<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
<title>e-patients</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/" />
<modified>2008-08-07T19:48:09Z</modified>
<tagline></tagline>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2</id>
<generator url="http://www.movabletype.org/" version="3.33">Movable Type</generator>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2008, Dave deBronkart</copyright>
<entry>
<title>Monique tells why she doesn&apos;t see herself as &quot;e&quot;</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/08/monique_tells_w.html" />
<modified>2008-08-07T19:48:09Z</modified>
<issued>2008-08-07T19:25:03Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.219</id>
<created>2008-08-07T19:25:03Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I&apos;m delighted to present a guest post from cancer patient Monique Doyle Spencer, whose husband found the henna relief for hand-foot syndrome we mentioned yesterday. She is a stitch. To me she&apos;s about as empowered as they get, but she...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dave deBronkart</name>
<url>http://patientdave.blogspot.com/</url>
<email>epatientdave@comcast.net.</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>e-patient stories</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p><em>I'm delighted to present a guest post from cancer patient Monique Doyle Spencer, whose husband found the <a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/08/epatient_finds.html" target="_blank">henna relief</a> for hand-foot syndrome we mentioned yesterday. She is a stitch. To me she's about as empowered as they get, but she says she's always felt a bit cowed by all this e stuff. We persuaded her to gift us with an essay. --e-Patient Dave</em></p>

<p><br />
It used to be true: I didn’t understand this “e” thing -- e-patientcy, e-patienthood, e-patience, e-patient-nation. I was more of a d-patient – disengaged, disinterested, detached. The only “e” I had was “electronic,” but why would I use that “e” for medicine when there are so many jokes to find and I have a discount coupon for www.more.stuff.i.want.and.if.i.buy.even.more.ill.get.freeshipping.com?<br />
</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>I suppose everyone in the e-patient movement has that e-ureka moment when they get it. Mine is an upside down moment, because it required no engagement on my part at all. In a routine check-up with my oncologist, six years after my diagnosis, he ordered a bone scan. I had hurt my back doing yard work the night before. You know the rule: wait two weeks before you panic about new pain. So what was he doing ordering a scan? I asked him if he was the real Dr. Munchhausen – and sure enough, in two weeks that yard work pain went away. But the bone scan he ordered said that I had metastatic cancer up and down my spine.</p>

<p>I asked Lowell Schnipper why he ordered that scan. What he said knocked me over: “You weren’t yourself.”</p>

<p>So I realized why I’m not an e-patient: it’s because I have an e-doctor. How many doctors observe their patients closely enough to know that one of them is not herself? I also have an e-nurse, who notices that I’m dehydrated when I have no idea that I am. I think this is amazing because the people who usually notice me carefully expect a hefty tip.</p>

<p>Six months later, chapter two began. I was aching from Hand-Foot Syndrome caused by Xeloda. I couldn’t stand the blisters. Nobody’s remedies helped. Then my long-suffering husband, doing more and more research, discovered a study in Turkey using henna for HFS – very successfully. And it worked on me. That’s chapter two: I have an e-husband.</p>

<p>As the chapters speed by, I notice that I also have e-friends. E-children, a lot of the time. E-neighbors. Only the dog is not E, because it’s hard for him to be E when he is napping for as long as I want to be. Everyone else in my life? Nothing but Es.</p>

<p>So I’m a c-patient: Complacent. Now that I’ve been shocked by my experience I know that’s true. My e-doctor and e-husband are both older than I am, and they take such good care of me that I will outlive them. What happens then? My e-friends, my e-neighbors, will eventually move away on their own journeys. I will be left with that non-e dog, the p-canine. I will have no e-patient muscles developed. Scary.</p>

<p>I haven’t changed yet, but I’ve started up the first step of the Irish ladder: I do feel terribly guilty. There’s this whole e-patient movement doing all kinds of interesting things and thinking, while I am taking an afternoon nap right after my morning one and before my evening snooze. I feel the same way when I write checks for the Walk for Hunger for other people to walk and I stay home eating all day.</p>

<p>Step two of the ladder will be fear: what will happen to me when I am out of marbles and have no e-friends left? When I'm a stranger to my doctor, just like everybody else?</p>

