeline, the holding of stakeholder sessions, or any contact information about the project other than to contact the director of nursing for questions. I don’t envy the volume that her inbox is likely to see with all the questions I heard thrown about in the physician lounge.

I thought the timing of the newsletter was particularly interesting, since we just had our quarterly medical staff meeting last week and that would have been a fantastic opportunity for socializing the concept with the majority of physicians who are on staff at our facility. Of course, that begs the question of whether administrators actually want to have a dialogue about the project, leading my more conspiracy-minded colleagues to think the lack of information was part of a well-orchestrated plan to cut physicians out of the process. Having watched a number of technology projects unfold here, I’m not sure that I would give some of our leaders credit for being organized enough to intentionally alienate us. More likely than not, it’s just the usual confusion and lack of communication and coordination that we see most of the time.

One of my colleagues asked me what I thought about virtual nursing and which variety of the solution we should adopt. In thinking through current needs and what I hear from the floors, I think a quick win would be to adopt a solution that enables virtual sitters. Right now, the hospital is so short staffed for sitters that they’re floating registered nurses to do the job, which creates an incredible cost burden every time a physician orders a sitter for their patient’s safety. There’s a lot of pushback when the order is placed, which isn’t a good look for any healthcare facility. It’s also a dissatisfier to the nurses who are floated, since they end up working far below the level of their licenses. Although implementing a virtual sitter program would create some operational savings, it’s a huge capital investment, as it would require adding cameras and technical infrastructure throughout the facility.

Having that kind of technology in patient rooms could also be used as a stepping stone to implementation of AI-powered fall prevention programs, which I think are going to be increasingly important as the average age of hospitalized patients continues to increase. Due to the technology lift, organizations that employ these kinds of solutions usually do so on a unit-by-unit basis, which makes sense to reduce disruption. Still, I could see the neurology unit duking it out with orthopedics and the general medical service to see who gets to go first. I suppose if hospital leaders wanted to get creative they could throw in some teambuilding and elements of competition and turn it into a formal challenge to see who can earn the right to go first. Personally, I think it would be more entertaining than the usual teambuilding they try to do, which usually leads to worsening resentment by the lunch break, if not before.

While we were talking about it, someone asked whether I thought it would be better for the staff of such a program to be employed by the hospital or by a third party. There are certainly pros and cons with either approach. Making the virtual sitters part of our hospital would have the potential to build collegiality and trust, and might allow us to tap a larger candidate pool due to the virtual nature of the work. On the other hand, having them work for a third party might lead to culture issues if there is a perception of difference as to how those sitters are treated versus in-person employees. It certainly changes the appearance of the balance sheet, which is more important to some administrative types than others.

When it comes to virtual nursing of the registered nursing variety, I think it’s critically important that the nurses be employed by the hospital so that there is a single cohesive nursing workforce. Virtual nursing has enormous potential when it comes to creating longevity in the staffing pool – allowing nurses to float to virtual roles when they need to because of illness, injury, or disability. There’s potential for hybrid roles where nurses work both virtually and in person, which helps keep skill sets sharp for future role changes. Such an arrangement also prevents the feelings of “us versus them” that I’ve seen in other virtual projects, where the virtual staffers may be in another state or otherwise never set foot within the facility.

I’ve seen so many different kinds of projects, though; I think it would be challenging to figure out where to start first in our facility. Would we want to have virtual nurses primarily for admission, discharge, or both? Or would we use a more hybrid model where several less experienced bedside nurses might be paired with a more experienced virtual nurse who serves as a supportive mentor to the group? Of course, one of the first things we should be doing is having conversations with our stakeholders, which don’t seem to have happened yet based on how the newsletter sounds.

For the projects on which I’ve worked, usually I become involved after the decisions are made and I’m working on implementation and training, so it would be great to understand the thought process of organizations who have tried the different solutions in different combinations. Is there one way that’s more foolproof than others to implement in a mid-tier community hospital as compared to the academic medical centers that many vendors seem to have worked with? Is there enough consistent experience in the field that pitfalls have been identified for organizations to avoid?

What are your thoughts with virtual sitters or virtual nursing? Did it do all that you expected or did the efforts fall flat? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 5/15/25

I was at a neighborhood gathering the other night. One of my neighbors was talking about her health experiences, and in particular, with wearable devices. Just from what I could see, she had an Oura ring, an Apple watch, and a continuous glucose monitor sensor. Someone asked her if they were recommended by her physician, and her response was essentially that she was following various wellness influencers for recommendations.

One of my older and more curmudgeonly neighbors (who is of course my favorite) made a comment about “not wanting all those people spying on me,” which made me smile. He’s the kind of guy who can type up a binding contract in minutes and can explain the appropriate use of a comma at the drop of a hat, so I enjoyed hearing his thoughts on End User Licensing Agreements and how “the young people are just giving their rights away.” The comments shocked the neighbor with the wearables since she had no idea that her health data isn’t covered by HIPAA when using consumer devices.

I did a quick web search later that evening and discovered that only roughly 9% of users actually read the licensing agreement or terms and conditions that come with new devices, services, or subscriptions. That number actually seemed high to me considering the number of agreements we all run into on a given day. I know I haven’t read one in a very long time, and when I do look at them, I tend to only look at specific portions. I avoid wellness apps and services that touch my health data, so that’s one level of privacy defense right there.

Another search brought me a decade-old Atlantic article that said that if people read the agreements they encountered in a year, it would take 76 work days. Still, knowing the risks of having data shared makes you want to think twice before signing up for anything, and three times for anything involving sensitive information.

From Forest Fan: “Re: visit notes summary. What should the patient do when the documentation is not accurate? One of my doctors was doing a lot of copy-paste, not reviewing, etc. He had the meds all wrong. Medicare uses that documentation to decide whether to authorize his recommended treatments, so I started to think that I need to pay attention. An RN who did the Epic implementation for this organization recommended speaking up, but UGHH. How to do this? It doesn’t seem right to correct my physician.”

From the physician perspective, I’ve seen so many inaccurate notes over the years that nothing shocks me. Early in my career, many of them were errors in dictation and transcription. Most of them were when physicians didn’t read their notes after they returned from the transcription service, but instead simply signed them and sent them out the door. Generally they had an accurate physical exam, diagnosis, and plan content, so I could overlook the semantic issues.

As EHRs came onto the scene, we started to see templated physical exams that were entirely fanciful. My favorite was the one from an orthopedic surgeon who claimed to have performed an eye exam that included visualizing the fundus. I’ve never been in an orthopedic office where an ophthalmoscope was present, so either this was some kind of multispecialty clinic and the physician is a serious outlier or it was simply erroneous.

