Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Problems We Need To Address Before Healthcare AI Becomes A Thing

Posted on September 7, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Just about everybody who’s anybody in health IT is paying close attention to the emergence of healthcare AI, and the hype cycle is in full swing. It’d be easier to tell you what proposals I haven’t seen for healthcare AI use than those I have.

Of course, just because a technology is hot and people are going crazy over it doesn’t mean they’re wrong about its potential. Enthusiasm doesn’t equal irrational exuberance. That being said, it doesn’t hurt to check in on the realities of healthcare AI adoption. Here are some issues I’m seeing surface over and over again, below.

The black box

It’s hard to argue that healthcare AI can make good “decisions” when presented with the right data in the right volume. In fact, it can make them at lightning speed, taking details into account which might not have seemed important to human eyes. And on a high level, that’s exactly what it’s supposed to do.

The problem with this, though, is that this process may end up bypassing physicians. As things stand, healthcare AI technology is seldom designed to show how it reached its conclusions, and it may be due to completely unexpected factors. If clinical teams want to know how the artificial intelligence engine drew a conclusion, they may have to ask their IT department to dig into the system and find out. Such a lack of transparency won’t work over the long term.

Workflow

Many healthcare organizations have tweaked their EHR workflow into near-perfect shape over time. Clinicians are largely satisfied with work patterns and patient throughput is reasonable. Documentation processes seem to be in shape. Does it make sense to throw an AI monkeywrench into the mix? The answer definitely isn’t an unqualified yes.

In some situations, it may make sense for a provider to run a limited test of AI technology aimed at solving a specific problem, such as assisting radiologists with breast cancer scan interpretations. Taking this approach may create less workflow disruption. However, even a smaller test may call for a big investment of time and effort, as there aren’t exactly a ton of best practices available yet for optimizing AI implementations, so workflow adjustments might not get enough attention. This is no small concern.

Data

Before an AI can do anything, it needs to chew on a lot of relevant clinical data. In theory, this shouldn’t be an issue, as most organizations have all of the digital data they need.  If you need millions of care datapoints or several thousand images, they’re likely to be available. The thing is, they may not be as usable as one might hope.

While healthcare providers may have an embarrassment of data on hand, much of it is difficult to filter and mine. For example, while researchers and some isolated providers are using natural language processing to dig up useful information, critics point out that until more healthcare info is indexed and tagged there’s only so much it can do. It may take a new generation of data processing and indexing tech to prepare the data before we have the right data to feed an AI.

These are just a few practical issues likely to arise as providers begin to use AI technologies; I’m sure there are many others you might be able to name. While I have little doubt we can work our way through such issues, they aren’t trivial, and it could take a while before we have standardized approaches in place for addressing them. In the meantime, it’s probably a good idea to experiment with AI projects and prepare for the day when it becomes more practical.

Hospitals Struggle To Get Users On Board With Mobile Policies

Posted on August 6, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A new survey has found that hospitals are having a hard time managing and tracking user compliance with mobile communications policies.

The survey, which was conducted in early 2018 by communications vendor Spok, collected information on mobile device communications strategies from approximately 300 healthcare professionals. Forty-four percent of respondents were clinicians, 10% were IT and telecom staff, 6% were executive leaders, and another 40% had a wide variety of healthcare roles.

Spok found that hospitals who do have a mobile strategy in place have had one for a long time, with 42% having had such a strategy for either 3 to 5 years or more than five years. Another 46% have had a formal mobile strategy for one to three years. Only 12% have had a strategy in place for one year or less.

Reasons they cited for creating mobile device strategies included the launch of a communication initiative (46%); a clinical initiative (25%); or a technology initiative (24%). Five percent of responses were “other.” Top areas of focus for these strategies included mobile management and security (56%), mobile device selection (52%) and integration with the EHR (48%).

Other reasons for mobile initiatives included clinical workflow evaluation (43%), device ownership strategy/BYOD (34%), mobile apps strategy (29%), mobile app catalog (16%), mobile strategy governance (14%) and business intelligence and reporting strategy (12%).

