Patient Experience Management: How to begin

Here is my new post on http://www.healthsystemcio.com

Patient Experience Management (PEM) is not about Patients, but it is often designed just that way.  The problem lies with the plurality, the pesky little “s” that takes the design and implementation away from an individual patient, and places the focus on patients.

Other industries grapple with the same problem, only with them the issue comes about when designing and implementing systems and processes around customers instead of a customer.

Do you recall the talking points of the recent McKinsey survey about patient experience management?  The study made drew two conclusions.  First, ninety percent of hospital executives responded that improving PEM was their first or second priority within the next three to five years.  Second, those same individuals stated they did not expect much to happen regarding PEM because they did not know who in their organization ‘owned’ the PEM business problem.

Ignoring that issue, if only for the reason that almost everyone else seems to be taking the same approach, what if a hospital wanted to move forward and deal with PEM in a meaningful way—not meaningful as in the term Meaningful Use—but in a way whereby having a PEM system actually yielded something for the hospital?

Few industries have done a stellar job with Customer Experience Management (CEM).  What can be learned from their failures?  Plenty.  The failure of CEM systems originates at the get-go. The organization does a poor job of defining its business problem, deciding it needs a system to manage its customers, as though all customers are the same.  With that as its target, it goes out and finds and implements such a system.

Here is the problem from the perspective of PEM, and in some regards for EHR.  Whatever system you choose for PEM, CEM, or for that matter EHR has been designed to address thousands of individuals as a single entity called “our patients” or “our customers.”  The system is build upon managing the experiences of a core set of patient attributes.  Chances are good that whatever PEM system you select—they really are pretty much the same—will address roughly seventy percent of the functional requirements of this entity called “our patients.”

Applications vendors build solutions and hope to find a problem which matches the system they built.  If all your individual patients fit neatly into their vision of this “our patients” entity your worries are over.  If however, patients are different, which they are, they will have many needs which lie outside of the boundary of their application.  It is these set of needs—functional requirements—upon which the success or failure of your PEM will be based.  These same needs are the ones that are unmet today.  These are the ones, the outliers, which raise the ire of your patients and the ones lowering your organizations PEM scores; assuming you track this.

One way to solve this problem, in fact, to my knowledge to only way is to start by defining rigorously the functional requirements of one patient, a super-patient, which encompasses every requirement.  With this done, you have a PEM model, based on a single patient.  Now instead of having PEM requirements which lie outside of the boundaries or core competencies of what a vendor wants to sell you, you have a turbo charged set of requirements.  The diverse PEM requirements of your individual patients are contained within the capabilities of the defined super-patient.

If you approach PEM this way you have defined for yourself a solvable problem.  You now have a problem looking for a solution instead of a vendor with a solution looking for a problem.

To some patients, EHR is a non-issue

LAST CHRISTMAS

It is easy to remove one’s self from what is important as we trade metaphorical tomatoes about what is wrong with EHR, what may happen regarding reform, and why the N-HIN is DOA.  Debating healthcare IT on the internet is an esoteric and antiseptic conversation, one with few if any catastrophic implications to anyone other than the person trying to sell a used, hundred million dollar EHR on eBay.

We write about the fact that it is supposed to do something to benefit the patient.  Is there a more sterile word than patient?  Whether we use patient or patients, we keep it faceless, nameless, and ubiquitous.  They do not have to be real for us to accomplish our task; in fact, I think we do our best work as long as we keep them at arm’s length.

We calculate ROIs for EHR around people who exist to us only by their patient IDs.

What if these hominoid avatars turned out to be real people?  What if indeed?

Two weeks ago I learned of a real patient; a friend, thirty-seven, mother of three.  Lots of tests.  They call itmyelodysplastic syndromes, MDS—MDS sounds more polite.  One would think that because it has its own acronym that might infer good news.  It does not.

