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!

Telemedicine, A Lesson from Tetris, and Collaborative Overload – Twitter Roundup

Posted on April 11, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Twitter is full of juicy nuggets of wisdom and insight which can inspire, motivate, and educate you. That’s why occasionally we like to do a roundup of tweets which recently caught our eye. Plus, we add a little bit of our own commentary on each tweet. I hope you enjoy. This week’s Twitter roundup has some great ideas.


This is a pretty interesting way to frame telehealth. Many of the challenges described in the image above are challenges that most healthcare organizations face. Especially larger hospitals and health systems. It’s pretty shocking to see how telehealth is a great solution for many of those challenges.

The sad part of all of this is that there is still resistance to telehealth. I understand there are complex things at play in healthcare, but this seems like an obvious one. Will telehealth finally have it’s moment? Is it waiting for something to really breakthrough as main stream?


I agree that you have to enjoy anything that starts with “If Tetris has taught me anything” as well. However, his point is a great one. I think we are suffering through this in many healthcare organizations. The errors and bad choices have really piled up and now we’re in very challenging situations. Mike Tyson is insane, but he sure makes you look at things differently.


Maybe I’m the only one that hadn’t heard of collaborative overload, but I really like the concept. I also love how this assessment breaks out collaborative overload into planning, people, priorities, and being present. Does anyone else have some good reading on this topic? I’d love to learn more.

Hospitals Centralizing Telemedicine, But EMR Integration Is Still Tough

Posted on March 26, 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, large healthcare providers have begun to offer their patients telemedicine options. In the past, they offered these services on an ad-hoc basis, but that seems to be changing. A new survey suggests that hospitals and health systems have begun to manage this telemedicine service lines to a central office rather than letting individual departments decide how to deliver virtual care.

The survey, which was conducted by REACH Health, polled more than 400 healthcare executives, physicians and nurses as well as other healthcare professionals. REACH, which offers enterprise telemedicine systems, has been conducting research on the telemedicine business for several years.

Forty-eight percent of respondents to the REACH Health 2018 Telemedicine Industry Benchmark Survey reported that they coordinated telemedicine services on enterprise-level, up from 39% last year. Meanwhile, 26% said that individual departments handled their own telemedicine services, down from 36% in 2017.

The providers that are taking an enterprise approach seem to have a good reason for doing so. When it analyzed the survey data, REACH concluded that organizations offering telemedicine at the enterprise level were 30% more likely to be highly successful. (Not that the company would draw any other conclusion, of course, but it does seem logical that coordinating telehealth would be more efficient.)

The survey also found that telemedicine programs provided by both behavioral health organizations and clinics have expanded rapidly over the last few years. Back in 2015, REACH found that many behavioral health providers and clinics were at the planning stages or new to delivering telemedicine, but according to the 2018 results, many now have active telemedicine programs in place, with clinic services expanding 37% and behavioral health 40%.

While healthcare organizations may be managing telemedicine centrally, their EMRs don’t seem adequate to the job. First, most survey respondents noted that the telemedicine platform wasn’t integrated with the EMR. Meanwhile, nearly half said they were documenting patient visits in the EMR after remote consultations had ended. In addition, more than one-third of respondents said that EMR doesn’t allow them to analyze telemedicine-specific metrics adequately.

Whether REACH’s solution solves the problem or not, I’m pretty sure they’re right that integrating telemedicine services data with an EMR remains difficult.

In fact, it seems obvious to me that while hospitals are still tweaking their programs for maximum impact, and getting paid for such services is still an issue, telemedicine won’t become a completely mature service line until collecting related data and integrating it with off-line patient care information is easy and efficient.

 

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.

#HIMSS18: Pushing Inpatient Care Out

Posted on March 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.

At present, we need acute care hospitals. Despite the fact that many types of care can now be delivered in outpatient settings, and chronic conditions managed remotely for connected health, there are still some treatments and procedures which can only be done in a big, expensive building.

That being said, some of what I saw at HIMSS18 has convinced me that the drive to push hospital-type services into the community has begun to pick up speed. While nobody seems to have a completely mature solution to decentralizing acute care, I saw some tools that might begin to solve the problem.