However, there’s little agreement as to which hospital department should monitor compliance. Forty-three percent of respondents said the security team was monitoring policies for the hospital or system, 43% rely on a telecommunications team, 43% said a clinical informatics team played that role, and 26% had monitoring done by a mobile team. Twenty-one percent said individual departments enforce mobile policies and 9% said they don’t have an enforcement method in place. Another 9% of responses fell into the “other” category.

Given the degree to which monitoring varies between institutions, it’s little wonder to learn that policies aren’t enforced effectively in many cases. On the one hand, 39% respondents said the policies were enforced extremely well most of the time, and one-third said they were enforced well most the time. However, 4% said the policies were being enforced poorly and inconsistently, and 44% said they are not sure about how well the policies are being enforced.

Hospitals are aware of this problem, though, and many are taking steps to ensure that users understand and comply with mobile policies. According to the survey, 48% offer educational programs on the subject, 42% use technology or data gathered from devices to measure and track compliance, 37% leverage direct feedback from users and 23% use surveys.

Still, 21% said they don’t have a way to validate compliance — which suggests that hospitals have a lot more work to do.

Switch From Epic To Cerner Comes With Patient Safety Questions

Posted on July 25, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Here’s a story in which no health system hopes to take a lead role — the tale of a Cerner installation that didn’t go well and the blowback the system faced afterward.

On October 1 of last year, Phoenix, Az.-based Banner Health switched its Tucson hospitals from Epic to a Cerner system, a move which reportedly cost the health system $45 million.

No doubt, the hospitals’ staff and physicians were trained up and prepared for a few bumps in the road, particularly given that the rest of its peers had already gone to the process. The Phoenix-based not-for-profit, which owns, leases or manages 28 acute-care hospitals in six states, had already put the Cerner system in place elsewhere, apparently without experiencing any major problems.

But this time it wasn’t so lucky, according to an article in the Arizona Daily Star. According to the news item, there were “numerous” reports of medical errors filed with the Arizona Department of Health Services after Tucson-area hospitals in the Banner chain were cut over to Cerner.

The complaints included claims that errors were creating patient safety and patient harm risks, according to one filing. “Many of the staff are in tears and frustrated because of the lack of support and empathy [for] the consequences [to] patient care,” one stated.

Not only did the conversion lead to patient safety accusations, it also seems to have lowered physician productivity and shrunk revenue as doctors learned to use the Cerner interface. While predictable, this has to have added insult to injury.

Meanwhile, according to the paper, the state seems to come down on the side of the complainants. While hospital leaders denied there were any incidents resulting in a negative outcome for patients, “the hospital’s occurrence log for October 2017 showed numerous incidents of medical errors reported to be a result of the conversion,” state investigators reportedly concluded.

While the state didn’t fine Banner or issue a citation, it did substantiate two allegations about the conversion, the Star reported. The allegations were related to computer/printer glitches impacting patient care and an inability to reliably deliver medications and order tests as part of care for critically ill patients.

The article says that Banner responded by pointing out that it has made more than 100 improvements to the Cerner system, resulting in better workflows and greater information access for physicians and staff. But the damage to its reputation seems to have been done.

No, perhaps Banner didn’t do anything particularly wrong when it installed the Cerner platform. However, if its leaders did, in fact, lie to the state about problems it actually had, it was not a smart move. On the other hand, one of the biggest problems you can have during an EHR implementation is users who don’t want to cooperate and make it a success. It’s not hard to see users who were happy with Epic dragging their feet as they shifted to Cerner. Either way, this is an important lesson as hospitals continue to consolidate and they consider switching the EHR of the acquired hospitals.

Clinicians Say They Need Specialized IT To Improve Patient Safety

Posted on July 24, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Hospitals are loaded down with the latest in health IT and have the bills to prove it. But according to a new survey, they need to invest in specialized technologies to meet patient safety goals, as well as providing more resources and greater organizational focus.

