EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 7/3/25

I’m not a superfan of The Joint Commission, but I was interested to see their press release about partnering with the Coalition for Health AI (CHAI) to create AI best practices for the US healthcare system. The partnership plans to develop AI tools, playbooks, and it wouldn’t be The Joint Commission without a certification program as one of the offerings.

If anyone wants to lay odds on the cost of such a program, I’m happy to run the betting pool. Initial guidance will be issued in the fall, with AI certification to follow. I’ve done consulting work around patient-centered medical home recognition, EHR certification, and other compliance-type efforts, so I’ll be looking for the devil in the details as they are released.

As a primary care physician at heart, I’m sensitive to the multitude of recommendations that we give to our patients, often all at one time. For example, a patient who is newly diagnosed with diabetes may need to have labs drawn, see a diabetic educator, visit an ophthalmologist, consult with a podiatrist, and manage prescriptions from a retail pharmacy and a mail order pharmacy. Health systems are investing in solutions to reach patients via patient portal, text, interactive voice calls, paper mail, and email, which has resulted in patients being overwhelmed. I’m intrigued by Lirio’s concept of “Precision Nudging” (they have trademarked the term) to help manage this problem.

AI is involved via their large behavior model that aims to use elements of behavioral science along the way. It pulls together engagement and outcomes data with consumer understanding to identify the most appropriate channel to reach a given patient. Interventions are modified based on patient response and are tweaked along the way.

I have followed other companies like this over time, but Lirio seems to get it better than others, going beyond vague concepts like “wellness” and “engagement” to actually talk about specific screening programs and revenue-generating interventions that can boost patient quality and deliver a solid return on investment. They do have a bit of a revenue cycle background, so I’m sure that helps.

I was also geeked to learn that the company’s name actually has meaning rather than being something that either just sounded good or hadn’t been registered yet, as one commonly sees in younger companies. It’s actually named after Liriodendron tulipifera (the tulip tree), which apparently is the state tree of Tennessee. Props to the marketing team for its use of the phrase “lustrous branchlets” to describe the company’s strengths. This wordsmith salutes you.

Mr. H already mentioned this, but I wasn’t surprised to see that Best Buy has sold Current Health, returning the company to its former CEO and co-founder. A Best Buy executive said that growing its home care business has “been harder and taken longer to develop than we initially thought.”

I can understand that given the performance of their booth team at HIMSS25. On one of my booth crawls, my companions and I stood in their large booth for probably 5-7 minutes chatting before anyone approached us, despite there being multiple employees in the booth staring at their phones. I didn’t mind it too much because we were enjoying their extra-thick carpet, but if they were looking to capture leads, they were falling down on the job. Once a rep finally approached, the conversation was passable, but negative first impressions are hard to undo.

As much as I think I’m with it as far as keeping up with healthcare IT news and trends, I still rely on HIStalk for information on a regular basis. There’s always some tidbit that I haven’t gotten to yet, which is not surprising given the calamitous state of my inbox these days. HIStalk was the first place I learned about the new CMS prior authorization program for traditional Medicare. I’m all for catching bad actors, such as the durable medical equipment companies that cold-call patients offering knee braces and other questionable interventions, then rely on relatively clueless physicians who have rented out their medical licenses to enable a high-volume prescription mill situation.

However, I feel like the majority of physicians caring for our nation’s seniors aren’t committing fraud. They are negotiating the complex interplay between evidence-based medicine, the costs of various treatments, and patient beliefs and preferences. Sometimes the “best” treatment is unaffordable for a given patient, or you’re working with patients who can barely afford food, let alone their medications.

They’re going after specific procedures, including knee arthroscopy for arthritis, along with skin and tissue substitutes and nerve stimulator implants. You know what else would help reduce these unneeded procedures? Greater health literacy and patient education campaigns, which are parts of public health that we continue to neglect in this country. Hopefully the program will remain with these high-dollar, low-benefit procedures and won’t creep into primary care on the whole.