Perhaps the most direct example of this trend was offered by a Taiwanese company called Quanta Computer. (The booth was staffed with five company representatives who had flown here all the way from Taiwan, which may suggest that they are not fooling around.)

Quanta was here to pitch QOCA, whose capabilities include offering a “smart hospital at home.”  QOCA Home, an eldercare/assisted living solution including a central, easy to use terminal supporting a wide range of telehealth and connected health services. While the idea is not completely new, the way this blends a smart home approach with connected health intrigued me.

Other vendors took a different approach to some of the same core problems, i.e. managing the patient effectively outside of the hospital. For most exhibitors, this seemed to involve a blend of connected health, care management and patient/provider collaboration.

For example, vendor Virtual Health promises to deliver “whole person health” by tying together providers, healthcare execs, patients and care coordinators. Two points of interest: its solution include a collaborative workflow tool which seems to include patients, something I don’t believe I’ve seen before. Its platform, which is designed to support patients with highly complex medical needs, also addresses social determinants of health, including financial concerns and nutrition.

Now, I’m not here to tell you that any of this is revolutionary. The industry has been kicking around concepts like virtual hospital care, care coordination platforms and the integration of social determinants of health for quite some time, and I’m not suggesting that any of the vendors I saw seem to be all the way there.

Still, what I saw suggests to me that tech vendors are further along in delivering these options than they have been. If you haven’t looked into new platforms that address these issues, now might be the time. They may not be completely ready for prime time, but they’re well on their way.

Hospitals Excited By Telehealth, Consumers Not So Much

Posted on December 29, 2017 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.

When telehealth first emerged as a major commercial phenomenon, consumers were the main market targeted by providers, especially direct-to-consumer models like Teladoc and American Well. But if a new research report is right, the dynamics of the telehealth market have changed substantially, with hospitals and health systems investing heavily in telehealth and consumers hanging back.

The study, which was conducted by telehealth solutions provider Avizia, found that while hospitals and health systems are making increasingly large bets on telehealth, including infrastructure, training and process re-engineering, patients aren’t matching their enthusiasm.

Consumers who do access telehealth seem happy by what they find. When Avizia asked them to rate their telehealth experiences on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 rating it as a “great experience,” nearly two-thirds ranked their experiences between 8 and 10. Also, consumers who were using telehealth said that they like the time savings and convenience it could offer (59%), cost savings due to a lack of travel expenses and lower wait times to see clinicians (55%).

That being said, many consumers haven’t gotten on board yet. In fact, roughly eight out of 10 consumers told Avizia that they weren’t well versed in accessing telehealth, nor did they know whether their insurer would pay for it.

Providers, for their part, have ambitious plans for telehealth use. According to the study, the top one was the ability to reach or expand access to patients (72% of respondents). However, they face several obstacles, the study notes, including problems with getting reimbursed by health plans (41%), program expenses (40%) and resistance from clinicians (22%).

The Avizia results suggest that hospitals are still wrestling with many of the problems they’ve faced over the past few years in implementing telemedicine.

For example, a study by KPMG released in mid-2016 noted that about 25% of the 120 providers it studied had implemented telehealth and telemedicine programs which have achieved financial stability and improved efficiency. Thirty-five percent of KPMG respondents said that they didn’t have a virtual care program in place, though 40% had said they had just implemented a program.

Another study, released earlier this year by Reach Health, notes that 50% of hospitals and health systems are beginning to shift department-based telehealth programs to enterprise-based programs, which suggests that they no longer see virtual care as an experimental technology. They still aren’t rolling out these larger programs yet.

Still, the fact that hospitals are continuing to push ahead with telemedicine, and even make meaningful investments, makes it clear that they’re not going to be put off by current telemedicine obstacles. When the reimbursement tide floods the gates, I’m betting that hospital telemedicine programs will go from “not unusual” to “omnipresent.”

Health Systems, Hospitals Getting Serious About Telemedicine

Posted on December 8, 2017 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.

In the spring of last year, I wrote up a story about hospitals and health systems and their growing interest in telemedicine. The story included data from a survey on hospitals and telemedicine, which found that health systems averaged 5.51 telemedicine service lines at the time, up almost 20% from 2015.