<p>I guess I get an F as an e-patient for now. Probably will for a while. Eventually, I’ll have to get into it, because somebody will do a study. Remember the Mayo Clinic study proving that optimists live longer then pessimists, which didn’t surprise the pessimists, not one bit? Well, somebody is going to prove what we already suspect: e- patients get better medical care, without being rich. C-patients get sub-standard care. E-patients live longer. And, e-vidently, e-ssentially, better.</p>

<p>Monique Doyle Spencer <br />
</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>e-Patient finds henna relief for Hand And Foot Syndrome</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/08/epatient_finds.html" />
<modified>2008-08-06T19:03:08Z</modified>
<issued>2008-08-06T18:50:48Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.218</id>
<created>2008-08-06T18:50:48Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Monique Doyle Spencer, author of the fabulous book The Courage Muscle: A Chicken&apos;s Guide to Living with Breast Cancer, is on Xeloda, and is experiencing a painful side effect called Hand And Foot Syndrome, which happens with some other cancer...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dave deBronkart</name>
<url>http://patientdave.blogspot.com/</url>
<email>epatientdave@comcast.net.</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>e-patient stories</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>Monique Doyle Spencer, author of the fabulous book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Courage-Muscle-Chickens-Living-Breast/dp/1886284741/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218048702&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Courage Muscle: A Chicken's Guide to Living with Breast Cancer</a></em>, is on Xeloda, and is experiencing a painful side effect called Hand And Foot Syndrome, which happens with some other cancer treatments too. </p>

<p>Doing classic e-patient-style research, her husband found an amazingly simple and effective relief - a paste of henna, lemon juice, and hot water. She was skeptical ("I don't even own a single Enya CD"), but it worked.</p>

<p>She notified Roche, maker of Xeloda, and was rather unhappy about their form-letter lack of interest in telling anyone else.  </p>

<p>Her op-ed about it in the Boston Globe is <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/01/anybody_want_a_zillion_dollar_cure_idea/">here</a>, and the discussion on Paul Levy's "Running A Hospital" blog is <a href="http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2008/08/henna-ha-hai-na.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </p>

<p>Be sure to read the extensive comments, which show the vigorous patient-centered dialog that often happens on Levy's blog, even though it roams to other subjects, as often happens on a blog where people actually get to say what they think. <br />
</p>]]>

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>New e-patient population estimate</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/08/75_of_internet.html" />
<modified>2008-08-05T19:16:40Z</modified>
<issued>2008-08-01T22:15:12Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.217</id>
<created>2008-08-01T22:15:12Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">The Pew Internet Project released the latest estimate for the e-patient population: 75% of internet users. Details on this and an upcoming survey follow......</summary>
<author>
<name>Susannah Fox</name>

<email>sfox@pewinternet.org</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>demographics</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>The Pew Internet Project released the latest estimate for the e-patient population: 75% of internet users. Details on this and an upcoming survey follow...</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>My colleagues recently updated our top three trend charts: <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_7.22.08.htm">Who's Online</a>, <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/Internet_Activities_7.22.08.htm">Internet Activities</a>, and <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/Daily_Internet_Activities_7.22.08.htm">Daily Internet Activities</a>. </p>

<p>Two of the new data points relate to health and health care. The October-December 2007 national phone survey shows that 75% of internet users answered yes to the single-line question, "Do you ever use the internet to look for health or medical information?" 10% of internet users say they searched for health information "yesterday," which in a tracking survey like this one yields a picture of the "typical day" online. Health has moved up in the "typical day" list (from 7% in 2006 to the current 10% of internet users), but for most people the average day includes lots of emails (60% of internet users), general searches (49%), and news reading (39%) if they are online at all (30% of internet users are offline on a typical day).</p>

<p>The usual patterns among the basic demographic groups hold true:</p>

<p>68% of online men look online for health info<br />
81% of online women </p>

<p>76% of white internet users<br />
65% of African American internet users<br />
71% of English-speaking Hispanic internet users <em>(new health data on the whole Latino population is coming out August 13 from the <a href="http://pewhispanic.org/">Pew Hispanic Center</a>)</em></p>