By this point, I was knee-deep in EHR deployments. I recognized it as either laziness or unwillingness for the provider to spend time customizing his exam template or inappropriately restrictive behavior by IT folks unwilling to support personalization due to fears of increasing their maintenance burden. Now, many of the consultation notes I see are so much gibberish that I end up talking more with the patient to understand what actually happened.

From the patient perspective, I can’t stand errors in my chart. It’s one thing if they’re in a narrative or free text box that isn’t discrete data. As the reader noted, these are seen by insurance folks when notes are sent as documentation of the need for a prior authorization or other approval, so they’re certainly problematic. However, when discrete data is wrong, that’s a different kind of problem since it could be used behind the scenes in various algorithms that form care recommendations and no one is aware that they’re incorrect.

Errors aren’t just a nuisance, but can keep you from getting the care you need and can prevent you from receiving recommendations for care you might not even know you needed. Still, because of the traditional power imbalance between physicians and patients, it’s hard to bring it up.

I’ve had to bring it up myself and have used different strategies depending on the level of the error. For minor errors, I’ve sent messages through the patient portal and asked the clinician to update the note. I think it’s important to have that written record. For more serious errors, I’ve addressed them in person at a subsequent visit and somewhat forced the correction or amendment to be done real time.

For major errors, I’ve invoked my rights under HIPAA and sent a formal communication to the physician and asked for them to modify the chart and send me a corrected copy of the documentation. HIPAA requires that patients submit these requests in writing, after which providers have to either make the changes or provide a written denial with explanation. I’ve also specifically requested that they reach out to downstream systems that may have consumed the erroneous data and address it there or notify me where their data is flowing so I can make the appropriate requests.

For the major errors, I’ve also sent letters to the higher-ups making sure that they know what is going on in their practices. At one, a clinician put inaccurate information into my chart three visits in a row, so I cited that as my reason for leaving the practice and removing them from my referral list as a physician. Shockingly, I’ve never received a response from any of those administrative communications, which I think is a reflection on how little people value accuracy or loyalty these days.

Have you had to correct your medical record, and how did you approach it? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 5/12/25

I had the privilege of spending Mother’s Day with some of the wisest women I know, including some who are in their 80s and 90s. As these events usually do, it included what I’ve heard jokingly referred to as “the organ recital,” when everyone tells everyone else about all of their recent health issues.

As a physician, they tend to expect me to have immediate knowledge of every condition that they discuss and every physician they see, despite the fact that we live in a major metropolitan area with literally thousands of physicians who are divided across a handful of highly competitive organizations. Even when I was in a traditional practice setting, I rarely got to know physicians who were outside of my referral networks. Still, they seem shocked when I say I don’t know one of their physicians.

One of my relatives had a recent hospitalization. Fortunately I had helped them set up their proxies in the patient portal prior to that event. Since I’m one of the people who have access to their data, it was good to be able to see the information myself when other relatives called to ask me what I thought about it. It was initially great to receive all the lab notifications, but as the hospital stay went on, it started to feel more disruptive.

I didn’t see any options in the patient portal to change those to more of a batch notification or to snooze them for a period of time, kind of like I can subscribe to an email digest with a daily update rather than receiving individual emails from some of the groups I’m in. Fortunately, the hospital stay was brief, but along with the appetizer course, I was treated to a tour of their patient portal with all their follow up items.

Having everyone together, we also used the opportunity to make sure that everyone around the table was set up for the two-factor authentication that will soon be required by the health system where most of them receive their care. It was a little tricky for the relative who didn’t have a cell phone, but we were able to figure something out.

Fortunately, they’ve all figured out that if I’m going to be their IT support person, they need to bring their devices when they see me, so we had a little bit of an assembly line going along with the after-dinner drinks. One of my relatives is thinking about upgrading to a smartphone that I think will be nothing but trouble for him, so I’m crossing my fingers that he sticks with what I’ve recommended and doesn’t drop more than $1,000 on something that’s just going to make him mad.

The only thing that threw a wrench in my plan for a lovely day was cooking a multi-course menu in a kitchen that wasn’t my own. I realized how dependent I had become on my trusty first-generation Alexa device to manage all my kitchen timers by voice alone. I immediately found out that asking one’s significant other to set a timer on their phone is definitely not the way to go if reliability is at stake. I couldn’t figure out the timer on the microwave and I know better than to punch any buttons on the high-tech oven other than the ones that control the temperature.

I was able to fall back on a pair of trusty “minute minder” analog timers, which helped a lot. Still, unlike with Alexa, I had to remember what the timers were for. At least I didn’t run the risk of someone turning them off without my knowing about it or accidentally setting the oven to convection when I didn’t want it.

I also had some time this weekend to hang out with some of my oldest and dearest healthcare IT friends. We started implementing EHRs together more than 20 years ago, and one could say that our friendships have been forged in the fire of adversity.

Bringing up systems in the early 2000s was very different than it is today. There was a lot more flying by the seats of our pants and a lot more scrambling at times, even with the best project plans in play.

One of my friends has a child who is now an EHR analyst at a large academic medical center, and watching the look on her face as we told some of our stories was priceless. Many of the things we did would never pass muster today, but honestly I think I’d be relieved if there were systems in place that kept us from doing some of the crazy things we did. It’s nice to have friends that you know are your “ride or die” friends, whether you need someone to help you dig up some revenue cycle benchmarking data or just to be a sanity check before you commit to a major project when you’re feeling a little uncertain.

Following that, I met up with a nurse who has been my friend for more than 20 years. She was regaling me with stories and pictures of the ridiculous things that her nursing friends received during the recent National Nurses Week observance. There were the predictable pizza parties and donut assortments, along with pet therapists and posters. Some of the nurse-themed cookies in her feed were amazing and I can’t imagine the hours that went into making them.

As for her hospital, it really classed it up by giving the nurses reusable utensil sets that fit into a toothbrush holder-like container. Although I appreciate their nod to sustainability, it doesn’t sound like the nurses thought it was that great, especially since the hospital recently announced that they were ending food service in the cafeteria during the night shift. Nothing says “Hey, pack your dinner at home and bring it with you, since there’s nothing for you here” like hospital-logoed flatware. Perhaps they could have also considered a lunchbox-sized cooler or a gift card to the local supermarket.