Health Catalyst recently conducted a national survey of physicians, nurses and health executives to gather their thoughts on patient safety issues. Among its main findings was that almost 90% of respondents said that their organizations were seeing success in improving patient safety. However, about the same percentage said there was room for improving patient safety in their organization.

The top obstacle they cited as holding them back from the patient safety goals was having effective information technology, as identified by 30% of respondents. The same number named a lack of technologies offering real-time warnings of possible patient harm.

These were followed by lack of staffing and budget resources (27%), organizational structure, culture priorities (19%), a lack of reimbursement for safety initiatives (10%) and changes in patient population practice setting (9%).

Part of the reason clinicians aren’t getting as much as they’d like from health IT is that many healthcare organizations rely largely on manual methods to track and report safety events.

The top sources of data for patient safety initiatives respondents used for safety initiatives voluntary reporting (82%). Hospital-acquired infection surveys (67%), manual audits (58%) and retrospective coding (29%). Such reporting is typically based on data sets which are at least 30 days old, and what’s more, collecting and analyzing the data can be time and resource-consuming.

Not surprisingly, Health Catalyst is launching new technology designed to address these problems. Its Patient Safety Monitor™ Suite: Surveillance Module uses protective and text analytics, along with concurrent critical reviews of data, to find and prevent patient safety threats before they result in harm.

The announcement also falls in line with the organization’s larger strategic plans, as Health Catalyst has applied to the AHRQ to be certified as a Patient Safety Organization.

The company said that he had spent more than $50 million to create the Surveillance module, whose technology includes the use of predictive analytics models and AI. It expects to add new AI and machine learning capabilities to its technology in the future which will be used to propose strategies to eliminate patient safety risks.

And more is on the way. Health Catalyst is working with its clients to add new features to the Suite including risk prediction, improvement tracking and decision support.

I’m not sure if it’s typical for PSOs to bringing their own specialized software to the job, but either way, it should give Health Catalyst a leg up. I have little doubt that doing better predictive analytics and offering process recommendations would be useful.

Despite Risks, Hospitals Connecting A Growing Number Of Medical Devices

Posted on July 20, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Over the past few years, hospitals have gotten closer and closer to connecting all of their medical devices to the Internet — and more importantly, connecting them to each other and to critical health IT systems.

According to a new study by research firm Frost & Sullivan, most hospitals are working to foster interoperability between medical devices and EHRs. By doing so, they can gather, analyze and present data important to care in a more sophisticated way.

“Hospitals are developing connectivity strategies based on early warning scores, automated electronic charting, emergency alert and response, virtual intensive care units, medical device asset management and real-time location solutions,” Frost analysts said in a prepared statement.

Connecting medical devices to other hospital infrastructure has become so important to the future of healthcare that the FDA has taken notice. The agency recently issued guidance on how healthcare organizations can foster interoperability between the devices and other information systems.

Of course, while hospitals would like to see medical devices chat with their EHRs and other health IT systems, it’s just one of many important goals hospitals have for data collection and analysis. Health IT executives are up to the eyebrows supporting big data transformation, predictive analytics and ongoing EHR management, not to mention trying out soon-to-be standard technologies such as blockchain.

More importantly, few medical devices are as secure as they should be. While the average hospital room contains 15 to 20 connected devices, many of them are frighteningly vulnerable. Some of them are still running on obsolete operating systems, many of which haven’t been patched in years, or roughly 1,000 years in IT time. Other systems have embedded passwords in their code, which is one heck of a problem.

While the press plays up the possibility of a hacker stopping someone’s connected pacemaker, the reality is that an EHR hack using a hacked medical device is far more likely. When these devices are vulnerable to outside attacks, attackers are far more likely to tunnel into EHRs and steal patient health data. After all, while playing with a pacemaker might be satisfying to really mean people, thieves can get really good money for patient records on the dark web.