<p>68% of 18-29 year-old internet users<br />
78% of 30-49s<br />
76% of 50-64s<br />
71% of internet users age 65+ <em>(but remember, only one-third of seniors go online at all)</em></p>

<p>The Oct-Dec 2007 survey is also distinguished by the fact that we included a group of cell phone users in our sample. We believe this is an important part of capturing an accurate picture of the U.S. population since 14.5% of all American adults live in households with only wireless phones (see "<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/250/report_display.asp">Polling in the age of cell phones</a>").</p>

<p>What do these numbers have to do with participatory medicine? I have seen our data used over and over to convince policy makers, medical professionals, investors, and even patients themselves that the internet is an important source of health information and a force for change in health care (whether for good or for ill). I'm like an ammunition dealer in the internet wars -- all sides use our data since the Pew Internet Project does not endorse technologies, industry sectors, or outcomes. </p>

<p>In the end, what I <a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/03/recruit_doctors.html">said in March</a> still holds true whether the estimate is 75% or 80% of internet users seeking health information online: When this many internet users are doing something, the horse is out of the barn.</p>

<p>The Pew Internet Project will update our 17 health topic trend data in a survey to be fielded this fall but we are collecting ideas about what else we should ask e-patients. I would love to hear new ideas either here in the comments or via email: What are your observations? Which health social media applications are gaining traction? What are you worried about? What are you excited about? What's next?</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Interview: Mary Matthiesen, Conversations for Life</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/interview_mary.html" />
<modified>2008-07-31T17:27:42Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-31T16:42:03Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.216</id>
<created>2008-07-31T16:42:03Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Mary Matthiesen, founder of Conversations for Life, has 17 years of front-line experience in healthcare, end of life care, and executive leadership. She&apos;s a transpersonal educator, coach, and community facilitator, raising awareness and promoting social change in support of living...</summary>
<author>
<name>Jon Lebkowsky</name>

<email>jonl@polycot.com</email>
</author>

<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p><a href="http://conversationsforlife.com/Why/about_our_founder.html">Mary Matthiesen</a>, founder of <a href="http://conversationsforlife.com/">Conversations for Life</a>, has 17 years of front-line experience in healthcare, end of life care, and executive leadership. She's a transpersonal educator, coach, and community facilitator, raising awareness and promoting social change in support of living and dying well. Mary and I recently discussed her focus on end of life care, and its relevance for e-patients.</p>

<p><strong>Jon Lebkowsky:</strong> What led to your focus on end of life experience?</p>

<p><strong>Mary Matthiesen:</strong> If I had to pinpoint a moment, it was in a hospital hallway, listening to a father tell me with pride about his daughter's life and how much he loved her as she lay in a bed down the hall. It was her 'dying wish' to be an organ donor if possible. She was in her 40's and had a brain injury that led to "brain death'-(a legal definition of death in the U.S). We were awaiting, together, the outcome of some lab tests to see if she could be an organ donor as her parents knew she'd wanted.<br />
</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>It was the middle of the night, her father was pacing the hall and going in and out of his daughter's room, and his wife had told us he wouldn't want to talk. Yet, he just leaned against the wall at one point and started talking to me. He told me of her joys and struggles, her achievements, her beauty. I 'met her' through his love for her. It wasn't a sad conversation. It was full of the love and the spirit that was this woman, and her father's love for her. Making her wishes a reality was first priority for all of us, and it connected us all in the midst of tragedy. I consider that conversation one of the greatest privileges of my life. And I always wondered in the realities of managed healthcare, who would have had the time to just sit and listen.</p>

<p>I was the first non-nurse working for the California Transplant Donor Network. Our work was to coordinate the behind the scenes care for families and for the healthcare team to ensure the option of organ donation was available if patient/family wanted it. Every case we were involved in was a sudden and unexpected death. You have to realize, I was not a healthcare professional, I was an educator in training to learn the realities of the system and services in order to support the needs of the staff and families. It changes your life to see death daily and realize no one expected to die that day. It isn't easy work to be sure, yet it is a rare privilege to be on the front lines with those who care and to be reminded of this basic human fact daily.</p>