Given the amount of data that CMS has on every prescriber’s habits, they should be able to hire some clinical informatics folks to find those who are practicing inappropriately and go after them rather than putting processes in place that annoy those who are trying to do the right thing.

I recently had a rough travel day with significant delays. As I was waiting for my inbound aircraft to arrive, I noticed two fire trucks pull up on the tarmac. They did a quick test that I recognized as preparing to deliver a water salute. I’ve seen it for Honor Flights that were returning to the airport and for a pilot retirement.

Since the airport was small, I could see my inbound plane taxiing at a slow speed, which was unusual given the airline’s propensity to get planes to the gate quickly, especially after delays. A few minutes later, a Marine Corps Honor Guard arrived and I realized this flight was carrying a deceased service member. The waiting passengers in the terminal gradually fell silent and stood to show their respect, with hardly anyone moving until the transfer was complete. It was a sobering reminder that no matter how bad I felt my day was, steps away from me was a family that was having one of the worst days of their lives.

As we approach the Independence Day holiday, I’m grateful for everyone who has put on a uniform and sworn an oath to protect and defend our country. Freedom comes at a high price. Thank you to all current and former service members and their families for being willing to make that sacrifice.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 6/30/25

The Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a thought-provoking article this week titled “A Eulogy for the Primary Care Physician.” It reflects on the original purpose of a primary care physician as the trusted physician “who knows their health inside and out, who guides them through the complexities of the medical system, and who fosters relationships not with charts, but with people.”

This is exactly the kind of old-timey family physician that many of my peers and I thought we would become. That’s what we were trained to be during our residency programs. Little did we know that the forces that would actually align against our being able to do that.

First, there were the turf wars. I was trained to perform a variety of procedures during residency, including minor office-based surgeries, biopsies, wound management and repair, and sigmoidoscopy. I was also trained to deliver prenatal care and perform non-operative deliveries in partnership with local OB/GYNs who served as backup.

I quickly found that I wasn’t able to do most of those things in my hospital-sponsored practice. Family physicians weren’t allowed obstetric privileges, full stop, even if we had an OB/GYN who agreed to back us up. One of the hospitals where I was forced to be on staff didn’t even have obstetrics, which somewhat limited my ability to recruit newborns to the practice.

After six months of appeals, I was allowed to seek newborn nursery privileges at a competitor hospital in an attempt to maintain that part of my skillset, although caring for infants became increasingly rare.

Second was the pressure for primary care to support the volumes of all of the other specialties. If there was a procedure to be had, I was expected to send those patients to my proceduralist colleagues so that they would have adequate volumes.

Numerous procedures can be done by appropriately trained primary care physicians in a high-quality and cost effective manner. However, I was told that it was unseemly to hoard those procedures, and I needed to refer them out and show that I was a team player. It didn’t matter that patients would prefer not having to make a second appointment, take off work again, or pay a second co-pay.

The only thing I was able to hang onto were the skin biopsies, because I could do them relatively quickly and they didn’t have a significant supply need or cost therefore they were somewhat “invisible” to the medical group administrators who actually ran the show.

There were a hundred other things that steered my work as a family physician in a different direction from what I thought it would be. When I was offered the opportunity to work with the electronic health record project, I jumped at it. Maybe that would be the answer to regaining autonomy since I would be able to run reports and see data on my work without external support. Previously, I had to rely on the business office to do so via our green-screen practice management system.

Because of my protected time to work with the EHR, I was somewhat buffered by the pressures to constantly see more patients, although I was still juggling dozens of patient messages and requests on the days when I wasn’t in the office. In hindsight, I probably worked 1.25 FTEs during that time, despite being paid as a 1.0 FTE, but I was the only person in my position and I didn’t know how to push back given the pressures that were on the other primary care physicians in my group and which seemed worse at the time.

Although the Eulogy article cites burnout, declining reimbursement, and private equity as significant contributors to the demise of the primary care physician, I would add other elements. The consumerization of healthcare continues to be a major force, as physicians are incentivized around patient satisfaction, sometimes to the detriment of quality of care.

