Project ECHO seems like a great initiative to improve outcomes in areas that lack specialists especially in rural areas, or in getting an expert opinion for a complex case. Utilizing efficient technologies to better the health of individuals would be conducive to the nation quickly reaching its objectives in improving health care
Video communication is a really good techology to increase access to health care. Telemedicine is a newer innovation which is along the same lines as ECHO in terms of increasing access to quality health care.
But because health care is so privatized in the US and the element of competition is important in order to distinguish yourself from the others, I don't think that this will necessarily be the "new norm of medical practice".
I can see that there are many advantages in using technology like video conferencing to deliver both health care and training to benefit practitioners and patients. Besides being able to contribute to capacity building of the health care workforce, I would guess that there are some significant economic savings if we consider the value of time and money that are saved because a specialist no longer needs to fly from a urban to rural hospital to provide care or training. From a training standpoint -- breaking down the "knowledge monopoly" that the RWJF article describes -- the ability to archive and playback on demand these teleconference sessions also brings some additional value.
I wonder how satisfaction is perceived by practitioners and patients in the long-run? What are the areas in medicine where the traditional hands-on approach tends to dominate, and what is the potential of something like Project ECHO having a positive impact on these areas?
What strikes me about this is that it is presented as novel in the field of medicine. This type of videoconferencing/training is practically routine in other professions.
I think it points to how big a culture change the field faces in terms of using technology to improve efficiency. Electronic medical records are another example of that. Even the poorly funded public library has an electronic record-keeping system. Granted, that's a more simplistic system, but the point is that e-records are much more common outside medicine and have been for years.
And it's not just the field of medicine that has to undergo this change. Patients do too, and that will also take time and much effort as familiarity with and access to technology is a barrier to many older and/or economically disadvantaged patients.
I think this reflects another way in which our health care system focuses more on innovations on the biomedical level but not enough on the need for innovations in delivery.
Project ECHO seems like a great initiative to improve outcomes in areas that lack specialists especially in rural areas, or in getting an expert opinion for a complex case. Utilizing efficient technologies to better the health of individuals would be conducive to the nation quickly reaching its objectives in improving health care
ReplyDeleteVideo communication is a really good techology to increase access to health care. Telemedicine is a newer innovation which is along the same lines as ECHO in terms of increasing access to quality health care.
But because health care is so privatized in the US and the element of competition is important in order to distinguish yourself from the others, I don't think that this will necessarily be the "new norm of medical practice".
I can see that there are many advantages in using technology like video conferencing to deliver both health care and training to benefit practitioners and patients. Besides being able to contribute to capacity building of the health care workforce, I would guess that there are some significant economic savings if we consider the value of time and money that are saved because a specialist no longer needs to fly from a urban to rural hospital to provide care or training. From a training standpoint -- breaking down the "knowledge monopoly" that the RWJF article describes -- the ability to archive and playback on demand these teleconference sessions also brings some additional value.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how satisfaction is perceived by practitioners and patients in the long-run? What are the areas in medicine where the traditional hands-on approach tends to dominate, and what is the potential of something like Project ECHO having a positive impact on these areas?
What strikes me about this is that it is presented as novel in the field of medicine. This type of videoconferencing/training is practically routine in other professions.
ReplyDeleteI think it points to how big a culture change the field faces in terms of using technology to improve efficiency. Electronic medical records are another example of that. Even the poorly funded public library has an electronic record-keeping system. Granted, that's a more simplistic system, but the point is that e-records are much more common outside medicine and have been for years.
And it's not just the field of medicine that has to undergo this change. Patients do too, and that will also take time and much effort as familiarity with and access to technology is a barrier to many older and/or economically disadvantaged patients.
I think this reflects another way in which our health care system focuses more on innovations on the biomedical level but not enough on the need for innovations in delivery.