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!

Pocket Health Sensors

Posted on September 5, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

We’ve long talked about the explosion of wearable sensors that’s happening in the market. The number is amazing. Now I’m just waiting for them to go a little deeper as far as what they can offer that’s clinically relevant. That said, I’m also impressed with how small these sensors are becoming. They can easily fit in your pocket or purse with no problem.

An example of this movement is the ECG that was recently sent to me by SnapECG. They have a wide variety of ECG sensors, but they sent me the SnapECG Handheld ECG Recorder (Available on eBay and Amazon). I have to admit that receiving it was a bit underwhelming. It was so simple to use that it didn’t need much information. That said, it would have been nice to have a little card that said basically that there was nothing for me to do other than download the app on my smartphone and get started.

Regardless it was super easy to unpackage it, download the app and pair it with my smartphone. No doubt I’m a more advanced user and so a few more prompts on the mobile app might be a good idea, but all in all, it was amazing how simple it was to start using the sensor. Plus, there’s something calming about watching the ECG being recorded (maybe they should pair it with a mindfulness app).

After doing the reading, the next challenge was figuring out what to do with the data. There’s an option on the app that says “Professional Advice” but it required a login and so I didn’t want to go that direction. Plus, how did I know the quality of the professional advice? As someone active on social media, I decided to share my report on Twitter and ask my community what else I should do with the reading. The amazing part was how simple it was for me to share that report on social media. It made me really wish that sharing the report with my doctor was that easy…but I digress.

Along with some great snarky replies, I also learned about the difference between a single lead ECG and one that would be used in a doctors office. I even had a doctor reply with the following:

The doctor went on to share that it can measure resting heart rate, target exercise heart rate, and rhythm regular/irregular. Although, he did make clear that the key is for the data to come from a wearable that produced accurate data.

I was aware of this possible issue, but I wonder how many consumers wouldn’t think twice about how accurate the readings from the wearable were for them. I can hear someone reasoning that they bought it at BestBuy or Amazon and so they must have vetted the quality of the reading, right? I’m sure some of you are laughing, but I’m quite sure this is how much research many people do on the accuracy of their wearable devices. I instead look for the FDA clearance which SnapECG has said they’re working on and they’re planning to have it cleared in the middle of September.

The SnapECG was originally launched in China and now they’re bringing it to the US. I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with the Chinese medical device world, but the device has been awarded CE certification (EU) and China’s CFDA certification. A lesson that many chinese companies learn is that those don’t really seem to carry much weight to those of us in the US.

In fact, it should come as no surprise that many people in the US will be skeptical of wearables coming from China and other overseas countries. The smartest thing a company like SnapECG can do is to partner with a trusted US brand like the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic. Most people in the US will trust something that has been vetted by those organizations who are extremely protective of their brands. Plus, it’s easy to see why their “Professional Advice” app feature would carry a lot more weight if that advice was tied to a well known US healthcare organization than a basically anonymous one with Chinese ties.

At the end of the day, the real question for all of these wearables is what value can you provide the patient and how quickly can you provide that value? Plus, will patients understand the value that a single lead ECG can provide them? And will they understand the limitations of what it can and can’t tell you? This is why the software that comes paired with the device is so important. Plus, as these devices become more and more clinically relevant, you’re going to want that data available to a care provider you trust as well.

Yes, I understand some of the challenges of over monitoring and how that can lead to false positives and unnecessary care that has a wide variety of bad consequences. However, over time I believe we’re going to have the right mix of devices, data analytics, and software that will effectively analyze wearable device data and make it actionable and useful to you as a patient and to your doctor. We’re not there yet, but it’s amazing to see how things continue to evolve even since AliveCor offered the first single lead ECG for mobile devices. It still feels like we’re just getting started and none of us can even imagine what we’ll have 10 years from now.

KLAS Summit: Digital Health Investment

Posted on December 4, 2017 I Written By

Healthcare as a Human Right. Physician Suicide Loss Survivor. Janae writes about Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Data Analytics, Engagement and Investing in Healthcare. twitter: @coherencemed

Healthcare Investing and Innovation: Asking the right questions.

KLAS research hosted a digital health investment symposium in Park City, Utah. One of my main takeaways was the importance of asking the right questions to healthcare stakeholders. This includes asking investors what they are interested in.

This one-day work collaboration focused on round table discussions about the interests of investors and providers in digital health. Aligning investor interests with provider needs is one of the biggest needs of healthcare. We want good capital to get to good companies. While at the round table, one of the best comments I heard was that some of the design isn’t centered around the end user. If physicians are responsible for using a product it needs to align to their interests.

Unfortunately, too many people don’t ask the right questions. A technology company might not understand their value proposition in healthcare. I’ve seen companies criticize a lack of technology adoption in healthcare. These are companies that didn’t have a clear picture of what they offered. They also didn’t have a tested healthcare product Or they didn’t ask the specific potential user what they need.