The thing I like best about Google is knowing that if an answer exists to a query, I can find it.  I may have to vary the syntax a few times, but sooner or later I will find that for which I am looking.  The converse can be quite disquieting, especially if you happen to enter a phrase like, ‘survival rates for MDS.’  After a few tries I realized that the reason I was not getting any hits to my query had nothing to do with poor syntax.  It had everything to do with a lack of survivors.

Last Christmas—rather strange title for a blog.  In this instance the title has nothing to do with anything religious.  It is simply a line in the sand, a statement with a high degree of probability.  Unfortunately, “Last Christmas” does not have the same meaning as the phrase, ‘this past Christmas.’

She has had thirty-eight Christmases.  Apparently, MDS is able to alter simple mathematical series.  If presented with the numerical series 1, 2, 3…37, 38, 39, and if we were asked to supply the next number, we would all offer the wrong answer—40.  In her case there may be no next number; the series will likely end with 39.  MDS math.

Then there are the three children, each one of them in the same grade as my three children.  They will be learning a different version of MDS math.  All the numerical series in their lives will reset and begin again with the value of one.  First Christmas since mom died.  First birthday since mom died.  Every life event will be dated based on its relationship to an awful life-ending event.

It will be their B.C and A.D.

EHR probably has very little value when you break it down to the level of an individual patient.  Stalin said something like, “one death is a tragedy, and a thousand deaths is a statistic.”  While it is unlikely that he was discussing patient outcomes, the import is the same.

Rule One: There are some awful diseases that will kill people.

Rule Two: Doctors are not allowed to change Rule One.

I guess it goes to show us that as we debated things that we view as being crucial components of whatever lies under the catch-all phrase of healthcare, when it comes down to someone you know who you know is probably not going to get better, they do not seem very important.


Could social media be the answer?

The wheel’s still turning, but the hamster is dead. One Brady short of a bunch. I like the ocean one because it reminds me of a bit done by the comic Ron White. In the bit he talks about the time he met a woman who was wearing a bathing suit made of sea shells which he held to his ear to find out if he could hear the ocean. Maybe you had to be there.

All day I’ve been operating as though I was one Brady short of a bunch—I actually have cufflinks with Marcia Brady’s picture on them, but we’ll save that for another day. The day’s highlight revolved around my daughter’s doubleheader field hockey matches–third and fourth grade girls. Their opponents looked better, older. In fact, I thought I saw one or two of them drive themselves to the field. Forty-eight degrees, first game at 8 AM. Not enough time to grab breakfast and get to the game on time. I dropped my daughter at the field and headed to a nearby convenience store to buy her a donut. As I pulled into the parking lot I noticed that I needed gas, so I figured why not multi-task it. I inserted the nozzle in the tank, went into the store, purchased a donut, and proceeded to drive away.

For the metrics lovers, those who like order over chaos, those whose desk is always neat, have you discovered my Brady moment? My purpose in going to the store was to buy a donut, not gas. My mind was focused on the donut, not on the gas. Once the donut was resting safely on the passenger’s seat my mission was over, or so I thought. Something was gnawing at me as I pulled away from the pump, something that flared at me in my rearview mirror. I knew what it was a full second before my body got the message to react to it. “Hit the break,” my mind screamed. I could see what remained of the black gas pump hose as it pirouetted helplessly behind my car. I fully expected the entire gas station to be consumed by a giant fireball like the one at the conclusion of the movie Rambo. Once I was convinced that neither I nor–it turns out that neither nor does not violate the rule of using a double negative in a sentence–anyone else in the vicinity was in mortal danger, I exited my car and walked to the pump.

My first reaction, and I don’t know why, was to see if the pump was still charging my credit card. Selfish? That means that subconsciously I had already made the decision to flee, but that I didn’t want to flee if my charge card was still open. I retrieved the severed hose from the ground and inserted it in the pump, thereby closing out the sale on my credit card. I looked around. There wasn’t anyone who had witnessed my little AARP moment. Since they hadn’t, I figured why bother anyone. Kismet; my turn on the hamster wheel.