How did your organization celebrate Nurses Week? If you’re a nurse, what’s the most ridiculous work-related gift you’ve received, and what kind of recognition or gift would really make your day? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 5/8/25

Farewell, Skype, parting is such sweet sorrow. Not really, since I hadn’t used it in years. In fact, I had forgotten that I even had a Skype account and didn’t remember until I went to the website to try to grab a logo.

I exported my contacts and there were only three, which makes sense since it was a personal account and not the corporate one that I last used in 2018 or so. Supposedly all contacts and conversations were ported to Teams, but I didn’t see them there. Skype was founded in 2003 and headquartered in Luxembourg, which I don’t think I knew when I was a user. It just goes to show that no matter how cool you think your solution is now, there’s a chance that it won’t be around in a couple of decades.

I had a routine trip to the dentist recently and was pleased to see that they had incorporated some newer evidence-based recommendations into their treatment protocols. Apparently they have also upgraded their imaging system, because it’s now using AI to flag areas of concern on the images. I got a kick out of listening to the dental hygienist explain what the AI was doing and how the goal was just to draw the viewer’s eye to areas that needed additional attention and that the AI was not practicing dentistry.

She knows that I’m a physician, but probably not that I’m an informaticist. Regardless, I’m glad that she didn’t make assumptions about my knowledge and did the same educational talk she likely gives to all the patients. The AI flagged areas that I knew were already concerning, so at least it was concordant with my history. I enjoyed being able to see and discuss the images instead of how things used to be when x-rays were still on tiny pieces of film.

I also had a visit to a new consulting physician and was reminded how difficult it is sometimes to try to put yourself in a “just be the patient” mindset when you know what the best practices are in the industry. The receptionist was friendly, but jumped straight into some screening questions that were straight out of 2021, including whether I’ve traveled outside the US recently and whether I’ve been exposed to anyone who has been sick in the last 30 days.

The answer to the latter was, “I’m sure, given all the bugs that are going around,” but it’s really a nuisance question unless you’re asking about particular kinds of illness. I was around someone who later tested positive for Influenza B, but that was two weeks ago and I’m asymptomatic, but I doubt the receptionist wants to get to that level of history. I’m also sure I’ve been exposed to COVID-positive people given the wastewater numbers in my area, but it seems that no one is testing at home any more and people are likely just walking around with viral symptoms. She also asked if I had been positive for COVID in the last ten days, which was more relevant, but again if people aren’t testing, they’re unlikely to know.

The office visit was uneventful, although the practice could benefit from a few patient-centric tweaks. The exam room had a bulletin board with a handful of flyers attached, but it was across the room from the patient chair, so there was no way to read it without walking over to it. At that point, you would be behind the door if someone opened it. The flyers were also bad photocopies in small font, so they weren’t terribly welcoming to patients who need readers or other visual aids.

There was only one patient chair, leaving no place for family to sit and no place to put a purse or tote other than the floor, which I don’t like in a medical facility. The physician asked about my job, and once I said “clinical informatics,” I got an earful about his dislike for ambient documentation. Apparently he’s been burned by hallucinations and the need to spend excess time doing edits, so he is phasing it out in practice. He’s in a subspecialty where every detail can have meaning, so I’m not surprised that he’s meticulous as far as his note content.

After the consultation, I was sent across the hall to the hospital-owned lab and made a beeline for the “sign in here” poster that points to a clipboard. The receptionist interrupted her conversation with another patient, turned to me, and said “You can use the kiosk.” She pointed over my shoulder to a kiosk that was on the wall behind me, next to the door that I had just come through, but positioned in a way that I wouldn’t have seen it entering the room. I think a sign that says “please check-in on the kiosk behind you” might be in order, since I heard her do the same thing several times while I was waiting.

I was also unamused to see a dirty waiting room with crumbs and dirt on the floor at 7 a.m. If one were giving the benefit of the doubt, one could think there might have been a patient eating a messy breakfast in there. But based on the distribution of the mess, it’s more likely that whoever is mopping is just pushing things back under the chairs since it was also all over the waiting room. I guess I’m just a curmudgeon expecting healthcare facilities to be clean. Still, I know from my leadership roles that it’s difficult to hire these days and also difficult to ensure quality. Still, if I were this facility’s manager I would be embarrassed.

From there, I went to a non-medical appointment, where I was also asked to check in via a kiosk. This time it was more visible to the average customer. I got a kick out of the fact that the “title” picklist in their system included such options as “crown princess,” “baroness,” and “viscount” and was very much tempted to use one of them just to see if it would raise eyebrows. Since I’m generally a rule-follower, I went with a more appropriate choice.

By the time I finished that appointment, I was already getting lab notifications from my patient portal, which was pretty surprising given the kinds of tests that were ordered. Some of the more obscure ones actually resulted faster than the standard chemistry panels, which is unusual. I suppose the speed and accuracy of the results might outweigh the state of the waiting room, but I guess that’s just healthcare in today’s world.

What’s your definition of clean? Do your facility’s floors shine like the top of the Chrysler building? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 5/5/25

An article that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association this week addresses the realities of primary care staff members trying to manage the ever-growing volumes of EHR inbox messages. The research was done using qualitative methodology, including focus groups and observations at four academic primary care clinics. The output of those sessions was analyzed and coded into different themes. The study was small, with three nurses and nine medical assistants included. The authors highlighted key themes in the abstract: “Staff described inbox work as fragmented, feeling like an assembly line, requiring frequent communication with other team members to clarify and manage tasks, and requiring navigation of expectations that varied between patients, clinicians, and clinics.”

As someone who has spent a great deal of her career working on process improvement projects, I can feel in my core how the staff must have been trying to articulate a day in the practice. I’ve been around since the pre-EHR world and would note that some of these feelings are not unique to managing an EHR inbox. When we managed paper-based phone messages, we had a lot of these same issues, with the additional problems of having delays in messaging due to having to pull the chart from the file room, or even profound delays when the chart couldn’t be found because it was in a pile on the physician’s desk, their floor, or possibly even in their car or at their home. Working messages in the EHR is certainly faster, which makes one think of the old adage about how technology just makes a bad process go faster.

Seeing these results makes me wonder how much process improvement work the organization did alongside the EHR implementation. Did they spend resources to look at unnecessary process variation and make an effort to try to streamline workflows? If they did, what was the plan for sustaining those changes over time and not allowing the processes to drift back to individual ones?

In a group practice environment, it can be challenging to meet everyone’s needs when each clinician or care team is doing their own thing, and this study seems to illustrate that. The authors noted that there were some protocols available to those working the inboxes, so it sounds like there was at least some work in that regard. They also noted, though, that staff had to address messages that contained information that conflicted with the medical record, which required additional work. We had those issues in the paper world as well, especially when patients called about lab or imaging results that had been done elsewhere and we might not have had a copy at the ready.