All this being said, connected medical devices are likely to become a key part of hospital IT infrastructure in hospitals over time as the industry solves these problems, Frost predicts that the global market for such devices will climb from $233 million to almost $1 billion by 2022.

It looks like hospital IT executives will have some hard choices to make here. Ignoring the benefits of connecting all medical devices with other data sources just won’t work, but creating thousands of security vulnerabilities isn’t wise either. Ultimately, hospital leaders must find a way to secure these devices ASAP without cratering their budget, and it won’t be easy.

Important Patient Data Questions Hospitals Need To Address

Posted on July 13, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Obviously, managing and protecting patients’ personal health information is very important already.  But with high-profile incidents highlighting questionable uses of consumer data — such as the recent Facebook scandal – patients are more aware of data privacy issues than they had been in the past, says Dr. Oleg Bess, founder and CEO of clinical data exchange company 4medica.

According to Bess, hospitals should prepare to answer four key questions about personal health information that patients, the media and regulators are likely to ask. They include:

  • Who owns the patient’s medical records? While providers and EHR vendors may contend that they own patient data, it actually belongs to the patient, Bess says. What’s more, hospitals need to be sure patients should have a clear idea of what data hospitals have about them. They should also be able to access their health data regardless of where it is stored.
  • What if the patient wants his or her data deleted? Unfortunately, deleting patient data may not be possible in many cases due to legal constraints. For example, CMS demands that Medicare providers retain records for a fixed period, and many states have patient record retention laws as well, Bess notes. However, if nothing else, patients should have the ability to decline having their personally-identifiable data shared with third parties other than providers and payers, he writes.
  • Who is responsible for data integrity? Right now, problems with patient data accuracy are common. For example, particularly when patient matching tools like an enterprise master patient index aren’t in place, health data can end up being mangled. To this point, Bess cites a Black Book Research survey concluding that when records are transmitted between hospitals that don’t use these tools, they had just a 24% match rate. Hospital data stewards need to get on top of this problem, he says.
  • Without a national patient ID in place, how should hospitals verify patient identities? In addition to existing issues regarding patient safety, emerging problems such as the growing opioid abuse epidemic would be better handled with a unique patient identifier, Bess contends. According to Bess, while the federal government may not develop unique patient IDs, commercially developed master patient index technology might offer a solution.

To better address patient matching issues, Bess recommends including historical data which goes back decades in the mix if possible. A master patient index solution should also offer enterprise scalability and real-time matching, he says.

Health Orgs Were In Talks To Collect SDOH Data From Facebook

Posted on April 9, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

These days, virtually everyone in healthcare has concluded that integrating social determinants of health data with existing patient health information can improve care outcomes. However, identifying and collecting useful, appropriately formatted SDOH information can be a very difficult task. After all, in most cases it’s not just lying around somewhere ripe for picking.

Recently, however, Facebook began making the rounds with a proposal that might address the problem. While the research initiative has been put on hold in light of recent controversy over Facebook’s privacy practices, my guess is that the healthcare players involved will be eager to resume talks if the social media giant manages to calm the waters.

According to CNBC, Facebook was talking to healthcare organizations like Stanford Medical School and American College of Cardiology, in addition to several other hospitals, about signing a data-sharing agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the healthcare organizations would share anonymized patient data, which Facebook planned to match up with user data from its platform.

Facebook’s proposal will sound familiar to readers of this site. It suggested combining what a health system knows about its patients, such as their age, medication list and hospital admission history, with Facebook-available data such as the user’s marital status, primary language and level of community involvement.

The idea would then be to study, with an initial focus on cardiovascular health, whether this combined data could improve patient care, something its prospective partners seem to think possible. The CNBC story included a gushing statement from American College of Cardiology interim CEO Cathleen Gates suggesting that such data sharing could create revolutionary results. According to Gates, the ACC believes that mixing anonymized Facebook data with anonymized ACC data could help greatly in furthering scientific research on how social media can help in preventing and treating heart disease.

