K.C.'s Weblog
My musings and ideas about Groove, the medical industry and all sorts of things












Subscribe to "K.C.'s Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

 

Sunday, February 02, 2003
 

Why isn't Telemedicine more widely adopted? (Part Deux)

This is an enigma.  As several of my family and friends know, I am delving into telemedicine due to my graduate studies and pending new job.  Here are some more thoughts in addition to a previous posting.  Top Ten list Letterman style.  

Top Ten Reasons Telemedicine has not been embraced by the medical industry

  • #10: Telemedicine is not a direct healthcare technology (e.g., an MRI machine) so its importance is seen as auxilliary to clinicians.
  • #9: Telemedicine has been promoted as the panacea that will fix all of medicine's woes.  When it didn't produce as promised (no surprise based on the hype) people lost interest.
  • #8: Consultants jumped on this hype-wagon and inundated providers and practices with how they can fix things just by hiring them and implementing their proprietary telemedicine setup.  If you want to be annoyed, call a medical consultant regarding HIPAA and you will see what I mean.
  • #7: Telemedince lacks real standards. (this is a biggie).
  • #6: The benefits of telemedicine are not always passed on to the user.  Example: if a department saves an organization by reducing patient evacuation costs to a different facility (this is our case) the savings are not dropped back into that department's budget.  Not too many altruistic folks out there in this scenario like there is for, say, recycling.  "Save Mother Earth" is a better rallying cry than "Use telemedicine so another department can bust their budget."
  • #5 (A slight variation on a few above): Telemedicine needs to be viewed with a little 't' and not a big 'T'.  It is a technology enabler, pure and simple.
  • #4: Sustained adoption of telemedicine and embedding it into daily practices requires a 'true believer' in the organization. (sounds like Groove!). 
  • #3: Technology whiz kids mystify telemedicine into an arcane thing.  Protecting telemedicine's 'secret inner workings' ensures IT job security.  C'mon!  Using the telephone for consults is a form of telemedicine.  Email is too.  And the fax machine. 
  • #2: Telemedicine does not attempt to augment current practice procedures and adds to them.  I know of zero clinicians who want to take more steps while treating patients.
  • #1: Telemedicine adoption requires a need so unless you are geographically isolated there isn't a sense of urgency to use it.

Lots of other reasons, equally valid like: licensure issues, reimbursement for telemedicine-delivered services, and efficacy (perceived and real) of telemedicine interventions.  Am I a believer in telemedicine?  By default, graduate project and position, I certainly am.  But I am not the one who has to use it in lieu of other work-arounds.  People take the path of least resistance on this sort of thing and clinicians are no different.  The challenge is to make the telemedicine path as wide as possible.

One last point: telemedicine is a fact of life in many other countries than the U.S.   Hmmm, are we the most advanced country technology wise or aren't we??

 


9:08:54 PM    

Okay, the new version of Groove is out.  2.5 has the makings of the best version yet.  But...I have some pet peeves:

1) Many of the features touted as 'new' in 2.5 are only available if you have a Professional Edition license.  I have no problem with that except for the fact that this was not clearly mentioned by GN.
2) Version 2.5 was almost immediately faster than 2.1 was, but we now have 3 major versions of spaces.  2.0, 2.1, and 2.5.  Creating spaces with the power of 2.5 will force those using earlier versions of the program to upgrade.
3) Each existing space will have to be upgraded to 2.5 to inject any of the new versions of the tools.
4) 3rd Party tools still have similar glitches across the board when using 2.5.  GN seems singularly focused on the core operability of the program and relies on partners to develop the special niche tools for them (email 'clients', media playback tools, etc).  But if a third party tool doesn't work smoothly it hurts GN overall.  This must be addressed.  Note that I say this even though many of my closest Groove friends are 3rd Party Tool Developers.  Many would agree with me, those that do not I am sorry we differ on this.

One of the prime problems with the corporate philosophy is the very aggressive software development cycle GN has adopted.  Its a Catch-22: making substantial improvements on the program to keep new users interested enough to try it out v. stability of the platform so that developers can make great additions to Groove's core functionality.  GN doesn't act like their developer partners are a crucial part of their success.  And forget about being a solutions provider using Groove for a while...each new version has enough changes that it impacts standard practices of using the program. 

Let's see if the Wizards of Beverly can lick this issue.


8:41:49 PM    


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2003 KC Bolton.
Last update: 4/6/2003; 2:00:42 PM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.
February 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28  
Jan   Mar