<p>This work taught me how death impacts everyone on many levels, not solely the dying person. I heard and witnessed stories of heroism, love, and compassion by healthcare professionals and family members in the midst of tragedy that never made the news. I saw the tears the fear and frustration in doctors' or nurses' eyes, the uncertainty about how 'human' they could appear and keep their professional role - or keep functioning for the rest of their shift. The anger, confusion, and torment among families who couldn't agree about the care of a loved one. I heard the amazing experiences when a family and healthcare team worked together around death to make someone's last wish &ndash; one was for a patient to see the stars &ndash; possible. I saw humans deal with the very thing most of us fear the most on a daily basis and everyone would have wanted to be more prepared for, if only they'd known. I carried children to the morgue and hugged the nurses no one hugs. Mostly, I was stunned that when people heard what I did in my work, the stories of their experiences about healthcare and loved one's dying poured out. </p>

<p>So, why weren't we talking about this more? It impacts all of us. How could I do something that transformed these stories into a solution? Where were these stories told in a way that made a difference? And, personally, I couldn't deny that one day I knew this would be me. Who or what would be there for my last days? What did I need to learn, do and stop avoiding to make this different? I knew somewhere inside that I was seeing all of this for a reason and that reason wasn't just about organ donation, it was about living with the reality of death as a part of life.</p>

<p>Amidst all of the emotions, the series of logistics, the details, policies, forms, questions, care, etc., I learned death didn't just 'happen'. It involved lots of decisions and care and choices. If this was true for 'sudden death' cases, imagine for the rest of us. Most of us don't die suddenly. Yet what struck me was the profoundly privileged position we each have at the end of someone's life to honor their life and wishes if we choose to and how much better it makes this for everyone involved when we know and can support what people want most.</p>

<p>I learned that most of us don't want to live our last days in a hospital, yet most of us did. Who was there to listen to or care about our stories? Who was there to support the healthcare staff, to be with this day in and day out, amidst caring for 'the living'? Who was there to tell families how important it was for them, their loved one and the healthcare team to be able to know and honor someone's wishes? How could this happen when family wasn't available? How could we learn to 'get in' to a hospital when we needed it, and 'get out' if we wanted to die at home? And what were we doing to help people learn how to talk about this in a way that brought peace instead of discord? </p>

<p>These questions haunted and inspired me as I looked back, and still do. It's more than 'end of life' care for me. It's 'life care', as the end of life for someone we care for impacts all of us who's life they touch &ndash; forever.</p>

<p>I didn't realize until many years later the questions and path my life would take around this work, and my work continued in many aspects of supporting compassionate care and community. It isn't just about 'end of life care' as we label it. When we say that, most hear "That's for 'someone else' at 'some later time." It isn't about the medical and legal debates that fill the news, although some are vitally important. </p>

<p>It is about how we want to live our last days and what each of us need to know and do to create this together now, so that it has a chance of being there when we want it. Most of us have time to do something about this while we're healthy. And most of us baby boomers are living with the choices, care and conversations held or avoided with friends and family members, but we don't know how to do this differently. Just like my work with the Transplant Network, it may not be easy, but it's a privilege. When we experience the death of someone close enough to touch us, we know how important this is. We can't help it. We're human and it matters. That's the focus of my work now.</p>

<p><strong>Jon Lebkowsky:</strong> At e-patients.net, We talk about participatory medicine, about "individuals who are equipped, enabled, empowered and engaged in their health and health care decisions." How might this be relevant to end-of-life choices and experiences?</p>

<p><strong>Mary Matthiesen:</strong> Individuals who are equipped, enabled, empowered and engaged.... how fantastic. Isn't this what we all want? It is so good that your work is focused on these priorities and it is completely relevant to end-of-life choices and experiences. How can we possibly get what we want if we've never thought about it, don't know what our options, rights or possibilities are, and don't make the choices we want for ourselves? Most of us haven't looked at this, and I hadn't either until I learned that there really was something I could do. It's easier not to. Yet this is the one area in 'healthcare' &ndash; or in life &ndash; that every one of us will face. Of course we would rather create what we want if we knew how. </p>