As an example, two areas on which physicians are incentivized are patient satisfaction and avoidance of unnecessary antibiotics. For every patient who calls wanting a Z-Pak for what is undoubtedly a viral illness but who “wants to get ahead of it” or says “I know my body and what I need,” there is only a lose-lose situation. I’ve been roasted via online review sites for refusing to call in antibiotics without seeing a patient. I’ve been threatened with complaints to the state board. I’ve been ripped in Press Ganey surveys.

My quality numbers remained high, but when you get bad reviews (justified or not), your paycheck suffers. Physicians should not be placed in these crosshairs, but we do it every day. I know it’s the proverbial dead horse, but educating patients about the risks of unwarranted antibiotic prescriptions is another public health intervention at which we’re not very good.

When I had the opportunity to expand my informatics work and change to a different environment for patient care, it was bittersweet. Although I missed the regular “continuity” patients with whom I had bonded over five years, I was glad to get out from under all the patient portal messages and communications that didn’t stop while I was out implementing the EHR, training peers who refused to work with non-physician trainers, and trying to figure out our group’s strategy for health information exchange.

I thought that would be the death of my career as a primary care physician, but little did I know that once I started working in the emergency department and urgent care settings, more than half of my work would be primary care anyway, since many of our community used those environments for their primary care services.

The Eulogy states, “The PCP is survived by the independent physician assistant, nurse practitioner, and generative artificial intelligence.” As someone who is starting to have more encounters with the patient side of the healthcare system than I would like, I worry quite seriously about how my generation will be cared for in the future.

Every time I see my own primary care physician, who is a few years older than I am, I don’t leave without asking the question of when he sees himself retiring so that I’m not caught in the lurch. Fortunately, most of my subspecialist physicians are younger than I am, so I’m less worried in those areas.

With regard to generative AI replacing primary care, I think we have many years of it augmenting rather than replacing. I’ve been unimpressed by many of the solutions that I’ve seen. I hope clinicians remain skeptical as developers work through issues with quality.

What do you think about the death of primary care in the US and how healthcare information technology might be able to resurrect it? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 6/26/25

The two hot topics around the virtual physician lounge this week, not surprisingly, involved comments or policies from the new Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Physicians are dreading upcoming changes in vaccine reimbursement, which will likely come if vaccines are no longer recommended by the reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Commercial payers follow the actions of government payers, which could lead to a fair amount of work for everyone with an EHR and billing system as they reconfigure their systems to follow new rules.

I can also already see the new policies fueling burnout in the organizations that I’m closest to, as physicians again have to defend their practice of evidence-based medicine. It’s not a great time to be a frontline physician, particularly one in primary care.

The other hot topic was around statements that everyone in the US should have a wearable medical device in the next four years. Continuous glucose monitoring devices appear to be the darling of the day, with much skepticism from physicians who have already had to deal with the data provided by current users. There’s not a lot of data that supports the use of the devices unless a person is diabetic, prediabetic, or has one of a handful of other medical conditions.

Just wearing a device doesn’t drive the needle, either. Other services are needed to support patients as they make changes in their health, such as dietitians, nutrition counseling, and behavioral health interventions. Those also have a cost.

It’s great to say that people should take charge of their own health, but for those of us who have been in the public health trenches for decades, we know that patients can’t always control the fact that they live in a food desert. They can’t control their genetics. We live in a nation where health literacy is close to rock bottom.

Kennedy stated, “They can see, as you know, what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.” Having cared for thousands of average Americans during my medical career, I would hypothesize that less than a quarter of the patients I’ve seen would be able to take a device out of the package start managing their diet in the way that he describes without some serious intervention.

I don’t disagree that the nation needs a crash course in self-care. I’ve seen it myself as patients come to the emergency department for the common cold without having taken so much as an acetaminophen tablet. We see wounds that haven’t been washed with soap and water and sprains that were never iced, among other things, as the patients come to us and leave with a $1,000 hospital bill.