Many of the successful investors at the summit had significant operating experience in the digital health world or operations world. They contributed–if you are a technology looking for a problem, you will struggle in healthcare. You aren’t meeting a need in the market. Some shiny tech solutions are created without real consideration for end users or need. There is no market need for what some people create. Ask yourself if you are user focused. Are you building something that physicians will add to their workflow?  Did you consult physicians? What about patients?

One of the interesting parts of this summit was how many participants asked not to be quoted or mentioned as part of the effort. Many of the most important healthcare collaborative efforts happen in private meetings or surrounding larger healthcare events. The quality of conversation behind closed doors helps move healthcare progress forward.  What role does journalism play in driving this healthcare conversation? This was my personal question from the event.

Discussing barriers to adoption and success needs a private platform. KLAS research has been convening these conversations in alignment with their research and mission of providing transparency about quality and I was impressed with the amount of interest in workflow and informatics. The stereotype of an investor with no experience in healthcare is not representative of the investors present at the KLAS event. There were years of operator,  innovator, and code experience in digital health. A successful investor in digital health comes with the ability to contribute to design and network developed through years of successful companies.

Can we deliver the correct answers and create an environment of improved workflow and creating products that improve healthcare?

Here are the top 10 questions I took away from the KLAS Investor Summit

  1. What type of problems do you like to solve?
  2. How long have you been trying to solve the problems you are trying to solve?
  3. How has the nature of the problem you are trying to solve evolved?
  4. What are better questions to ask at this type of summit?
  5. What do you like to invest in?
  6. What companies do you currently invest in?
  7. How do you see creating change at the national level?
  8. What are the digital health initiatives that are important to people?
  9. What are the problems that aren’t being articulated in public discourse that digital health can speak to?
  10. What are you most excited about in digital health?

Remember the importance of asking what people need when approaching investors.

Digital Health is Dead! Long Live Digital Health!

Posted on October 2, 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.

Rob Coppedge, CEO of Echo Health Ventures recently wrote a provocative post for CNBC proclaiming that digital health is dead.

As evidence, Coppedge cited the work of Rock Health that shows $16 Billion in VC funding has gone to approximately 800 digital health companies since 2014 (note: Rock Health tracks VC deals >$2M for US-based digital health companies). He argued that in order for these VCs to see their expected returns, the entire digital health market would have to triple in value by 2021 – well beyond current projections. Coppedge’s conclusion was that fewer and fewer VC deals in the digital health space will happen in the years ahead – effectively signaling the death of the market.

Although I don’t agree with Coppedge’s claim that that digital health overall is dead, I do concur with his observations and commentary on why VCs may exit the space. Here are some of his lessons learned after investing in digital health:

  1. Better mousetraps are not enough. Inadequate attention was paid to solving how to go to market.
  2. Ill-equipped for enterprise health care. Subject matter expertise, outcomes measurement and political savvy is needed in healthcare – which is rarely necessary in star-ups targeting other industries.
  3. Consumers and patients are not the same. Unlike consumers, patients may not be the ones paying for the service they receive. Plus, engaging individuals in their health is surprisingly difficult and low engagement is common.
  4. Healthcare sales cycles are slow and industry adoption is measured. Growth expectations need to be tempered.
  5. DC is not to blame for stalling digital health. There is no evidence that supports the theory that healthcare innovation has stalled because of the uncertainty surrounding funding and regulations.

For long-time readers of this publication, the list above states the obvious.

Technology alone has never been enough to guarantee success in healthcare. Not only do healthcare customers need evidence a company’s solution actually works, they also need to help through (and beyond) the implementation of the technology. For companies, this often means creating new workflows that incorporate the new technology and helping their client’s staff adjust to those changes. Digital health companies cannot simply activate an account then foist self-serve instructional videos onto clients and expect success.

For me Coppedge’s post reaffirmed something I have long believed – Success in healthcare IT/digital health takes effort. Not only do you need a good product that actually solves a problem, you need a dedicated team of individuals who are healthcare-savvy that can help you navigate the complex health ecosystem. You need people on your team who are truly passionate about and dedicated to improving healthcare – those are the people with staying power and who will help you ride through the frustrating slow pace of change.

In my opinion, digital health is far from dead. It is evolving and changing. The influx of VC money has brought in smart, enthusiastic risk-takers from other industries who have now gotten a sobering dose of cold water dumped on them. Now that many companies are waking up to the reality that it takes years to become an overnight success in healthcare, we will see more consolidation and flame-outs in digital health. To me this potential turmoil represents an evolution of the market rather than a death spiral. The easy money and opportunists will soon be making an exit – leaving the market wide open for true believers and passionate hard workers.

What at CES Requires Immediate Action from Hospitals?