As the business site notes, the data would not include personally identifiable information. That being said, Facebook proposed to use hashing to match individuals existing in both data sets. If the project were to have gone forward, Facebook might’ve shared data on roughly 87 million users.

Looked at one way, this arrangement could raise serious privacy questions. After all, healthcare organizations should certainly exercise caution when exchanging even anonymized data with any outside organization, and with questions still lingering on how willing Facebook is to lock data down projects like this become even riskier.

Still, under the right circumstances, Facebook could prove to be an all but ideal source of comprehensive, digitized SDOH data. Well now, arguably, might not be the time to move ahead, hospitals should keep this kind of possibility in mind.

Study Offers EHR-Based Approach To Predicting Post-Hospital Opioid Use

Posted on March 27, 2018 I Written By

Sunny is a serial entrepreneur on a mission to improve quality of care through data science. Sunny’s last venture docBeat, a healthcare care coordination platform, was successfully acquired by Vocera communications. Sunny has an impressive track record of Strategy, Business Development, Innovation and Execution in the Healthcare, Casino Entertainment, Retail and Gaming verticals. Sunny is the Co-Chair for the Las Vegas Chapter of Akshaya Patra foundation (www.foodforeducation.org) since 2010.

With opioid abuse a raging epidemic in the United States, hospitals are looking for effective ways to track and manage opioid treatment effectively. In an effort to move in this direction, a group of researchers has developed a model which predicts the likelihood of future chronic opioid use based on hospital EHR data.

The study, which appears in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, notes that while opioids are frequently prescribed in hospitals, there has been little research on predicting which patients will progress to chronic opioid therapy (COT) after they are discharged. (The researchers defined COT as when patients were given a 90-day supply of opioids with less than a 30-day gap in supply over a 180-day period or receipt of greater than 10 opioid prescriptions during the past year.)

To address this problem, researchers set out to create a statistical model which could predict which hospitalized patients would end up on COT who had not been on COT previously. Their approach involved doing a retrospective analysis of EHR data from 2008 to 2014 drawn from records of patients hospitalized in an urban safety-net hospital.

The researchers analyzed a wide array of variables in their analysis, including medical and mental health diagnoses, substance and tobacco use, chronic or acute pain, surgery during hospitalization, having received opioid or non-opioid analgesics or benzodiazepines during the past year, leaving the hospital with opioid prescriptions and milligrams of morphine equivalents prescribed during their hospital stay.

After conducting the analysis, researchers found that they could predict COT in 79% of patients, as well as predicting when patients weren’t on COT 78% of the time.

Being able to predict which patients will end up on COT after discharge could prove to be a very effective tool. As the authors note, using EHR data to create such a predictive model could offer many benefits, particularly the ability to identify patients at high risk for future chronic opioid use.

As the study notes, if clinicians have this information, they can offer early patient education on pain management strategies and where possible, wean them off of opioids before discharging them. They’ll also be more likely to consider incorporating alternative pain therapies into their discharge planning.

While this data is exciting and provides great opportunities, we need to be careful how we use this information. Done incorrectly it could cause the 21% who are misidentified as at risk for COT to end up needing COT. It’s always important to remember that identifying those at risk is only the first challenge. The second challenge is what do you do with that data to help those at risk while not damaging those who are misidentified as at risk.

One issue the study doesn’t address is whether data on social determinants of health could improve their predictions. Incorporating both SDOH and patient-generated data might lend further insight into their post-discharge living conditions and solidify discharge planning. However, it’s evident that this model offers a useful approach on its own.

Mayo Clinic Creating Souped-Up Extension Of MyChart

Posted on March 19, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

As you probably know, MyChart is Epic’s patient portal. As portals go, it’s serviceable, but it’s a pretty basic tool. I’ve used it, and I’ve been underwhelmed by what its standard offering can do.

Apparently, though, it has more potential than I thought. Mayo Clinic is working with Epic to offer a souped-up version of MyChart that offers a wide range of additional services to patients.