Given these stats, I was not surprised to see a new press release from Teladoc reporting that the company now supports more than 200 hospitals, a number which represents a 100% growth in such relationships during this year.

If you’re wondering why this has happened, you’ll get more or less the same answer from last year’s study and Teladoc’s news release. In short, it’s all about the outcomes, baby.

When I wrote the story last year, one of the things that stood out for me was that 96% of respondents had said they were planning to roll up telemedicine services because they felt it would improve patient outcomes. While that made sense to me at the time, it seemed more like an aspiration rather than a practical plan.

What made the survey data even more provocative is that “improving financial returns” turned out to be a very low priority for hospitals working on telemedicine programs. At the time, this focus on outcomes rather than direct financial returns surprised me.

Now, about 18 months later, I’m doing the facepalm thing and saying “of course, hospitals want affordable, flexible care delivery options — they’re a great tool for managing population health!” It’s a no-brainer, actually, but I guess my brain wasn’t working at the time.

Now, as far as I know, the assumption that telemedicine can help with PHM and value-based delivery generally has not been rigorously tested. Also, even if the assumption is correct, hospitals are likely to struggle with deploying telemedicine for a while until they develop the most efficient workflows for using it.

Also, while it’s all well and good to say that focusing on outcomes will create ROI as a secondary effect, for some hospitals it will be pretty rough to carry telemedicine infrastructure and staffing costs upfront for a while. After all, if they want to make an impact with telemedicine, they have to make a serious commitment; I’m guessing that most of us would agree that a scattershot approach would get most hospitals nowhere.

Ultimately, though, I think hospitals have it right. Telemedicine is likely to offer health systems and hospitals some amazing options for extending service lines, managing populations more effectively, and yes, improving outcomes.

AHA Asks Congress To Reduce Health IT Regulations for Medicare Providers

Posted on September 22, 2017 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.

The American Hospital Association has sent a letter to Congress asking members to reduce regulatory burdens for Medicare providers, including mandates affecting a wide range of health IT services.

The letter, which is addressed to the House Ways and Means Health subcommittee, notes that in 2016, CMS and other HHS agencies released 49 rules impacting hospitals and health systems, which make up nearly 24,000 pages of text.

“In addition to the sheer volume, the scope of changes required by the new regulations is beginning to outstrip the field’s ability to absorb them,” says the letter, which was signed by Thomas Nickels, executive vice president of government relations and public policy for the AHA. The letter came with a list of specific changes AHA is proposing.

Proposals of potential interest to health IT leaders include the following. The AHA is asking Congress to:

  • Expand Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients outside of rural areas and expand the types of technology that can be used. It also suggests that CMS should automatically reimburse for Medicare-covered services when delivered via telehealth unless there’s an individual exception.
  • Remove HIPAA barriers to sharing patient medical information with providers that don’t have a direct relationship with that patient, in the interests of improving care coordination and outcomes in a clinically-integrated setting.
  • Cancel Stage 3 of the Meaningful Use program, institute a 90-day reporting period for future program years and eliminate the all-or-nothing approach to compliance.
  • Suspend eCQM reporting requirements, given how difficult it is at present to pull outside data into certified EHRs for quality reporting.
  • Remove requirements that hospitals attest that they have bought technology which supports health data interoperability, as well as that they responded quickly and in good faith to requests for exchange with others. At present, hospitals could face penalties for technical issues outside their control.
  • Refocus the ONC to address a narrower scope of issues, largely EMR standards and certification, including testing products to assure health data interoperability.

I am actually somewhat surprised to say that these proposals seem to be largely reasonable. Typically, when they’re developed by trade groups, they tend to be a bit too stacked in favor of that group’s subgroup of concerns. (By the way, I’m not taking a position on the rest of the regulatory ideas the AHA put forth.)

For example, expanding Medicare telehealth coverage seems prudent. Given their age, level of chronic illness and attendant mobility issues, telehealth could potentially do great things for Medicare beneficiaries.