I’m convinced it’s the little things that determine whether your initiatives succeed or fail. It’s usually nothing tricky, nothing that requires two commas worth of new technology. It’s being focused and being committed to excellence in the menial tasks which comprise each patient interaction, especially those that occur outside of the office. What little things are being overlooked in your practice?  Could social media solve some of these?  In a heartbeat, and for a cost that would surprise you.

Oh, and don’t forget to hang up the hose when you’re done.

 

Patients are issuing RFPs for healthcare services

The following is my latest post for healthsystem CIO.com.

If a patient fell in the woods and nobody heard him, so what?

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand what a patient is worth to a hospital over a period of let us say five to ten years. Simply put, what is the ROI of a patient?  Apparently, no one has answered this question. If they have, the answer is well hidden.

Why are hospital marketing departments continuously searching for new patients when they already have access to a ready supply of past and current patients?  It will always be much cheaper to retain those patients, than to try to acquire new ones.

Patients are both customers and consumers. Unless the patient is in the back of an ambulance being driven to the nearest hospital, as I was the night I had my heart attack, the patient can choose which hospital to purchase services from.

Choice. If I wish to “hire” a healthcare procedure, how might I go about doing so?  This concept of a customer hiring a product or service comes from Harvard’s Clayton Crhistensen.  It flies in the face of how businesses, hospitals included, normally view their business.  It employs a pull model, driven by patients (customers), rather than pushing services down to the customers.

The entire healthcare provider model is being turned on its head and the only people who do not acknowledge it are those running the hospitals.

Hospitals replicate each other’s services instead of making themselves unique.  They sacrifice and outsource their highly sought, low margin services to other organizations that are able to quickly raise the profitability of those same services.

Let us examine this notion of hiring a service from a more easily understood example.  If I want to “hire” a large HDMI flat-screen television I issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) to the market.  I do not walk into Best Buy and see what they have to offer and repeat this process across several chain stores.  I go to the web, input my hiring criteria, obtain information, and evaluate my options. Through social networking, I force vendors to submit their RFP responses to me.

For some reason the large provider business model continues to operate under the premise that healthcare can treat people who research options before making a purchase as an anomaly.  They approach patient acquisition as though they still have the keys to the car, having their chief marketing officer authorize the installation of billboards touting their urology expertise, believing incorrectly that this type of direct marketing will offset patients’ ability to choose their own provider.  Look at your numbers.  Does that approach appear to be working?

Of course not.

Patients want to hire healthcare services the same way they want to purchase breakfast cereal. Patients want to own the hiring decision.

When I had my heart attack eight years ago, I wasn’t able to choose among hospitals. I could not tell the ambulance driver, “My insurance does not cover this hospital.” I could not tell him, “I’ve heard good things about the cardiology department at hospital ABC.”

After being treated, I issued an RFP for cardiovascular services.  I did considerable research and decided to hire my cardio services from Penn Medicine.  I now hire all of my cardio services from Penn, and my decision had nothing to do with which organization was covered by my insurer.

The large provider business model is being disrupted. It is being disrupted by prospective patients—consumers of healthcare and customers.  Providers will be faced with patients who hire their services under two new models; “pay as you go” and “pay for performance.”

When you have a few minutes, Google your name-brand hospital. You’ll get thousands of responses. Almost all of them have been initiated by current and prior patients.  Many of the responses will not convey a positive message.

The healthcare market is changing to a patient-driven model. But nothing the C-suite is doing acknowledges that shift. Large providers fail to recognize the fact that patients are doing the hiring, that patients are issuing RFPs. No hospitals take a business approach to maximizing the life time value of a patient. In fact, no hospitals can even tell you the lifetime value of a patient.  Yet the lifetime value of an individual patient is probably seven figures.

Instead, the business strategy of most hospitals is to replicate the business strategies of their competitors.  Few hospitals appear to operate strategically.  They operate against budgets because that is how their boards measure them. If the hospital next door buys a machine that goes “ping,” hospitals feel the need to purchase the machine that goes “ping,” even though it adds no value to their bottom line.