<p>As I learned more I realized I had to look at this for my own life, yet I didn't find what I was looking for that would truly help me get what I want if at all possible. And with all I knew, I still hadn't faced this for myself. That's when I knew there was something to be done.</p>

<p>Much has been written about how people want to <em>die with dignity</em>. Often this includes being where they want, having the sort of care they want, and being able to make decisions for themselves. And although much has been done around raising the public awareness about 'advance care plans' to make our choices known, which is a very important piece, statistics prove these plans and forms alone won't ensure compassionate care given the realities of healthcare. The form details ask us to make choices, yet often don't give the statistics around treatment options, so we have to find them ourselves or make uninformed choices.</p>

<p>Google the effectiveness of CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuccitation or 'heart starting') as one example. Unlike the movies, most don't fully recover and get up smiling. Yet in a moment of crisis, who around us wouldn't say, 'do it'. It seems we're saving a life,  but we're often, without realizing it, prolonging exactly what we would never want for our last days, months or even years. I hear stories of this from healthcare staff, families and patients all the time.</p>

<p>And if we say, 'don't do it' &ndash; what then? How are our families/loved ones to cope with such decisions if they aren't crystal clear that "mom wouldn't have wanted it." In my mother's case, she felt trapped in her body when she knew in her mind and heart her life was done. Medications had been prolonging her life for years, yet she didn't know it &ndash; she thought they were cures. When she was faced with another surgery, she knew her rights to deny treatments (It's called the Patient Self Determination Act in the U.S.). Then she was told (for the first time, when she was in the hospital) the medications she had been taking for years weren't cures, but were her choice to take. If she chose to stop taking them, there was help that medicine could offer to support her being comfortable. We knew she could get hospice care as she wouldn't have long to live.  She never knew this was a choice. </p>

<p>And even hospice care in its current form will be stretched beyond the need as baby boomers age. There is much for us to become informed about! (My mother was under full medical care when she chose to stop medications. This should never be done without medical supervision.)</p>

<p>We need to be prepared to speak up for what we want and to create a 'plan' with our families or those closest to us to help us to live our last days, informed by what's possible. Just like people now speak more openly about whether or not they'd want to be an organ donor, we need to speak up about how we want to live our last days, and learn how we can ensure, in every way possible, that our choices will be honored by those around us. </p>

<p>I've come to understand that this will not happen unless we talk about it <em>now</em>. People are afraid to bring this up in conversation, especially when someone is ill. It's best when we bring it up ourselves, but people around us must also be able to listen. Talking about this when someone wants to is not about adding to a fear of dying or being morbid. It's about talking about an absolutely known fact for each of us &ndash; healthy or not. We must normalize this conversation for and with each other.</p>

<p>The truth is, we will never know the precise circumstances that we might encounter at the end of our lives, we don't have a crystal ball. And sadly, the statistics on the actual use of 'advance care plans' or 'living wills' is abysmal in practice &ndash; yet this is for good reason. Because we can't know the specific circumstances for our future needs, we cannot make very many specific clinical decisions for our care in advance &ndash; and what we want may change over time. Yet if we don't become equipped and don't know our options, if we don't let those around us (including but not limited to our doctors) know the basics of what we would want for our care and why, we won't know if they will be there for us when we need them most. We won't be enabled, empowered or engaged, nor will our family members or loved ones around us.</p>

<p>Doing nothing about this, choosing not to have these conversations (or filling out a form, but not telling anyone about it), ensures the decisions for our care will be left to the healthcare team around us-and/or in the U.S. to our legal next of kin. Right now, 'doing nothing' as a patient, avoiding these conversations out of fear or denial is resulting in precisely the things we fear the most-dying in hospital, alone, or 'clinically', often not having the choice to have time with loved ones. It results in not making informed choices around our care options when we'd really rather choose not to have another surgery, round of chemo, or even antibiotic treatment. Yet no one has let us know that the 'other option' is to take our right to deny or refuse treatments AND to receive support to allow our bodies to die as they will in as much comfort as possible with or without these interventions. This isn't phsyician assisted suicide. It is our right to choose legal options for care, supported with pain medication, emotional and spiritual support, and care with the best our friends, family or community can provide, to make us as comfortable as possible, and live our last days on our terms.</p>