Though it should be done carefully, tweaking HIPAA rules to address the realities of clinical integration could be a good thing. Certainly, no one is suggesting that we ought to throw the rulebook out the window, it probably makes sense to square it with today’s clinical realities.

Also, the idea of torquing down MU 3 makes some sense to me as well, given the uncertainties around the entirety of MU. I don’t know if limiting future reporting to 90-day intervals is wise, but I wouldn’t take it off of the table.

In other words, despite spending much of my career ripping apart trade groups’ legislative proposals, I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the majority of the ones I list above. I hope Congress gives these suggestions some serious consideration.

Did EMRs Help Hospitals Hit By Hurricane Harvey?

Posted on September 5, 2017 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.

On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall. Over the next few days, it devastated communities from Florida to Texas, generating massive storm surges and triggering levee failures that drowned cities like New Orleans. It was the costliest natural disaster in the history of the United States.

At the time, virtually all healthcare providers used paper medical records, many of which were destroyed by flooding. According to an AHIMA article, the flood waters destroyed roughly 400,000 paper records, a catastrophic loss by any standard.

The situation wasn’t nearly as dire at facilities like Tulane University Hospital and Clinic, though. The New Orleans-based organization had implemented an EMR before the storm hit. In the trying weeks afterward, physicians at these hospitals had access to medical records, while many other hospitals were struggling to gather patient information for months or even years after Katrina.

Now, we’re facing the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, which has all but submerged the city of Houston. Days after the storm’s peak, which dumped a record 51.88 inches of rain on Texas, roughly a third of the Houston area was covered in water, and Texas officials estimated that close to 49,000 homes had suffered flood damage.

During the worst of the storm, some 20 Houston hospitals transferred some or all of their patients to facilities outside of the area as water rose in their basements or levees seemed ready to burst. In its immediate aftermath, many of the area’s 110 facilities shut down outpatient services and canceled elective surgeries.

But despite the challenges they faced, the majority of Houston-area hospitals remained open for business.  One reason for their ability to function: unlike the hospitals battered by Katrina, they have EMRs in place. The area didn’t see any major power outages and the systems seem to stayed online.

It’s hard to say whether New Orleans would’ve fared better if the city’s hospitals had already implemented EMRs. Houston hospitals were apparently better prepared for hurricane flooding, having put a host of storm fortifications in place after Tropical Storm Allison wreaked massive damage sixteen years ago.

That being said, it seems likely that the EMRs have helped hospitals keep the doors open and keep caring for patients. If nothing else, they gave facilities a giant head start over New Orleans hospitals post-disaster, which in some cases had virtually nothing to go on when delivering care.

Of course, digital data offers some significant advantages over paper records of any kind, including but not limited to the ability to backup records to off-site facilities well out of a given disaster zone.  But organizing patient data in an EMR, arguably, offers additional benefits, not the least of which is the ability to access existing workflows and protocols. Few tools are better suited to capturing, sharing and preserving care records in the midst of a catastrophic event like Harvey.

Over the next few decades, some observers predict that care will become massively decentralized, with remote nurses, telemedicine and connected health doing much of the heavy lifting day-to-day. If that comes to pass, and health IT intelligence is distributed across mobile devices instead, the EMR of today may be far less important to healthcare organizations hoping to rebound after a disaster. But until then, it’s safe to say that it’s a good thing Houston’s hospitals don’t rely on paper records anymore.

The Distributed Hospital On The Horizon

Posted on February 24, 2017 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.

If you’re reading this blog, you already know that distributed, connected devices and networks are the future of healthcare.  Connected monitoring devices are growing more mature by the day, network architectures are becoming amazingly fluid, and with the growth of the IoT, we’re adding huge numbers of smart devices to an already-diverse array of endpoints.  While we may not know what all of this will look when it’s fully mature, we’ve already made amazing progress in connecting care.

But how will these trends play out? One nice look at where all this is headed comes from Jeroen Tas, chief innovation and strategy officer at Philips. In a recent article, Tas describes a world in which even major brick-and-mortar players like hospitals go almost completely virtual.  Certainly, there are other takes out there on this subject, but I really like how Tas explains things.