Posted on January 11, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

As I process my week at CES (Formerly known as the consumer electronic show), I was blown away by all the amazing technology. This was true across a wide variety of spaces including drones, virtual reality (VR), 3D printing, smart homes, robotics, and yes digital health. 170,000 people at CES and over 20,000 products launched the week of CES means I missed a lot. However, I did get a chance to see a lot of the digital health solutions on display at CES. In fact, see most of my Digital Health coverage of CES on EMR and HIPAA.

While the event was enormous, the observation I’ve made most about digital health is that there was very little that was revolutionary when it comes to health care itself. Pretty much everything I saw was part of the evolution of digital health that we already understood. There was really no game changing technology, app, software, hardware or other solution that would dramatically change the course of healthcare.

In fact, if I were a hospital executive coming out of CES, I wouldn’t have any immediate action items on my list. Sure, there are a lot of fun technologies, but there really aren’t that many clinically relevant innovations at CES.

While I do think that’s the case today, I believe that’s going to change. If I were to compare digital health to the internet, we’re still working on compuserve or prodigy (Yes, those were the “internet” before their were web browsers). We don’t even have a great web browser developed and mobile computing wasn’t really even much of a thought. However, I see a lot of organizations starting to build something that innovative in healthcare. Plus, the building blocks are now in place that a unique entrepreneur will put together all these innovations in devices and data and create something that transforms healthcare.

Most hospitals aren’t entrepeneurs. So, the opportunities presented by digital health at CES aren’t that interesting. However, CES is a digital health entrepreneur’s playground. The opportunities to leverage technology to improve health are endless. The groundwork that’s been laid is amazing. It will just take a number of years for it to reach hospitals in a package that works for them.

mHealth Apps May Create Next-Gen Interoperability Problems

Posted on November 20, 2015 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

According to a recent study by IMS Health, there were 165,000 mHealth apps available on the Google Play and iTunes app stores as of September. Of course, not all of these apps are equally popular — in fact, 40% had been downloaded less than 5,000 times — but that still leaves almost 100,000 apps attracting at least some consumer attention.

On the whole, I’m excited by these statistics. While there’s way too many health apps to consider at present, the spike in apps is a necessary part of the mobile healthcare market’s evolution. Over the next few years, clear leaders will emerge to address key mHealth functions, such as chronic care and medication management, diet and lifestyle support and health data tracking. Apps offering limited interactivity will fall off the map, those connected to biosensors will rise, IMS Health predicts.

That being said, I am concerned about how data is being managed within these apps. With providers already facing huge interoperability issues, the last thing the industry needs is the emergence of a new set of data silos. But unless something happens to guide mHealth app developers, that may be just what happens.

To be fair, health IT leaders aren’t exactly sitting around waiting for commercial app developers to share their data. While products like HealthKit exist to integrate such data, and some institutions are giving it a try, my sense is that mHealth data management isn’t a top priority for healthcare leaders just yet.

No, the talk I’ve overheard in the hallways is more geared to supporting internally-developed apps. For example, seeing to it that a diabetes management app integrates not only a patient’s self-reported blood sugar levels, but also related labs and recommended self-care appointments is enough of a challenge on its own. What’s more, with few doctors actually “prescribing” outside apps as part of their clinical routine, providers have little reason to worry about what commercial app developers do with their data.

But eventually, as top commercial health apps become more robust, the picture will change. Healthcare organizations will have compelling reasons to integrate data from outside apps, particularly if doctors begin viewing them as useful. But if providers and outside app developers aren’t adhering to shared data standards, that may not be possible.

Now, I’m not here to suggest that commercial mHealth developers are ignoring the problem of interoperability with providers. (Besides, with 165,000 apps on the market, I couldn’t say so with any authority, anyway.) I am arguing, however, that it’s already well past time for health IT leaders to begin scoping out the mobile health marketplace, and figuring out what can be done to help with data interoperability. Some sit-downs with top app developers would definitely make sense.

What I do know — as do those reading this blog — is that creating a fresh set of health data silos would be destructive. Creating and managing useful mobile health apps, as well as the data they generate, is likely to be important to next-generation health IT leaders. And avoiding the creation of a fresh set of silos may still be possible. It’s time to tackle this issue before it’s too late.

Digital Health Tech Funding Keeps Growing

Posted on September 25, 2015 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

I recently had a chance to look at data from CB Insights on digital health funding, and it turned out to be worth seeing. While anyone in healthcare IT knows that digital health technologies are a Big Deal, I hadn’t pieced together just how much money is pouring into the space.

According to CB Insights, digital health funding hit a robust $3.5B last year, and the space saw several IPOs as well.  A full 30 digital health ventures cashed out in 2014, compared with just eight exits by US-based digital health players in 2011.

