Health 2.0 Accelerator Crowd Reviews in the Cloud

716 views

Published on

Health 2.0 Accelerator Crowd Reviews in the Cloud

  • Be the first to comment

Health 2.0 Accelerator Crowd Reviews in the Cloud

  1. 1. Crowd Reviews in a Cloud
  2. 2. Source: MSNBC on Newsvine - http://bit.ly/16aAJ Would you sign a contract that would prevent you from reviewing a doctor online?
  3. 3. “ Just like plumbers, hairdressers or painters, physicians' services may be rated, ranked, advertised, or otherwise promoted online. But just like ratings for other service businesses, the information must be interpreted to be sure it accurately reflects the person and the service provided.” – Trisha Torey, About.com “ … .it will be necessary to devise a business model that can support the site and appropriately reward innovators who have worked to create it but does not pose a threat to user confidence in the value of the information posted. This may prove to be a very tricky balancing act. At this time, the outcome is far from assured .” – Ruth Given, MD Rating Sites, Current State of the Space and Future Prospects "Online doctor reviews "should be taken with a grain of salt, and should certainly not be a patient's sole source of information when looking for a new physician,” - President Dr. Nancy Nielsen , AMA @eiobri: Interesting conversation around rating doctors? Patients qualified to judge? Are they measuring right things? Consolidated ratings? #HCPhl @EdBennett: Rating docs is not new, word of mouth has always been important. The web just makes it visible #hcphl @jenmccabegorman: #HCPHL - "need to come up with different terminology" for rating docs/healthcare delivery -"no gag orders from hotels on ratings" @jandrewstein: #hcphl aggregate hc reviews. Brilliant! @GastroDoctor: A problem I see with patients rating docs is it could be used as an inappopriate "outlet" to vent on a bad outcome #HCPHL @healthworldweb: @GastroDoctor - but how many good results are there vs. 1 bad!!! #HCPHL @EdBennett: What if the AMA started a doctor review site? - Everyone is laughing :) #hcphl @ekivemark: #HCPHL Ratings are data and not information. We need context to turn data in to valuable information
  4. 4. <ul><li>Some Challenges: </li></ul><ul><li>Statistically insufficient sampling size </li></ul><ul><li>No uniform representation of “ratings” </li></ul><ul><li>Sparse, missing or contradicting feedback </li></ul><ul><li>The price of wrong Information is very high </li></ul><ul><li>for both providers and consumers </li></ul><ul><li>Some Positive Signs: </li></ul><ul><li>Number of sites indicates users’ interest </li></ul><ul><li>Reviews help Patients’ decision making </li></ul><ul><li>Doctors are getting feedback </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>People ARE looking : </li></ul><ul><li>30+ Rating websites </li></ul><ul><li>29% of internet users have looked online for doctor or hospital </li></ul><ul><li>Sparsity & Scarcity </li></ul><ul><li>RateMDs August 2008 Ratings - ~98,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Vitals ~100,000+ </li></ul><ul><li>Healthgrades, Nov, 2008 Reviews- ~600,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Even 2 or 3 ratings is NOT statistically significant!!! </li></ul><ul><li>>2.4M Reviews </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>For Patients: </li></ul><ul><li>More reviews per doctor </li></ul><ul><li>More reviewed doctors </li></ul><ul><li>For Doctors: </li></ul><ul><li>Present statistically consistent feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Input into solution </li></ul><ul><li>For Participating companies: </li></ul><ul><li>Increase traffic by cross referencing cloud-sourced reviews </li></ul><ul><li>No information is disclosed to the partner site. Presence of a link guarantees the click. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>Core Open Source Review Engine </li></ul><ul><li>Common schema (CGER) </li></ul><ul><li>Integration with major standards </li></ul><ul><li>Ability for providers to subscribe to and reply to feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Core Open Source Review Query API </li></ul><ul><li>RESTful API for query/update </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>It will be necessary to secure input not only from other members of the industry, but also representatives of key stakeholders, patients/consumers and care givers, at the outset of this process </li></ul><ul><li>It may be challenging to find a single entity willing to be “the cloud” without wide-spread buy-in from stakeholder groups due to concerns about liability for enabling generation and sharing of reviews. </li></ul><ul><li>Users of the specification will likely need to agree to some basic principles of reciprocal utilization to minimize the risk for any individual organization to aggregate reviews without sharing reviews generated through their own site/application. </li></ul><ul><li>It may be important to consider whether or not review/ratings companies whose businesses are NOT traditionally rooted in health care will be willing to adhere to a specification that is designed to enable inclusion of review information as part of a document format that is also used to store or transport clinical information </li></ul><ul><li>Security considerations </li></ul><ul><li>A viable revenue sharing model </li></ul><ul><li>Integration with standards such as CCR, HL7, leveraging DCARD </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>Engage interested parties: </li></ul><ul><li>Industry representatives </li></ul><ul><li>Patients and Advocacy Groups </li></ul><ul><li>Clinician organizations </li></ul><ul><li>Determine roles and responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder Outreach </li></ul><ul><li>Convener </li></ul><ul><li>Technology leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Communication Platform: </li></ul><ul><li>Select knowledge management platform </li></ul>

×