Whether or not hospitals acknowledge it, patients are now driving the business model. Each patient, or prospective patient, is an asset—not the MRI and not the machine that goes “ping.” Each patient/asset may be worth more than a million dollars.

Hospitals need to get beyond the magnificence of their own credentials. Prospective patients do not care about marketing or billboards. Patients, especially informed patients, are narcissistic; they care about themselves, not how providers market their services.

There is one thing, and only one thing, about patient experience management that the C-suite needs to understand. Patients are learning to hire healthcare from among a range of options. If you want them to hire you, you have got to give them a reason to buy. Being like the hospital next door is not enough.

I am convinced IT can play a substantial role in providing former and prospective patients the information they need to drive the hiring process to their organization.  It is a combination of churn management and patient experience management, and the experience which has to be managed starts before the patient hires its provider.

 

You Don’t Need an MD to Fix Patient Experience Management

This is my new post in healthsystemcio.com, I’d like to get your thoughts.

http://healthsystemcio.com/2010/09/30/you-dont-need-an-md-to-fix-patient-experience-management/

Patient Relationship Management (PRM)

If you watch too much television your brain will fry. Sometimes I feel like mine is in a crepe pan that was left sitting on the stove too long. Two nights ago I’m watching Nova or some comparable show on PBS. The topic of the show was to outline all the events that took place that helped Einstein discover that the energy of an object is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared, better known as E=mc². It was presented to the audience at a level that might best be described as physics for librarians, which was exactly the level at which I needed to hear it. It’s physics at a level that is suitable for conversation at Starbucks or any blog such as this.

So here’s what I think I understood from the show. It tracked the developments of math and physics in 100 years prior to Einstein’s discovery. The dénouement appeared to occur when Einstein and his fiancée were riding in the bow of the small boat. Apparently, he was leaning over the side of the boat and noticed that the waves generated by the front of the boat moved at the same speed as the boat. He then noted that fact only held true for those persons in the boat, who were in fact, traveling at the same rate of speed. However for those persons watching from the shore, that same wave was not only moving slower than the boat it got further behind over time. Some other things occurred, yada, yada, yada, and there you have it. Clearly, the details are in the yada, yadas.

So here’s what happens when you watch too much television. As I’m running this morning somehow my mind takes pieces from that show and staples them together to yield the following. Let’s go back to the equation E=mc². For purposes of this discussion I’ll redefine the variables, so that:
E = the percentage of Patient Complaints/Inquiries.
m = Patient in-bound calls.
c = number of Patients
If this were true–this is an illustration, not an axiom–the percentage of complaints in the call centers of an healthcare provider is equal to the number of in-bound calls times the square of the number of patients. So as the number of calls increases the number of complaints/questions increases and as the number of patients increases the number of complaints increases exponentially. Of course this is made up, but there appears to be a grain of truth to it. As a number of calls increase the percentage of complaints is likely to increase, and as the number of patients increases there will probably be an even greater increase in the percentage of complaints incurred. I think we can agree that a reasonable goal for a healthcare provider is to decrease the percentage of complaints and perhaps to shift a hefty percentage of inquiries to some form of internet self-service vehicle.

I think sometimes the way providers like to assess the issue of Patient Relationship Management  (PRM) is by looking at how much money providers throw at the problem. I think some people think that if one provider has 2 call centers, and another provider has 3 call centers, that the provider with 3 must be more interested in taking care of the their patients, and might even be better at PRM.  I don’t support that belief. I think it can be demonstrated that the provider with the most call centers, and most Patient Service Representatives, and the most toys deployed probably has the most problems with their patients. I don’t think it’s a chicken and egg argument. If expenditures increase year after year, and resources are deployed continuously to solve the same types of problems, I think it’s a sign that the provider and its patients are growing more and more dysfunctional.

How does this tie to Einstein and his boat? Perhaps the Einsteins are those who work with the provider; those who are moving at the same speed, those in lockstep. From their vantage point, the waves and the boat, like the provider and its patients, are all moving forward at the same speed. Perhaps only the people standing along the shore are able to see what is actually occurring; the waves distance themselves from the boat in much the same way that the patients distance themselves from the provider.