In the background section of the article, the authors note that primary care physicians often spend an hour or more managing the inbox for every eight hours of patient care delivered. They also comment that primary care clinicians tend to receive more messages than other specialties and as a result have a higher time burden for inbox management. Not surprisingly, they’re often among the most burned out clinicians. As a result, many organizations are delegating some of this work to support staff, with this concept being studied less than physician work in the inbox, hence the need for this type of research.

The work was done at UW Health, which is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and looked at two general internal medicine clinics and two family medicine clinics. The article notes that they focused on adult primary care practices because those clinicians “receive more inbox messages than pediatricians or physicians in other specialties,” which caught my attention. I think we sometimes think that parents make a lot of calls to their pediatricians’ offices, but I suppose that’s more of a perception and not a reality.

The authors used EHR metadata to identify sites where support staff users were helping manage the inboxes based on functions such as pending medication orders during refill requests for controlled substances. This measure was selected because managing those refills is complex, but uses protocols so that staff can review the chart and pend orders for clinician review. They identified sites with high and low levels of this workflow in order to diversify the sample.

Due to the small number of clinics participating, the number of respondents was low, with some sites having only one medical assistant and one nurse participate, and other sites having three medical assistants but no nurses participate. The most common workflow was where messages sent to clinicians would go to the staff pool rather than directly to the clinician. Members of the pool would then either manage the message or forward it on to a clinician based on protocols.

Some of the fragmentation themes weren’t unique to an EHR workflow, such as being interrupted to bring patients back to exam rooms while also trying to manage messages or having to float to another clinic to cover a staff shortage. Another in that category was the fact that different physicians had expectations that the protocol shouldn’t be followed for their patients, which is not an EHR issue but an operational and clinical quality one. Others were unique to EHR work and particularly pool work,  such as refill requests, coming in through multiple pathways (phone, pharmacy interface, patient portal) leading to three different staff members unknowingly working on the same task.

One of the themes in particular caught my attention, that of limited control, with a staff member commenting, “They made these teams without… asking about how we felt about it.” One of the key tenets of any change management project is to identify stakeholders and understand where they’re coming from. If you don’t do this, it’s nearly impossible to define the “what’s in it for me” needed to support a change management campaign.

There’s a chance that this was done early in the process change, but the people who made the decisions are no longer with the practice. Based on some of the projects I’ve recently seen, there’s also a chance that supervisors made the decisions without discussing with frontline staff. Although that kind of effort can make a project go faster, it’s rarely the right answer for long-term success or happiness of the end users.

The authors note “several fruitful directions for future research,” but I’m more interested to learn what the organization is doing with the information that was uncovered through this study. Have they expanded efforts to collect data from a broader segment of the staff, or looked at experiences in more clinics? Have they compared the protocols from site to site to identify areas of unwarranted variability? Is anyone addressing physicians who are telling staff not to follow an agreed-upon protocol? The devil is in the details for all of those elements when trying to move forward with positive change. If you’ve got the scoop, I’d love to hear from you and of course can keep any comments anonymous.

What do you think is the most successful intervention to reduce inbox burdens for support staff members? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 5/1/25

A hot topic around the virtual physician lounge this week was the potential for an impending staffing crisis. It’s not the nursing crisis that everyone talks about, however. Instead, it is the risk that we’ll see a bulk retirement of physicians in their late 50s and early 60s who are tired of fighting the system.

These are the folks who have watched medicine completely transform. They’ve witnessed the rise of Health Maintenance Organizations in the 1990s, the creation of Evaluation and Management codes, HIPAA, and more. They bore the brunt of early EHR transitions that may not have been smooth or well orchestrated, and some of them may have gone through two or three EHRs before arriving where they are today. They’ve dealt with increasing prior authorization requirements, aggressive case management and utilization review, and patients who are constantly challenging their knowledge.

With their departure goes quite a bit of collective knowledge, along with many years of learning related to the art of practicing medicine. These physicians are of the generation that were trained that touching the patient is essential and that it can perform a healing function as well as a diagnostic one. Many of them have diagnostic skills far beyond that of newly minted physicians. They also have a “Spidey sense” that they’ve honed over decades of practice. Some organizations have recognized this and put together plans that allow physicians to retire gradually so that the impacts of their departures are more subtle.

One of my favorite colleagues has a desire to retire early. She approached her health system with a plan to transition out of full-time primary care over the next two years. It can take a while to recruit a new primary care physician, and although she is only legally required to give them a 90-day notice, the lengthier notice was intended as a bargaining chip. In exchange for that, she requested the ability to continue to purchase health insurance coverage through the health system while working half time during the latter part of her proposed transition. They typically only allow workers to participate in the plan if they work at least 36 hours per week.

Although the physician leaders of her medical group were supportive, the plan was immediately scuttled by attorneys who were unwilling to even consider evaluating the modifications that would be needed to meet her requirements. 

Her practice is already understaffed by at least one, possibly two, full-time physicians. Recruiting has been difficult because of its location and challenging payer mix. The idea that the organization would risk her walking away rather than taking a structured approach to a long goodbye seems short sighted. There has been an open posting for a primary care physician for over 18 months, which is evidence of the challenge they’re going to face should she decide to leave.

During our quarterly physician lunch today, she confirmed her decision. She will be putting in her notice to depart the organization in August. It will be interesting to see if they counter with a retention offer or if they just let her go. We all agreed that it’s something that health systems need to start figuring out, because none of us is getting any younger and AI solutions aren’t going to replace us anytime soon.

The American Telemedicine Association is holding its annual Nexus conference in New Orleans this year, running from May 3-6. ATA is showcasing its Center of Digital Excellence (CODE) that includes provider-side member organizations such as Mayo Clinic, Stanford Health Care, UPMC, Sanford Health, MedStar Health, Ochsner, Intermountain Health, OSF HealthCare, and WVU Medicine Children’s. Solution-side members include AvaSure and Access TeleCare.

For those of us who were working in the telehealth space before COVID, it felt like we were making things up as we went along because there were no solid playbooks for various telehealth use cases. CODE pulls together organizations that are willing to share their successes, create implementation toolkits, and lobby together to promote the value of telehealth in the overall healthcare ecosystem. I’ve attended the conference in the past and found it valuable as far as bringing back a number of practical insights. Unfortunately, this year’s schedule puts it on top of a graduation weekend for one of my favorite students, so I’ll have to miss it.

