Scott Shreeve, MD: The Canonical Health 2.0 Representation

Dr. Shreeve's effort at defining Healthcare 2.0 is just about a year old, but it's a very worthy effort. I'm reblogging it here to advance the collective effort at building some consensus around the intersection of healthcare, social networking and Web innovations. There are excellent alternative sources for defining Health 2.0 on the Health2.0 blog Jack

"In that vein, I have attempted to capture, the quintessential characteristics of the emerging movement and body of companies that make up the Health 2.0 movement.

I have already developed the definition, described a few of the companies, and as promised, have now attempted to capture this definition in the following graphic:

The canonical representation of Health 2.0 Conceived by Scott Shreeve MD, illustrated by Hemeon Design, and Copyright © 2007 by Crossover Consulting. Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike 2.5 License.Updated on 5/30/07.

"The graphic is self-explanatory, but the narrative is helpful to see how the pieces build on each other and work together to bring the concept of Health 2.0 into focus. Here goes:

1. Begin by defining Health 2.0    

2. Realize that Health 2.0 is all about Patient Empowered (not the misnomer "Consumer Directed") Healthcare whereby patients have the information they need to be able to make rational healthcare decisions (transparency of information) based on value (outcomes over price). In the Health 2.0 paradigm, everyone in the healthcare process is focused on increasing value for the patient.    

3. Realize that Health 2.0 is absolutely reliant on interoperability of health information. Everything from the Personal Health Record (PHR), to the Clinic Health Record (CHR), to the Enterprise Health Record (EHR), to the National Health Record (NHR) must be based on standards, be seamlessly transitioned between environments per standardized security and privacy protocols, and be accessible anytime from anywhere.    

4. Undergirding this foundation of information, the Four Cornerstones (Connectivity, Price, Quality, and Incentives) of the Value Driven Healthcare movement begin to create a virtuous cycle of innovation and reform. Transparency serves as a key catalyst in this process by creating positive sum competition that can deliver better outcomes at a lower cost.    

5. As more information becomes available as a result of increased transparency, there will be a wave of innovation at all points along the full cycle of care (see slide 8-12), which includes phases where health care service providers Educate, Prevent, Diagnose, Prepare, Intervene, Recover, Monitor, and Manage the various disease states. Measuring someone's HgA1c or Ejection Fraction does not tell you how effective their diabetic or cardiovascular treatments have been. You need to factor in the care provided over the full cycle of care to appropriately determine value.    

6. An increased amount of personal health and outcomes information will create an ongoing role for infomediaries and related services providers to add value at each stage of the full cycle of care. These value added Health Advisory Services (more later) will offered by hundreds of companies, in thousands of forms, to millions of people who are can benefit from the remixing of medically related information. It is easy to see how the new Web 2.0 framework, with its inherent social networking and collaboration tools, will make this "long tail" of medicine a "value"able venture.

These concepts are worthy of further discussion and debate, particularly since we are blazing new territory without any established rules, patterns, or procedures. Shooting my canonical representation of Heath 2.0 out into the ether is the proverbial "shot out of the canon" to stimulate the conversation."

Scott Shreeve, MD: The Canonical Health 2.0 Representation

Blogged with Flock

Comments

[Gunther Eysenbach]

I agree that consensus about what "Health 2.0" really means is absolutely and urgently needed - there seems to be a wide range of interpretations here, which is why I am personally quite wary of using this term. Personally I have difficulties to see how some definitions of Health 2.0 differ from the wider field of ehealth, medical informatics, or consumer health informatics (consumer empowerment started with Web 1.0, not Web 2.0).

But I can also see the value of specifically highlighting what Web 2.0 approaches can add to the field of health, health care, medicine, and biomedical research. For doing so, I personally prefer "Medicine 2.0" over "Health 2.0" (much as we would talk about Business 2.0 rather than Wealth 2.0 - let's talk about the science and the art first, before we talk about [possbile and unproven] outcomes!). Health 2.0 is venture capitalist speak, Medicine 2.0 is perhaps what academics would prefer.

A suggested definition of Medicine 2.0:
"Medicine 2.0 applications, services and tools are Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, health professionals, and biomedical researchers, that use Web 2.0 technologies as well as semantic web and virtual reality tools, to enable and facilitate specifically social networking, participation, apomediation, collaboration, and openness within and between these user groups."
(Source: Scope of the first Medicine 2.0 Congress, Toronto, Sept 4-5th, 2008, http://www.medicine20congress.com)

See also
Eysenbach, Gunther. Medicine 2.0 Congress Website launched (and: Definition of Medicine 2.0 / Health 2.0). Posted at: Gunther Eysenbach's random research rants (Blog). URL: http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/medicine-20-congress-website-launched.html. Accessed: 2008-03-07. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5W9GcYyWN)

[Kathy Brown, MD]

Specifically talking about the Connectivity part of Health 2.0, me & couple of friends have started a Health 2.0 portal called www.rxhcm.com

Have a look, I hope you'll like the concept to Live Chat with Doctors there.

Thanks.

[ehr implementation]

Nice pictorial explanation... thank you...

ehr implementation

[Daws]

New to this site, pretty interesting info.

[Charles Beauchamp MD, PhD]

This has all been done by the VA. It is fiscally irreponsible for us (the USA) not to adapt the VA's data infrastructure and VA's VisTa EHR EMR / PHR as the national health care information infrastructure, EHR, EMR, PHR....etc. It works; taxpayers paid for it; Sweden is taking a similar information infrastructure and data warehousing approach and paying 19 million (YES, 19 million dollars for the WHOLE COUNTRY) to integrate medical information across Sweden!!! Why can't the whole USA do what the VA and Sweden have done / are doing? We do not have the healthcare dollars to do otherwise. To push another approach is to enhance the bankruptcy of the USA.