After reviewing the site and doing some searching for physical therapists, I have to concur with Millenson. The site is a bust. It should be re-named, “Pointless Partial List of Participating Providers.” I know they are planning to add more content over the next few years, but why start out with such nothing to begin with? It lacks patient-centric factors or any potential interactivity like maps or web-sites. It certainly doesn’t compare anything.

Sites like Healthgrades.com do a much better job of providing some form of information that’s useful, but where are physical therapists on these sites? Consumers are presently lacking a good site to compare providers of physical therapy. As a profession, we can’t leave it up to big Physician sites or the federal government. We need to actively reach out to consumers and show them who we are. Thoughts?

I will be posting the videos from the presentation after my travels. Stay tuned.

I’ll be presenting on physical therapy in the evolving healthcare landscape. For now, here is my current landscape, the clouds over Atlanta.

Last week, the WSJ Health Blog was abuzz about announcements by a group of high-powered companies entering the home care market. GE, Intel, Google, IBM, Microsoft have all recently entered the home-health monitoring arena. This is serious stuff for telehealth initiatives, and one can only assume that the introduction of corporate backing into an arena that’s been here-to-fore largely neglected will have some significant impact. Check out these links for more information on this subject.

• APTA article on Telehealth
• Intel-GE Alliance
• Continua Alliance

Do you think these companies are serious about this initiative? Check out this quote from Intel President and CEO, Paul Otellini:

“Most of the healthcare discussions today focus on the integration of more technology into traditional healthcare settings. While those investments are necessary and will create a more efficient healthcare system, it is not sufficient to meet the growing needs that are about to impact a system that is already at a saturation point. The GE and Intel partnership will not only help seniors and the chronically ill, but will also take a giant step forward in changing how healthcare is delivered.”

The current health system is in trouble. It may be that a big part of the fix will be by companies who are outside of the traditional health system, who see entrepreneurial opportunities to offer reform. Let’s hope so, because the physician-controlled model that we’ve been operating under doesn’t seem too eager to change.

Telerehabilitation?

So how does this impact physical therapy? There’s been an increasing presence in the body of scientific literature from a rehabilitative perspective, some articles even coining the term, “telerehabilitation.” However, most of these initiatives don’t mention physical therapy, focusing more on medical management of patients. Some state practice acts even have barriers in place that might prohibit physical therapists from performing off-site healthcare delivery. The physical therapy profession needs to be open and ready for these changes, and eager and capable of embracing the technological advances that will be part of a new model of healthcare. We also need to be better connected to these corporate initiatives. We might even need an iPhone app, as Selena Horner pointed out on the EIM blog.

By the way, last week I attended a talk on technical writing at the Refresh Augusta meeting. Part of that talk focused on localization of language, or making your writing appeal to different groups of people. One strategy offered by the speaker was to always use the first definition of a word, and avoid common slang.  Well, as part of my research for this post, I’ve discovered a very terrible example of what can happen when these rules are not followed. Check out this image!

I'm an advocate of most things technology, and certainly appreciative of the Health 2.0 concept, whereby web tools are changing the way healthcare is delivered.  I'm also a fan of hands-on techniques and thorough physical examinations.  I was inspired by a couple blog posts to make sure that as much as we can talk about technology, the key, perhaps the most healing part of treating patients, is the human interaction.  

"Health 2.0 consumers are defined as consumers who have conducted one of the following activities in the past 12 months: read health-related blogs, message boards or participated in health-related chatrooms; contributed or posted health content online such as: writing or commenting on a health-related blog, adding or responding to a topic in a forum or group, or creating health related web pages, videos or audio content; used online patient support groups, message boards, chatrooms, or blogs."

Seems like a bit of a loose definition to me.  This would make any reader of my blog a Health 2.0 consumer…so…congratulations?  I'm thinking the definition might be better off including some sort of active intent with respect to one's health condition.  For example, reading my blog with the intent to learn more about selecting a physical therapist for your treatment.

Google finally unveiled Google Health.  It promises to be a whirl as the health care world decides what to do, and how to use Google Health.  I was looking through the site and experimented by adding some procedures and medications.  Certain providers like Walgreens allow for easy import of your prescription record.  I thought the menus were sort of easy, but I had trouble finding the fracture repair I was looking for.

The biggest influence of online medical records might just be the shift of control from physicians who have traditionally maintained records, to the patients who will use Google Health.  Will an army of newly informed patients be the driving force behind real and substantial change in health care?  I think it could be, but only time will tell.