I would much rather see the country start pouring money into public health interventions that have been proven effective than see us throwing money at technology without all the ancillary services needed to truly drive the needle for patient outcomes. The nation’s many Federally Qualified Health Centers know a thing or two about this, as do the many county, city, and state health departments.

Speaking of high tech public health, I continue to be fascinated by the data and analytics around using wastewater for disease monitoring. I first heard of it during the height of the COVID pandemic, when it was being used to model the level of disease in our community, especially when we were having shortages of testing supplies for use in the office.

WastewaterSCAN is a nationwide system that is based at Stanford University in partnership with Emory University. It monitors 11 infectious disease indicators via bottles of wastewater that are shipped from around the country. Viral RNA material is sturdy stuff, and the diseases tracked include COVID, influenza A and B, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), enterovirus, norovirus, hepatitis A, and many more. CDC also conducts testing, as do many municipalities, and most of the data is publicly available.

The higher-level information that is gleaned from wastewater can help public health agencies and care delivery organizations understand what viruses are surging in their communities and might be useful for creating recommendations on when to start testing for various diseases. It can also be used to inform staffing levels within facilities or to pinpoint increases that might result in an outbreak, such as high levels of a virus at an airport or tourist spot.

The next frontier in wastewater research involves identifying bacteria, although the process poses challenges. You can have two bacterial species that are similar, but only one causes a serious disease, and it can be difficult to differentiate between the two. Here’s to seeing what the next decade of innovation brings in this field, and to knowing that many of us are contributing to scientific advancement with every flush.

For some time now, I’ve been trying to clean up my provider data, including my NPI registration that still lists an address where I haven’t worked in a very long time. There are also problems with my CMS data, and the process to try to correct that is even worse.

In a typical employed provider situation, an office manager or administrator usually manages that for the employed physicians. But when you’re a 1099 contractor working for multiple organizations it’s up to the physician to make it work. The governmental data is particularly pesky, because it feels like you have to get a log in to site A that then gives you access to site B but the passwords time out and are a pain to reset. If anyone has a cheat sheet for cutting through all of this, feel free to send it my way. My current clinical situation tells me I’m on my own. Maybe someone could create an AI-powered bot that could take care of it all.

I was back on the patient side of the equation this week and was surprised by the speed at which I received a message that I had “new test results” in the chart. Once I made it through some pesky password issues that involved using my laptop instead of my phone, I was disappointed to find that the “result” was simply a message from the lab that said my specimen had been received. It’s been a long time since I’ve done lab interface work, but I would hope that such messages might be filtered to avoid causing extra anxiety for patients.

I was also disappointed by the quality of the visit notes that I could see. I was weighed during my visit, but my height was not measured. However, the note had a documented height but no weight, although a BMI was there. The combination of vitals showing up in the note seemed odd. The note from the first physician that saw me had no fewer than six exam findings that were most certainly not examined. Although one could blame templated documentation, there really is no excuse. If you’re not doing an ear, nose, and throat exam on every patient, it takes about 12 seconds to remove that from your template forever.

When you’re a patient, what’s your biggest frustration with healthcare information technology? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 6/23/25

You really don’t know how much you rely on certain technologies until they’re not available.

At one of our local hospitals, a PACS upgrade during daytime hours threw quite a few clinicians for a loop. I don’t think the IT teams really understood how important muscle memory is for clinicians who are trying to work efficiently in the EHR while seeing patients. Although a workaround was provided, it required physicians to go to a different part of the EHR to view images.

It sounds like some users had security issues and weren’t able to do their work from the new location, which caused frustration that was made worse by long wait times when they called the help desk. Even for those who were able to use the new link to access images, there were complaints that it took half the shift to get used to the new workflow. Later in the evening, it reverted back, which required another shift.

I’ve done plenty of upgrades in my career and I’m not sure what would be happening behind the scenes that would justify doing an upgrade during daytime hours. Most of the upgrades I’ve been involved in were conducted overnight so that they caused minimal impact to clinical workflows.

Based on the fact that nearly all of the IT decisions I’m seeing lately are made with significant attention to cost, I can hypothesize that it likely played a role. Still, I wonder if the people looking at that cost-benefit equation looked beyond the IT resources to include the cost for clinician inefficiency and the risk of clinical quality issues.