<p>We also aren't enabled or empowered unless we know there is a field of medical support specifically geared to looking at the whole patient needs, (physical, emotional, psychosocial, spiritual), especially for critical illness and end of life care, which is called Palliative Care. Yet the public don't often know these specialists exist until it's too late. We naively assume this is the holistic approach that healthcare would automatically offer. Yet we forget that many clinicians in healthcare today are specialists, focusing on their disease or body-part specialty, as our system has trained them to do. Until very recently, they weren't required to have any training in end of life care at all. Many are truly unprepared, as you or I would be without more education, and continue to view our care by 'body part' or 'diagnosis', which also leads to patients not getting the whole approach to care we expect.</p>

<p>Dying is not a disease. It doesn't fall into a box on a form. It is a natural progression of life itself. Yet our systems are struggling to deal with and address this fact. Years ago it was the norm. Yet advances in medicine and treatments which save lives, now prolong lives beyond what most of us would choose.</p>

<p>Healthcare and legal systems are developing 'new' ways to support the whole person, yet this will take time. In fact, many healthcare professionals haven't looked at how they would want <em>their own </em>death, or how they would move through the system to get what they want. They are human too. One physician told me that to get the care they want in the current system, patients need to effectively swim upstream without a paddle. He's working for system change, as are many. And tremendous work is being done by countless organizations within and outside of healthcare. Yet as one physician told me, without the public awareness and engagement around end of life care, without their voices and choices for change, the needle will only move so far.</p>

<p>Patients and families need to know this. We all need to know what happens when we die, what to expect, what our rights and choices are, what services are available, and even what creative ways others are finding to have life endings that honor our personal values and beliefs. When we become more engaged in this conversation, we will be empowered not only to communicate what we each want for ourselves, but be open to listening to others' wishes (vs. shutting them off when they bring up the subject as if this will never happen to them).</p>

<p>Patients also need to know that healthcare professionals are people too. These are not easy conversations for anyone to instigate or engage in-particularly when their training has often been to save lives or 'help people'. There is a tide turning where it's becoming clearer to everyone that 'helping people heal' includes helping people have a compassionate death. Yet when does 'end of life care' begin? </p>

<p>Living and dying are processes. Our choices along the way may impact what we truly want for our care. This is why it is so important to decide and talk about, based on your values and beliefs, what is right for you. Then learn what conditions or treatments might impact this outcome. Many who do so say it relieves fear, not the opposite. Talking about it doesn't mean you will die or that others think you will. The truth is we all will and none of us knows when. Talking about it can only bring awareness, learning, and assurance &ndash; or raise questions that may be important to answer so that you can come to more peace.</p>

<p>This tide will turn when patients, people, overcome their fears and really talk about what they want and need, and find ways to create that together. It is happening more and more each day and there are beautiful stories of how healthcare staff, patients, families, and communities come together to honor someone's wishes and last days in creative and nurturing ways &ndash; yet they don't make the news. This is what is possible. </p>

<p>When we do accept this conversation, we will be able to support on a large scale the efforts of many organizations who exist and are fighting for patients rights, for palliative care for all, for compassionate end of life care, and for increased training and support for medical professionals. We will be able to share our stories to create new ways of honoring someone's last days and make those the mark by which we measure what's possible, weaving all the benefits of medical science with all the wisdom of love and compassion that exists in all of us. And my personal experience is that when we do, we end up speaking not about death, but about the kind of love and care that matters most for all of our days. The sooner we look at what really matters for us at the end of our life and can talk about that openly, the sooner we can join together to create what we want for the rest of our days, whether we have years, days, or hours left to live.</p>