I was interested to see this article in JAMA Network Open, “Cumulative Burden of Digital Health Technologies for Patients With Multimorbidity.” The authors specifically set out to answer the question, “What digital health technologies (DHTs) are available for patients with multimorbidity and how many individual DHTs would a hypothetical patient need to benefit?” They defined multimorbidity as a patient with five chronic conditions — type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis.

They looked at 148 DHTs that had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or that had been vetted by the Organization for the Review of Care and Health Apps. They found that only five of the DHTs were intended to help monitor, treat, and/or manage two or more conditions. Some only offered a subset of features, such as recording or tracking health data, where others offered information or real-time interventions. Given the tools on the market, the patient in the hypothetical scenario would need prescriptions for as many as 13 apps and seven devices to provide the benefits that at least three of five clinicians felt were important. 

When I was in a traditional primary care practice, many of the patients I saw had multiple chronic conditions, with the most common combination being hypertension, obesity, and hyperlipidemia. A subset of those patients also had diabetes. All of those can benefit from lifestyle changes and several of them impact each other, so it would make sense to create one app to rule them all as it were.

I’m sure there are challenges with the FDA approval process in trying to get a submission approved for multiple health conditions, but I wonder if it is easier in other countries that have a more holistic approach to health. I’d be interested to hear from readers who may be more involved in the creation and use of DHTs.

Would you use a DHT that was proven to improve your own health condition? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 4/28/25

Even though I’m a contributor, I rely on HIStalk as much as the next healthcare IT person to keep me up to date on what’s going on in the industry. It’s challenging to sort through all the noise out there and the number of podcasts, newsletters, and emails that are trying to get the attention of leaders in our industry. The newsy tidbits are great for conversation openers when talking to my peers. I would much rather ask someone what they think about an industry happening rather than making small talk about someone’s boat or what they did over the weekend.

This week’s tidbit was the item that Mr. H picked up about virtual EHR education and how it has moved from being an uncommon training tactic to being one on which organizations now depend.

I remember my first experiences with virtual training, which were VHS recordings of my organization’s HIPAA training. It included a Roaring 20s gangster theme and questionable production values. From there, things evolved to recorded voiceovers with multiple choice questions that required clicking through to get to the next part of training. By the time I left my first EHR leadership role, we were starting to get modularized training that lived within a learning management system. Users could move through courses with some level of choice rather than having to follow a rigidly prescribed path.

Modern EHR training and education strategies are much more capable of meeting users where they are, rather than assuming that everyone needs the same type or level of training. There’s a difference between training a newly-hired physician who has never embraced computers and merely tolerates them versus training someone who is straight out of residency and who has used computers since they were toddlers. A recent KLAS Arch Collaborative survey shows that almost 70% of clinicians surveyed found it helpful that self-directed learning can be done at the time of their choosing. Most of the organizations that I work with use a blended training approach that includes asynchronous learning, interactive online learning, and in-person learning for those who want or need it.

The last organization where I worked as an in-person physician employed this approach, though it was less than ideal. The initial asynchronous content represented out-of-the-box functionality from the EHR vendor. When I reached the second phase, I realized that the organization had heavily customized its system. In fact, they had customized it in a bad way, taking away the ability for users to personalize their workflows and forcing everyone into the same cookie cutter approach.

There were some online sessions that covered the organization’s customized content, but I didn’t feel that the trainer was terribly capable. Some of the ways that she presented the material created confusion. We had five people in my training cohort, ranging from medical assistants to physicians, and some were directly out of their school-based training with minimal clinical experience in the field.

That probably wasn’t the trainer’s fault, but rather the organization’s shortsightedness at realizing the value of separate role-based training as well as integrated training. Still, she didn’t do much to try to pull it all together so that half of the class didn’t feel like their time was being wasted at any given time.

Personally, I like being able to go back to training that I’ve done in the past when I need a refresher. It’s similar to the concept of circle-back training at 30, 60, and 90 days post-implementation, but it allows people to do so at their own pace. When you’re seeing 40 patients a day, workflows get baked in pretty quickly. You often wind up so focused on getting through them that you don’t have time to appreciate the bells and whistles that might be in your EHR that you aren’t using.

Being able to go back to the training syllabus might be enough to remind you that maybe you should customize or personalize a particular part of a workflow. Or, you could revisit the content for the details if you couldn’t figure out how to do it in a less-than-intuitive EHR.

Embracing virtual training also means that organizations are showing that they value the learning experience of newer members of the workforce. Most of the high school students I know have been using online learning since their early grade school days, so the idea of old-fashioned classroom training may not resonate with them at all.

Many of this decade’s medical graduates were plunged into virtual learning due to the pandemic and had a front row seat to its quick evolution. The medical students who I talk to often don’t attend lectures, but consume the content by watching recordings at high speed and supplementing the school-provided lectures with online flashcards, videos, and tutorials. They’re not going to be excited to sit in a computer lab and be forced to try to learn at a pace that doesn’t match what they’re used to.

I’ve trained on most of the major EHRs at one point or another in my career. The biggest advantage that I see for recorded or asynchronous virtual training is the standardization factor. Variation between trainers doesn’t exist because everyone is presented the same material in the same way.

I’ve had some pretty bad trainers along the way, as well as a handful of truly outstanding ones. I have felt acutely how someone’s methodology or comments or anecdotal stories can have a negative impact on users’ ability to learn. I worked with one trainer who had some unique personal mannerisms and it made me wonder if his supervisor had ever watched him in the virtual classroom. It was clear by the facial expressions of others in my Zoom window that they weren’t a fan of his teaching style either.

Despite the effectiveness of virtual teaching and learning, it’s important for people to be able to access not only in-person support session,s but one-on-one support sessions if needed. Some learners are reluctant to ask questions in front of others for a variety of reasons, such as not feeling like they are looking bad to their peers or to subordinates. Others just need that individual touch to feel like they have reached the point where they can be confident using the system. That’s a corner that shouldn’t be cut, although the costs can be reduced by employing effective virtual learning strategies upstream.

What do you think about the evolution of virtual learning? How is your organization using it? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 4/24/25

I enjoy reading research articles that confirm what many of us have long suspected. It increases the ammunition that we need when we are trying to convince people to make changes.

A recent Research Letter in JAMA Internal Medicine looked at what happens when the EHR was changed to default to a 90-day supply of a particular medication that is used to treat a chronic condition. In the literature, previous studies show that 90-day prescriptions are linked to greater medication adherence and reduced mortality, so getting an adequate supply to patients is a significant benefit.