A colleague shared the downtime notification with me because they knew I wouldn’t believe it otherwise. I was surprised to see that it included mention of another clinical system that was being taken down from midnight to 2 a.m. the following weekend, so I’m sure there was some reason that this one was being done during peak hours.

If I had been on the leadership team that approved the communication, I would have recommended a mention of why we were doing the upgrade during the day. Users would at least understand that we had thought about them and were forced by extreme circumstances to do it that way.

I also was a fan of running our communications past people in different settings before finalizing them — including academic physicians, hospitalists, and community physicians — to make sure that we were covering all perspectives.

Just out of curiosity, I looked back through some communications from one of my hospitals to see if I could identify patterns from the biweekly newsletters. I was surprised to see that the newsletter had the same top blurb over a six-week period without any changes, which to me would create a risk for people ignoring the newsletter because they may have felt like they had already seen the materials.

I also noticed that over the last six months, the newsletter had become a compilation of unrelated blurbs rather than a more cohesive document. In the current version, each entry had different font and color schemes, including color choices that don’t meet accessibility guidelines for colorblindness. It also looks like it’s in a different order every time, with no standard formatting.

I would think that adding a framework to it might be useful so that people can quickly identify the items that are important to their work. Maybe start with a section for global updates that impact everyone, then move to updates by specialty, care setting, or a host of other categories that would keep people from having to wade through tons of irrelevant information.

I thought about offering some feedback (after all, I’m still a dues-paying member of the medical staff) but there wasn’t any information in the newsletter about who to contact if you have questions. I’ll just stay in the back row with my “Courtesy/Non-Admitting” privileges and hope I don’t have to look at any patient charts any time soon.

I have several major presentations coming up. For once, my week wasn’t completely full of back-to-back meetings. I decided to do some personal development while I was creating the slide decks and see what AI has to offer.

I try to make my slides as non-wordy as possible, often choosing images that tell a story, or images that prompt me to talk about certain content rather than having too many formal text elements on the slide. I always create an outline-style summary first, so it seemed ideal to be able to take that outline and hit it with some AI and maybe save a little time. I tend to be a little stuck in my ways about backgrounds and formatting, so I was looking forward to spicing things up a little bit.

Unfortunately, what my AI friend came up with was entirely unusable. Not only did it just drop the outline into slides in a somewhat disjointed fashion, but the backgrounds it selected bloated a 25-slide deck up to over 80 MB in size. I could see that being possible if I were incorporating high-resolution radiology images or something like that, but this was just from backgrounds and non-critical design elements.

I guess I’m back to creating my presentations in the old-school way, at least until I have time to research whether there is some other way to use the tools differently, or until one of the savvy college interns agrees to give me a quick tutorial on how to not wind up in that place again. When I finished that slide deck in my usual way, it ended up well below 2 MB, so I’m still not sure what happened the first time around.

One of the presentations I was creating was for first-year medical students, introducing them to clinical informatics and explaining the kind of work done by physicians in this space. The incoming students are coming into an educational environment that’s so different from where I trained, and I have to say that I envy them a little bit. Here’s to hoping that I don’t wind up being talked about as someone who was out of touch or uninteresting. Fortunately, my session is a lunchtime one with free food, so I don’t think attendance will be a problem.

If you could go back in time to when you were first learning in your field, what do you wish you had done differently? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 6/19/25

As a consultant working with care delivery organizations, I see many of them using “access” as some kind of a performance mantra. Whether it’s access to book a visit with a physician in an office or access to the emergency department, there is constant pressure to make sure patients are formally scheduled for some kind of revenue-generating service with the organization.

I was recently part of a discussion with other physicians who were talking about how access is being conflated with value. One example was the push for patients to book a visit with a provider, without giving full consideration to whether the provider had the correct experience and knowledge to actually treat the patient. It doesn’t matter if you get the patient in quickly, but to the wrong office since you’re ultimately going to have to book a second appointment elsewhere to meet their needs.