The new version integrates Epic’s MyChart Virtual Care – a telemedicine tool – with the standard MyChart mobile app and portal. In doing so, it’s following the steps of many other health systems, including Henry Ford Health System, Allegheny Health Network and Lakeland Health.

However, Mayo is going well beyond telemedicine. In addition to offering access to standard data such as test results, it’s going to use MyChart to deliver care plans and patient-facing content. The care plans will integrate physician-vetted health information and patient education content.

The care plans, which also bring Mayo care teams into the mix, provide step-by-step directions and support. This support includes decision guidance which can include previsit, midtreatment and post-visit planning.

The app can also send care notifications and based on data provided by patients and connected devices, adapt the care plan dynamically. The care plan engine includes special content for conditions like asthma, type II diabetes chronic obstructive heart failure, orthopedic surgery and hip/knee joint replacement.

Not surprisingly, Mayo seems to be targeting high-risk patients in the hopes that the new tools can help them improve their chronic disease self-management. As with many other standard interventions related to population health, the idea here is to catch patients with small problems before the problems blossom into issues requiring emergency department visit or hospitalization.

This whole thing looks pretty neat. I do have a few questions, though. How does the care team work with the MyChart interface, and how does that affect its workflow? What type of data, specifically, triggers changes in the care plan, and does the data also include historical information from Mayo’s EMR? Does Mayo use AI technology to support care plan adaptions? Does the portal allow clinicians to track a patient’s progress, or is Mayo assuming that if patients get high high-quality educational materials and personalized care plan that the results will just come?

Regardless, it’s good to see a health system taking a more aggressive approach than simply presenting patient health data via a portal and hoping that this information will motivate the patient to better manage their health. This seems like a much more sophisticated option.

Intermountain Creates Virtual Hospital

Posted on March 16, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an item describing the Mercy Virtual Care Center, a four-story, $54 million venture which describes itself as a “hospital without beds.” The Center, which launched in October 2015, has more than 300 staffers. After one year of operation, the Virtual Care program had cut emergency department visits and hospitalizations by an impressive 33%.

Now, Intermountain Healthcare is following in Mercy’s footsteps. Last month, Intermountain announced a launch of its virtual hospital service, Connect Care Pro, which brings together 35 telehealth programs and more than 500 clinicians. Its goals are to supplement existing staff and provide specialized services in rural communities where some types of care are not available.

Unlike Mercy’s offering, Connect Care Pro’s services aren’t located in a single building, but according to Intermountain, it can still provide much of the care that you find at a large, sophisticated hospital. It describes its approach as clinically integrated and digitally enabled. (I’m not sure what clinical integration looks like in telehealth, so I’d love to hear more about that in the future.)

In explaining why Connect Care Pro matters, Intermountain tells the story of an infant admitted to a southern Utah hospital which needed intensive services. Because the infant was supported via Connect Care Pro, it received a remote critical care consultation rather than having to be transferred to a different ICU in Salt Lake City. Avoiding the transfer saved over $18,000 and allowed the baby’s parents to remain in their community.

Now, all Intermountain Healthcare hospitals, including 10 of its rural hospitals, use the virtual hospital’s services to build on their existing offerings. Also, nine hospitals outside of the Intermountain system have signed up to use Connect Care Pro.

While I might’ve missed something in my searches, from what I can tell few hospitals systems have gone to the trouble of creating a fully-fledged virtual hospital service, though many are offering telemedicine options to support rural hospitals and clinics.

Part of the reason may be financial. After all, as noted above, Mercy did spend more than $50 million to create its hospital without walls. However, I’d argue that the main reason for hospitals haven’t created similar centers is that they simply don’t understand their benefits, and to some extent may be in denial about the extent to which medical care is becoming decentralized.

Despite the costs and effort involved, I do think we’ll see more virtual hospitals emerge over the next few years. I just don’t think most hospital systems are ready to move ahead just yet.