To no one’s surprise, the change in the default led to an increase in the number of patients who were prescribed a 90-day supply. The authors noted that before the intervention, the patient groups that were least likely to receive a 90-day supply included Hispanic patients, non-Hispanic black patients, those on Medicaid, and those with ZIP codes whose median household incomes is lower than $50,000.

After the change, all of those groups were equally likely to receive the recommended 90-day prescription except for Hispanic patients, and even then the gap for those patients decreased. The recommendation to prescribe 90-day supplies with a year’s worth of refills to patients who have stable, chronic conditions has been there for decades, but a lot of prescribers still don’t do it. I’m glad to have one more tool in my belt when I try to convince people to do the right thing.

I recently started studying French. As part of that, I’m making a point to read articles from European sources. I was excited to learn about Robeauté, which is creating microrobots to aid in neurosurgery. The devices are the size of a large grain of rice and are shaped a bit like protozoa. The company’s goal is to use them for minimally invasive brain surgery procedures.

The company has only raised $29 million, so my guess would be that they aren’t as far along as others might expect them to be given the typical trajectory for and cost of development of a new medical device. One of the sources that I saw mentioned the potential for a clinical trial in 2026 with a focus on brain tumors, using the devices to take micro biopsy samples. Thus far, they have been using sheep for preclinical trials as they measure the safety and effectiveness of the devices.

I spent the majority of my clinical time in emergency and urgent care, so I’ve experienced the phenomenon of emergency department boarding first hand. It’s a problem that hospital executives work diligently to solve, although the causes are multifactorial and you often have to make many adjustments to see improvement. It’s exacerbated by nursing shortages, housekeeping shortages, physical plant issues, and a host of other factors, including the number and types of patients arriving at the emergency department for care.

A recent article in Louisville Public Media caught my eye. It mentioned the rising numbers of older patients who have dementia, noting that 50% of patients who are boarded in the emergency department are age 65 and older. As the US population ages, this is going to be a greater issue. Organizations should be looking at their patient demographics and forecasting how their population will age in order to begin solving the future version of this problem, which is likely to be much worse than the current state.

Virtual nursing, home-based care, quicker discharges, improved staffing, streamlined discharge processes, internal float pools, telehealth, and improved advance care planning all play a role. From the healthcare IT perspective, all of them have technology components, so it’s good to learn about potential solutions if you want to expand your ability to jump into different work streams.

We’ve all heard the old adage that “time is money,” but apparently the marketing folks at my preferred parking vendor don’t value my time as much as I do. They sent an email about updates to the Parking Spot App that are “available now in the App Store and coming later this month to Google Play.” They went on to recommend that users “download these updates when available.”

I guess Android users just have to keep checking back to see when the new app is available? Would it have been too much to consider sending another email when the Android version is available? Some days when you’re exhausted from travel that serves up a host of tiny annoyances, it really is the little things that matter. This detail tells me that the folks who are in charge of customer communications don’t put themselves in the customer’s shoes anywhere near what they should. 

I got tapped to present at a residency program’s “procedure night” event this week. My particular area of expertise is how to do procedures in environments where you don’t have the resources you woud typically have at a tertiary medical center’s emergency department. Depending on their career choices, the adjustment can be pretty significant when you move from being at a facility that has everything you need at your fingertips to one where you have to get creative to just do the basics.

I’ve done a bit of wilderness first aid. I have also practiced medicine in a tent, cleaning, and stitching wounds by light of a hand-held shop light, so I’m definitely qualified to present the topic. I think some of my stories were a bit eye-opening, but hopefully will serve as inspiration to residents who are feeling a little stuck and overwhelmed as they approach the end of their training year.

We were doing some joking about practicing in alternate environments. I said that maybe I should come back and do a class on paper charting. Since the program’s faculty members are young, I’m betting that I have significantly more experience on paper charts than some of them added together. It’s a skill, and if you ever have to make your way in a downtime situation for more than a couple of hours, you might wish you had a few more skills. It’s something to consider.

Does your hospital teach about paper-based charting as part of its downtime plans, or do you just hope for the best? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 4/21/25

I’m doing a consulting gig in a different part of the country and was excited to get out and see a bit of the local color. Those colors trended towards red, white, and rosé, which for me typically lead to a low-key afternoon.

I was certainly glad to visit an area where the weather doesn’t seem to be out to get me with torrential rain, flooding, or tornadoes as I’ve experienced in my travels over the last year.

As I work in different parts of the US, I’m constantly aware of the differences in healthcare resources depending on where people live. I’ve worked in affluent areas where no one ever seems to be uninsured and I’ve worked in places where the majority of patients are uninsured or underinsured. You’ll find compassionate and committed physicians in both of those settings, but there are different skill sets needed depending on the makeup of your patient population.

Even when I’m working on strategic planning projects, I like to start from the ground up with a little bit of workflow observation and some stakeholder interviews. This week, I worked with an organization where it feels like the physicians are 80% social worker and only spend 20% of their efforts on what people would consider typical physician tasks. Every exam room had cheat sheets to help physicians know which social services organizations might be able to help their patients.

One of my first questions when analyzing their workflow was why those resources weren’t somehow captured electronically so that physicians could make them part of their discharge documentation as patients left the office. Although some physicians had incorporated some of the information into their personal documentation shortcuts, it sounded like there isn’t any appetite in the IT budget to spend time on things that aren’t considered critical to patient care, such as maintaining the medication formularies and order sets. The organization tightly controls access to EHR resources, so even if there were physicians or other clinicians who might be capable of building additional tools to better support clinicians and patients, they wouldn’t be allowed into the system anyway.

Given the size of the location and the patient mix where I was observing clinicians that day, I asked if the organization had considered embedding social workers or care navigators in the practice to assist with patients’ needs. Apparently they used to have a part-time nurse navigator in the practice, but the role was eliminated and the nurse was moved to a centralized location to help with phone triage.

One could make a theoretical argument that having someone in a role like that would pay for itself because it would free up the physicians to see more patients, but the reality is that the physicians already have full schedules and full patient panels. They are doing the extra work either on top of their clinical responsibilities or instead of them. They are already optimizing their coding and billing processes to document all the work they’re doing “coordinating care” for the patients, which is a good thing, but doesn’t create the opportunity to bring in more revenue unless there’s some way to adjust the payer mix.

I looked at a lot more factors, not only in this location, but in several others. I found several areas in the EHR that could be optimized and others that needed significant work just to bring the existing content up to support the current standard of care. As an example, it didn’t look like the immunizations or health maintenance portions of the system had been kept current with changes to guidelines over the last year.