Another example was the boom in patient portal messages. Patients can reach their physicians quickly, but that’s not helpful when it causes providers to be burned out and creates risk that patients won’t receive the correct treatments because someone is trying to read between the lines of a series of message exchanges to create a diagnosis and treatment plan rather than having a direct conversation with a patient (either in person or via virtual care).

Another physician mentioned secure texting, which creates a staff access problem “where it’s easy to just fling messages out there rather than thinking through what you’re really asking. It seems like people formulated their questions better when they knew they had to make a phone call.” There may have been cocktails involved in this discussion, leading one of my colleagues to ponder the fact that that “patients have access to their notes, but they’re useless when the notes suck.”

We often look at ways to use technology to create more access, but these comments remind us that there might be “good” kinds of access along with those that are less desirable. I’m hoping that someone might read this and think it through the next time they’re in a meeting pushing for increased access. It’s not just about getting bodies through the door, messages to the provider, or notes to the patient. We need to get to a point where greater access is providing greater value and driving patient outcomes. Otherwise, it’s just a buzzword.

From Navy Fan: “Re: remote work. I’ve enjoyed being a remote worker for 15 years now and I hate seeing people mess it up for the rest of us. Did you see the story about Sentara Health, where remote workers accessed patient information using false identities?” I hadn’t seen it before a reader highlighted it, which reminds me how much we appreciate our readers when they bring us a good story. Apparently, the system hired remote workers to manage lab requisitions, but eventually discovered that they were not based in the US and may have been misrepresenting their identities. The situation impacted patients who had lab tests performed between January and April of this year. The bad actors had access to plenty of protected health information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. A manager became concerned in early April when they noticed that the workers attending virtual department meetings did not match the photos that were submitted during hiring. Sentara Health is offering free credit monitoring and identity protection services.

I wanted to add my two cents to some of Mr. H’s comments earlier this week about virtual care prescribing of ADHD medications. He mentioned a study done at Massachusetts General Hospital that showed that at least with their virtual care model, there was not an increased risk of addiction in patients receiving stimulant medications. Mr. H noted that the findings don’t necessarily apply to freestanding telehealth companies that have been accused of cranking out prescriptions, especially those that are investor-backed startups where clinicians are paid on a per-visit basis.

Although I haven’t treated ADHD via telehealth, I’ve worked for several different freestanding telehealth companies and the pressure to prescribe is real. Large percentages of providers working for some of the big firms are 1099 contractors and some of them are trying to complete visits every three or four minutes, which means they’re not doing a detailed visit with the patient. Some of the companies are focused on patient satisfaction metrics, which means that if you don’t give the patients exactly what they request, you’re going to receive scrutiny due to your perceived poor performance. Some in-person organizations are hype- focused on the same metrics and place similar pressure on their physicians, but the risk is much lower with in-person care because you can do an actual examination and can leverage your care team to ensure you have a more comprehensive history from the patient.

Bad news for those of us that like a good nap: a recent research article showed that certain kinds of daytime napping are tied to an increased risk of death in middle- to older-aged adults. The study looked at 86,000 non-shift workers. Those who took longer naps, had high variability in the duration of their naps, and who took more naps around noon or early afternoon were those most impacted. One of the takeaways from the study is that physicians should be asking not only about sleep habits, but specifically about daytime napping. Given all the other data-driven recommendations, I don’t see this one being added to the formal recommendation set anytime soon.

My best time for napping is around 3 or 4 p.m. when my energy is fading and I just need a break. Conference calls during those times are the worst, but sometimes they’re unavoidable for me since I work in all of the US time zones. Based on the data, I should be able to mitigate my risk somewhat by taking consistent short naps in the late afternoon. That seems like a much more enjoyable option than some of the other things I can do to reduce my risk of all-cause mortality, especially since I’m already doing most of them.

What’s your favorite time and place for a nap? Do you like a hammock on the beach, or are you one of the folks I spotted catching a few winks on a park bench after leaving the local winery? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

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.