He starts with the assertion that the hospital of the future “is not a physical location with waiting rooms, beds and labs.” Instead, a hospital will become an abstract network overlay connecting nodes. It’s worth noting that this isn’t just a concept. For an example, Tas points to the Mercy Virtual Care Center, a $54 million “hospital without beds” dedicated to telehealth and connected care.  The Center, which has over 300 employees, cares for patients at home and in beds across 38 hospitals in seven states.

While the virtual hospital may not rely on a single, central campus, physical care locations will still matter – they’ll just be distributed differently. According to Tas, the connected health network will work best if care is provided as needed through retail-type outlets near where people live, specialist hubs, inpatient facilities and outpatient clinics. Yes, of course, we already have all of these things in place, but in the new connected world, they’ll all be on a single network.

Ultimately, even if brick-and-mortar hospitals never disappear, virtual care should make it possible to cut down dramatically on hospital admissions, he suggests.  For example, Tas notes that Philips partner Banner Health has slashed hospital admissions almost 50% by using telehealth and advanced analytics for patients with multiple chronic conditions. (We’ve also reported on a related pilot by Partners HealthCare Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the “Home Hospital,” which sends patients home with remote monitoring devices as an alternative to admissions.)

Of course, the broad connected care outline Tas offers can only take us so far. It’s all well and good to have a vision, but there are still some major problems we’ll have to solve before connected care becomes practical as a backbone for healthcare delivery.

After all, to cite one major challenge, community-wide connected health won’t be very practical until interoperable data sharing becomes easier – and we really don’t know when that will happen. Also, until big data analytics tools are widely accessible (rather than the province of the biggest, best-funded institutions) it will be hard for providers to manage the data generated by millions of virtual care endpoints.

Still, if Tas’s piece is any indication, consensus is building on what next-gen care networks can and should be, and there’s certainly plenty of ways to lay the groundwork for the future. Even small-scale, preliminary connected health efforts seem to be fostering meaningful changes in how care is delivered. And there’s little doubt that over time, connected health will turn many brick-and-mortar care models on their heads, becoming a large – or even dominant – part of care delivery.

Getting there may be tricky, but if providers keep working at connected care, it should offer an immense payoff.

Searching for Disruptive Healthcare Innovation in 2017

Posted on January 17, 2017 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He is currently an independent marketing consultant working with leading healthIT companies. Colin is a member of #TheWalkingGallery. His Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung.

Disruptive Innovation has been the brass ring for technology companies ever since Clayton Christensen popularized the term in his seminal book The Innovator’s Dilemma in 1997. According to Christensen, disruptive innovation is:

“A process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.”

Disruption is more likely to occur, therefore, when you have a well established market with slow-moving large incumbents who are focused on incremental improvements rather than truly innovative offerings. Using this definition, healthcare has been ripe for innovation for a number of years. But where is the AirBNB/Uber/Google of healthcare?

On a recent #hcldr tweetchat we asked what disruptive healthcare technologies might emerge in 2017. By far the most popular response was Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning.

Personally, I’m really excited about the potential of AI applied to diagnostics and decision support. There is just no way a single person can stay up to speed on all the latest clinical research while simultaneously remembering every symptom/diagnosis from the past. I believe that one day we will all be using AI assistance to guide our care – as common as we use a GPS today to help navigate unknown roads.

Some #hcldr participants, however, were skeptical of AI.

While I don’t think @IBMWatson is on the same trajectory as Theranos, there is merit to being wary of “over-hype” when it comes to new technologies. When a shining star like Theranos falls, it can set an entire industry back and stifle innovation in an area that may warrant investment. Can you imagine seeking funding for a technology that uses small amounts of blood to detect diseases right now? Too much hype can prematurely kill innovation.

Other potentially disruptive technologies that were raised during the chat included: #telehealth, #wearables, patient generated health data (#PDHD), combining #HealthIT with consumer services and #patientengagement.

The funniest and perhaps most thoughtful tweet came from @YinkaVidal, who warned us that innovations have a window of usefulness. What was once ground-breaking can be rendered junk by the next generation.

What do you believe will be the disruptive healthcare technology to emerge in 2017?