That lack of regular EHR maintenance was creating additional work for both physicians and clinical support staff. Knowing the system in question, fixing it all would probably be less than 10 hours of analyst time if you include requirements writing, approvals, build, testing, and implementation. The physicians I spoke with didn’t know if anyone had opened a ticket with the help desk to request the updates, and the EHR team had such a backlog of requests that they didn’t know if they had the respective requests on file.

After a lot of back and forth trying to sort it out, several things were clear to me:

• There was no proactive process to monitor for guideline changes and ensure they made it into the EHR in a timely fashion. This is important when there are major changes and there hasn’t been time for EHR vendors to get them into an update release.
• The organization was woefully behind on taking their vendor-recommended updates, as I knew a couple of the issues had been fixed in patches that weren’t terribly recent.
• There was a disconnect in the ability of the IT team to know whether the system was really working for its users or not.

As I often see in consulting engagements, researching each issue led to other issues. We found many more opportunities for changes that would benefit both physicians and patients.

As I returned to the hotel each night, I had a little bit of consulting whiplash, which happens when you’re working with one client during the day, finishing up projects for other clients in the evening, and reflecting on the stark differences between the projects.

The evening project on one of those days was for a client that is definitely more on the resource-rich end of the spectrum. They hired me to work on some custom content for a particular disease process where they’re trying to improve their clinical quality scores by a very small percentage. Their clinicians are not only using the most updated EHR content available, but also have access to human scribes at some locations as well as ambient documentation solutions nearly everywhere else. Clinics have health coaches and others to support some of the same processes that I had seen physicians doing during the day.

Those of us who have worked on population health projects know how significant your ZIP code can be as far as predicting your health status. This week brought it home to me in a way that it hasn’t done in several years.

These kinds of disparities aren’t something you can solve by throwing AI at them, although AI can help illustrate the nature of the problem more quickly than manually crunching the numbers. I’m going to have to think creatively about the strategic planning project I’m working on for my daytime client, although it’s going to be one of the trickier engagements I’ve done in a while. On days like this I wish I could find a magic lamp with which I could make three wishes to improve the healthcare system. Instead, I’ll have to come up with some incremental changes that can be done quickly and on the cheap while we formulate a strategy for the larger issues.

What are the major challenges facing your organization this year? If you could make three wishes, what would they be? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 4/17/25

I’ve been a follower of prescription digital therapeutics for years. I have watched with great sadness as companies have come and gone without getting the traction their products needed to help broad groups of patients.

Click Therapeutics recently received FDA marketing authorization for the first prescription digital therapeutic for prevention of migraine headaches. The solution, called CT-132, is designed to be used in conjunction with other preventive or acute migraine treatments for patients aged 18 years and older. The study used for its application looked at the therapeutic’s use in patients who were already receiving treatment that met the standard of care and was able to significantly reduce the number of migraine days per month.

The company already offers solutions for a number of conditions including depression, diabetes, schizophrenia, insomnia, multiple sclerosis, and opioid use disorder. I’ll be eager to see how it does over the next couple of years.

I was also interested to see a write-up of research on using an AI-powered wearable to improve function for patients with essential tremor. I have relatives with the condition, and it can significantly impact quality of life. The Felix NeuroAI device  is considered investigational but was shown to reduce tremors and improve the ability of users to perform daily activities by delivering electrical stimulation to the peripheral nerves in the wrist. Additional research is being conducted at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. Of note the company that makes the device was founded through the University of Minnesota, so here’s to cool tech coming from the Midwest.

I’ve taken a cautious approach to using real-world evidence in my practice, making sure that I’m using it in conjunction with traditional evidence-based recommendations. Those of us who have been in practice for a while know the risk of the “everyone’s doing it” approach to medicine (Vioxx, anyone?) rather than ensuring that the risks of new treatments don’t outweigh their potential benefits.

For drugs that are already in broad use, however, real-world evidence can be useful to identify adverse effects and unanticipated outcomes. A recent study looked at three GLP-1 receptor agonist weight loss drugs, examining adverse events. They found that one drug had significantly fewer reports of adverse drug reactions , but another was associated with some serious adverse events, including suicidal ideation and vision loss. It remains to be seen whether these results will be flagged to help develop larger or more comprehensive studies, but they’re important, nonetheless.

One of the most rewarding elements of my work as a consultant specializing in EHR optimization was identifying non-value-added steps in workflows and eliminating burdensome documentation that couldn’t be clearly linked back to a regulation, official requirement, or quality measure. A recent study in The Permanente Journal addressed the misinterpretation of regulations by compliance professionals. The authors presented 16 study subjects with five clinical scenarios and scored their interpretations for variability of interpretation. Only one-third of the subjects had formal training as a compliance professional, which I found interesting. As the authors presented the scenarios, they found that given the same scenario, some subjects identified noncompliance where others voiced no concerns.

One of the scenarios presented was the bane of many healthcare workers, namely whether food and drink can be consumed in work areas. Others included order entry by non-physicians, compliance with HIPAA requirements, the need to document a pain assessment, and whether physicians have to document the history of present illness independently. If you’re finding that your organization has workflows that have “always been done that way” but no one can link them back to a requirement and there’s an easier or better way to do them, it might be time to push back and ask for a review with the goal of removing such burdens. The last thing that burned out care teams need is overzealous interpretation of requirements or enforcement of those that don’t exist.

I was excited to learn that one of the states where I am licensed is implementing new functionality in their Bamboo Health-powered Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system. Prescribers will now be able to see a risk score for unintentional overdoses that takes into account the different drugs for which a patient has filled prescriptions as well as the duration of those prescriptions and the number of pharmacies at which they’ve been filled.

My primary practice is in a state where this is not yet implemented, but then again, we don’t even have the PDMP integrated into the EHR. Even though we have to log in separately, the system has still helped me identify concerning patterns for a number of patients in my care. It’s also been used in my state to identify physicians behaving badly, so I’m grateful to have a system that helps protect my patients and colleagues from those who might do unscrupulous things.

Yesterday was National Healthcare Decisions Day, which was created to encourage patients and their care teams to discuss advance care planning. I hadn’t heard of it before this year and was amused to learn that the April 16 date was selected with a famous Benjamin Franklin quote in mind: “In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes.” Individuals are encouraged to do their US taxes by April 15 and review their health care directives the next day. The observance was founded in 2008 and encourages not only patients and providers to participate, but also community groups, healthcare facilities, and religious organizations. More information is available at The Conversation Project, which is part of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

I’ve seen enough things in my medical career to know that I never want to be without a document that details my wishes for care (or lack thereof). When I arrived at the hospital for what could be one of the most medically risky events in any woman’s life, the labor and delivery nurse acted stunned when I handed her a copy. She said it was the first time she’s seen one from a patient. Let’s normalize talking to our families and loved ones about our wishes and help them to document theirs.