One interesting feature of this activity is that three of the four companies that went to IPO last year (, Everyday Health and Castlight Health) support consumers. Honestly, I would have assumed that companies that serve providers would have had a bigger footprint.

Also, while there’s too few too data points to draw broad conclusions, I note that the two biggest deals done in 2014 — the Fitbit IPO and Under Armour’s $475M buyout of MyFitness Pal — were done by companies with a consumer focus as well. And Fitbit stock has gone great guns, with its value soaring from $4.1B at IPO to a market cap of about $8B.

On the other hand, it’s worth noting that the biggest exit listed by CB Insights was that of Veeva Systems, which provides cloud-based services to the life sciences industry. Clearly, there’s still a meaningful place for digital health companies that serve B2B needs.

On top of all of this investment, it’s worth noting that some of the hottest action in digital health isn’t going to make the CB Insights funding list. After all, well-funded giants like Apple, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Google and Samsung are just hitting their stride when it comes to digital health solutions. These behemoths bring their own huge piles of cash to the party, and pump up the opportunities in this space just by being there.

While healthcare probably isn’t mission-critical to any of the companies above, there’s still signs that they intend to invest heavily in digital health — and may yet prove to dominate key verticals. (For example, Apple HealthKit has tremendous potential, and its approach could become the default for integrating consumer health data with EMRs.)

Bottom line, the digital health market is very much in flux, and very hard to call. If I were sitting on a pile of cash, I’d probably invest in personal digital health data integration with providers, but that’s just me. The record so far suggests that investors haven’t given the provider enablement side of digital health, but rather, consumer empowerment.

I do think that the market will eventually swing around to hard-core business services that integrate all of these consumer digital health investments with day-to-day care. But it could take a few years of investors chasing rainbows until they get practical. In the mean time, hospitals would be smart to make their own digital health plays and even do their own startups. While digital health companies are everywhere, providers need to have a say in how this niche plays out.

Behold The Arrival of The Chief Mobile Healthcare Officer

Posted on June 9, 2015 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

Managing fleets of mobile devices is an increasingly important part of a healthcare IT executive’s job. Not only must IT execs figure out how to provide basic OS and application support – and whether to permit staffers and clinicians to do the job with their own devices – they need to decide when and if they’re ready to begin integrating these devices into their overall lines of service. And to date, there’s still no standard model using mobile devices to further hospital or medical practice goals, so a lot of creativity and guesswork is involved.

But over time, it seems likely that health systems and medical practices will go from tacking mobile services onto their infrastructure to leading their infrastructure with mobile services. Mobile devices won’t just be a bonus – an extra way for clinicians to access EMR data or consumers to check lab results on a portal – but the true edge of the network. Mobile applications will be as much a front door to key applications as laptop and desktop computers are today.

This will require a new breed of healthcare IT executive to emerge: the mobile healthcare IT leader. It’s not that today’s IT leaders aren’t capable of supervising large mobile device deployments and integration projects that will emerge as mHealth matures. But it does seem likely that even the smartest institutional HIT leader won’t be able to keep up with the pace of change underway in the mHealth market today.

After all, new approaches to deploying mHealth are emerging almost daily, from advances in wearables to apps offering increasingly sophisticated ways of tracking patient health to new approaches to care coordination among patients, caregivers and friends. And given how fast the frontier of mHealth is evolving, it’s likely that healthcare organizations will want to develop their own hybrid approaches that suit their unique needs.

This new “chief mobile healthcare officer” position should begin to appear even as you read this article. Just as chief medical information officers began to be appointed as healthcare began to turn on digital information, CMHOs will be put in place to make sense of, and plan a coherent future for, the daily use of mobile technology in delivering care. The CMHO probably won’t be a telephony expert per se  (though health systems may scoop up leaders from the health divisions of say, Qualcomm or Samsung) but they’ll bring a broad understanding of the uses of and potential for mobile healthcare. And the work they do could transform the entire institution they serve.

Infographic: How Mobile Health Use Is Changing

Posted on May 26, 2015 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

Mobile health apps and hardware offer intriguing possibilities, though it’s hard for providers to tell what models and methods of use are going to stand out.  Clearly, mHealth is going to change the way care is delivered, and how patients take part in that care, but how?

Here’s a tidbit from McKesson that might offer some useful insight. The infographic, which draws on data from The Economist Intelligence Unit, predicts that mHealth is moving from providing consumer information to driving patients’ involvement in their own care.

One of the more interesting details in this chart is the prediction that within five years, the percentage of people using mHealth apps to share information will fall from an already-low 17% to 14%.

I was also intrigued by the notion that the number of people using mHealth to gain social support will rise from 17% now, rise to 26% then fall to 13%.  Does this suggest that consumers will shift communications styles back to more face-to-face channels of support?  That they’ll rely on some technology or model that hasn’t been invented yet?
It’s something to consider.