PRM is such an easy way to see large improvements accrue to the provider, especially using social media.

Patient Relationship Management (PRM)

If you watch too much television your brain will fry. Sometimes I feel like mine is in a crepe pan that was left sitting on the stove too long. Two nights ago I’m watching Nova or some comparable show on PBS. The topic of the show was to outline all the events that took place that helped Einstein discover that the energy of an object is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared, better known as E=mc². It was presented to the audience at a level that might best be described as physics for librarians, which was exactly the level at which I needed to hear it. It’s physics at a level that is suitable for conversation at Starbucks or any blog such as this.

So here’s what I think I understood from the show. It tracked the developments of math and physics in 100 years prior to Einstein’s discovery. The dénouement appeared to occur when Einstein and his fiancée were riding in the bow of the small boat. Apparently, he was leaning over the side of the boat and noticed that the waves generated by the front of the boat moved at the same speed as the boat. He then noted that fact only held true for those persons in the boat, who were in fact, traveling at the same rate of speed. However for those persons watching from the shore, that same wave was not only moving slower than the boat it got further behind over time. Some other things occurred, yada, yada, yada, and there you have it. Clearly, the details are in the yada, yadas.

So here’s what happens when you watch too much television. As I’m running this morning somehow my mind takes pieces from that show and staples them together to yield the following. Let’s go back to the equation E=mc². For purposes of this discussion I’ll redefine the variables, so that:
E = the percentage of Patient Complaints/Inquiries.
m = Patient in-bound calls.
c = number of Patients
If this were true–this is an illustration, not an axiom–the percentage of complaints in the call centers of an healthcare provider is equal to the number of in-bound calls times the square of the number of patients. So as the number of calls increases the number of complaints/questions increases and as the number of patients increases the number of complaints increases exponentially. Of course this is made up, but there appears to be a grain of truth to it. As a number of calls increase the percentage of complaints is likely to increase, and as the number of patients increases there will probably be an even greater increase in the percentage of complaints incurred. I think we can agree that a reasonable goal for a healthcare provider is to decrease the percentage of complaints and perhaps to shift a hefty percentage of inquiries to some form of internet self-service vehicle.

I think sometimes the way providers like to assess the issue of Patient Relationship Management  (PRM) is by looking at how much money providers throw at the problem. I think some people think that if one provider has 2 call centers, and another provider has 3 call centers, that the provider with 3 must be more interested in taking care of the their patients, and might even be better at PRM.  I don’t support that belief. I think it can be demonstrated that the provider with the most call centers, and most Patient Service Representatives, and the most toys deployed probably has the most problems with their patients. I don’t think it’s a chicken and egg argument. If expenditures increase year after year, and resources are deployed continuously to solve the same types of problems, I think it’s a sign that the provider and its patients are growing more and more dysfunctional.

How does this tie to Einstein and his boat? Perhaps the Einsteins are those who work with the provider; those who are moving at the same speed, those in lockstep. From their vantage point, the waves and the boat, like the provider and its patients, are all moving forward at the same speed. Perhaps only the people standing along the shore are able to see what is actually occurring; the waves distance themselves from the boat in much the same way that the patients distance themselves from the provider.

PRM is such an easy way to see large improvements accrue to the provider, especially using social media.

We made it to the bigs

Somehow, my social media article healthsystemcio.com made the top story of Chime Healthcare CIO SmartBrief.  http://ow.ly/2snrU

Not bad for a metaphorical tomato thrower.

Thanks for playing along.

Patient Relationship Management (PRM)-grab the ball

My newest post on healthsystemCIO.com.  http://healthsystemcio.com/2010/07/07/patient-relationship-management-prm-grab-the-ball/

Why can nobody lead?

Patient Experience (Mis)Management (PEM)

Patient Experience (Mis)Management (PEM)–my new post for @healthststemCIOhttp://ow.ly/22uEj