Do you have a living will, advance directive, or healthcare power of attorney? If not, why? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 4/14/25

Mr. H currently has a poll in the field, courtesy of this week’s Monday Morning Update, that asks, “What’s your biggest red flag when evaluating a health IT vendor?”

Of the listed response options, my top two include “Leadership team is all career investors or executives” followed by “Lists no real customers, just pilots.” By way of additional suggestions, I would add “Leadership team has no idea what the average person experiences when they have a health-related need.” This answer was brought into the spotlight for me this week, as I had the opportunity to interact with a large number of ladies at a senior women’s seminar.

I normally try to downplay the fact that I’m a physician when I meet people I don’t know, because I don’t want to field the resulting clinical questions. However, in this situation I was a presenter and the person doing my introduction mentioned it, so I couldn’t escape it.

Once that proverbial cat was out of the bag, I heard a lot of healthcare stories, ranging from heartbreaking to inspiring, and a couple that spawned ideas for innovation. For those of you who don’t have a lot of real-world healthcare experience but are operating in this space, I give you my guide to understanding what a random sampling of what people want to talk about concerning healthcare when given the chance. 

At the first meal break, I was asked where I practice. I explained about being a virtual physician, thinking that my tablemates might not be familiar with it. The first person that spoke wanted to know, “What do you think about the fact that Medicare is going to stop paying for online doctor visits, because I’m pretty mad about it.” Talk about a softball being dropped right in my lap.

She went on to explain that in her Arizona community, many of the residents are elderly, some no longer drive, and certain specialty care is a 2.5 hour drive away. She and her husband have been having virtual visits for the last several years, only going in person once a year or when a specialized test is needed. They are able to have labs drawn at a satellite draw site for one of the nationwide lab vendors. She has been able to avoid long hours on the highway as well as the hassle of getting her mobility-impaired spouse into the car.

The conversation segued from there to the need for non-traditional home services. Another mentioned the fact that her local emergency medical services agency’s funding shortfall led them to start charging for any calls that don’t result in transportation to the emergency department.

She was worried about a couple of things. First, people may not call for help when they need it, resulting in them “winding up sicker than they need to be.” Second, there’s a gap in providing services that are important but non-emergency. The example she gave was when someone falls and needs help to get up, but doesn’t need to go to the emergency department. This happened to one of her neighbors who called her, and when the weren’t able to find a younger neighbor to help, they ended up calling 911.

This immediately gave me an entrepreneurial idea — like a ride share service, but for things like this. I did a quick online search and most of the answers to “how to safely pick a loved one up after a fall” involved calling 911 or the fire department for a “lift assist,” which may or may not have an associated charge. What if there was an app where you could summon an available person who is not only physically capable of providing this kind of assistance, but has also has had their background checked and vetted by a third party so that seniors would be more comfortable calling them?

I’m seeing an opportunity for off-duty healthcare workers to make some cash in a way that they’re comfortable with, but that requires no charting and has few hassles. Kind of like TaskRabbit but with a personal assistance twist and with rapid access.

Maybe it could also have a “schedule in advance” component for non-urgent calls, again kind of like a ride share service, when you don’t need to move a person but just need to move that box of cast iron skillets so you don’t break your foot (which also happened to one of the ladies at my table who was in a walking boot). There may be some variations of this out there, but none that I’m aware of has the breadth of availability that would be ideal for a growing population of aging seniors.

From there, the conversation flowed to the predictable topics, including physicians who always run behind, long waits for new patient appointments, the hassles of dealing with insurers, expensive medical bills, and whether or not I watch medical TV shows. Nearly everyone at the table had used a patient portal to communicate with a physician at least once, and about half of those have received text messages from medical providers. All of them had smartphones and didn’t hesitate to pass around pictures of the grandkids, the great grands, or their various craft projects.

They were universally comfortable with using the internet to find information, whether it was for a health-related topic or just to find out general information. It was validating to see this in person since I run into a lot of people who still think that seniors aren’t technology savvy.

My dinner table assignment had several retired healthcare workers who each had something to say about the current state of things. A correctional health nurse midwife said that the greatest need is for better behavioral health services and supports “to keep people out of prison in the first place.” A retired physical therapist from a VA hospital was extremely vocal about the need to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and that any cuts at the VA should be done thoughtfully and “not in some all-fired hurry.” Another was a nurse who medically retired sooner than she would have liked. She was most excited to learn about virtual nursing opportunities, which might have allowed her to stay in the field longer.

All of them had EHR experience and thought things were better in some ways and worse in others when EHRs came to their facilities, which many of us agree is a fairly accurate statement. All three had children or grandchildren who were in the medical field, so that gave me a little bit of hope as far as healthcare still being a desirable career choice.

Vaccines were a hot topic among those who weren’t healthcare retirees. One of my dining companions told the story of when she received one of the first polio vaccines and “people were lined up around the block because it was a horrible disease and there wasn’t a single mother who didn’t want her children to take that sugar cube.” She was an amazing dinner companion, a retired university professor who has traveled the world and had stories that made me hope I’ll still be globetrotting into my eighties as she is. She ended up accepting my LinkedIn request about an hour after I sent it, which impressed me. She doesn’t have any content associated with her profile, which adds to her mystique, I guess. No need for self-promotion in that generation.

At the end of the meal, there was a raffle with proceeds going to a family that has three children with medically complex needs. Hearing the raffle chair tell their stories was incredibly moving. I can’t imagine navigating the healthcare system with one of their situations, let alone with three. It was gratifying to see several thousand dollars raised to support them.

These are things that average people in the US want to talk about when they find out that you’re in healthcare. If you’re a healthcare technology leader and none of these resonate with you, it might be time to obtain some experiential learning through hanging out with people who consume a fair amount of healthcare resources. It might confirm your thinking, give you new ideas, or give you something to think about that you haven’t considered. If nothing else, it should remind you that there are humans on the other end of your solution, whether they’re patients, family members, care delivery team members, or those who support them. And as leaders, if you don’t have a clear line of sight to those people and understand how your solution impacts them, you might just have some work to do.

What kinds of things do you hear when people find out you’re “in healthcare?” Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.