<p>This isn't just for patients. It's for all of us.<br />
</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Is ANYONE responsible for the whole patient?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/is_anyone_respo.html" />
<modified>2008-07-30T03:27:43Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-29T14:58:05Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.215</id>
<created>2008-07-29T14:58:05Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">The e-Patients Group has been discussing Shannon Brownlee&apos;s book Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer, which tells how the logic of the U.S. healthcare system works against coordination and effective treatment. &quot;Between 20 and 30...</summary>
<author>
<name>Jon Lebkowsky</name>

<email>jonl@polycot.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>hc&apos;s problem list</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>The e-Patients Group has been discussing Shannon Brownlee's book <a href="http://www.overtreated.com/the_book.html"><em>Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer</em></a>, which tells how the logic of the U.S. healthcare system works against coordination and effective treatment. "Between 20 and 30 cents on every health care dollar we spend goes towards useless treatments and hospitalizations, towards CT scans we don’t need, towards ineffective surgeries—towards care that not only does nothing to improve our health, but that we wouldn’t want if we understood how dangerous it can be."</p>

<p>One crucial issue we've been discussing is the lack of coordination among healthcare providers and resulting treatments based on fragmented understanding of the patient's whole profile.</p>

<p>Suffice it to say, the e-Patients Group is not of one mind on this subject, due in large part to the different set of major challenges faced by the doctors and patients among us, both fighting for their breath in this dysfunctional system. Below are some excerpts from our respectful but strong-willed expressions of views.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>In an article in the April 2008 issue of <i>More</i> magazine, Brownlee cites Johns Hopkins professor W. Lowell Maughan saying "Many hospitals today .... are like medical shopping malls"; she continues "When you go to the mall, the clerk in one store has no idea what you bought next door, and the same often holds true for the departments in a hospital." </p>

<p>Dan Hoch notes the issues of communication and logistics that healthcare professionals must confront. <blockquote>...imagine if you were in sales, and you called on 50 clients a day. Now, imagine you had to call 3 people after each of those visits to coordinate the sale you were trying to make, but worse, each of those people was out doing the same thing you were doing and did not pick up the phone. So, you leave messages, do some emails, and hope for the best. Of course, just as those folks get back to you, you start a new day. There is no way our traditional system can support this level of interactivity. That's why we need electronic medical records. BUT, even at that, patients ask me regularly and incredulously "you mean you didn't talk to my other doctors? ".  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say verbal one on one communication is not possible and should not be an expectation. Humans don't cut it. Machines do a better job just as they do a better job at keeping vast bits of data in memory.</blockquote><p>e-Patient Dave acknowledges the logistical hurdles by isn't swayed by them. It was inexcusable, he says, for nephrectomy nursing staff involved in his treatment to have no idea that he had a major leg problem (a femur metastasis that eventually caused the leg to break) &ndash; "there MUST be SOME way that when a new staff person comes on team, they get an introduction to the whole me, not just their 'store in the mall.'" There's no mechanism, responsibility, or funding for coordination of care and this, says Dave, "is a huge and unacceptable breakdown in the system." <blockquote>In today's process (in America anyway) nobody's got <i>responsibility</i>, and adding [Electronic Medical Records] to a broken process won't change that.  As we say in my day job: "Process first, then define the system."</blockquote><p>One possible solution: the <a href="http://patientdave.blogspot.com/2008/05/patient-centered-primary-care.html">Patient-Centered "Medical Home,"</a> where each patient is known and understood as a whole person, and where there's coordination through a complete health profile, reducing or eliminating the possibility of incorrect or "over-" treatment.</p>

<p>What are some other possible solutions? We invite your comments.</p>

<p><i>Additional content and editorializing by e-Patient Dave</i></p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Medpedia - where are the patients??</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/hey_medpedia_wh.html" />
<modified>2008-07-31T18:34:45Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-29T01:23:17Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.214</id>
<created>2008-07-29T01:23:17Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Medpedia has gotten a lot of publicity in the past week. Considering that Wikipedia has disavowed* usefulness for patients, Medpedia sounds like a potentially great idea. * See Jon&apos;s correction in Comments. --EPD But when I saw their home page...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dave deBronkart</name>
<url>http://patientdave.blogspot.com/</url>
<email>epatientdave@comcast.net.</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>pts as teachers</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>Medpedia has gotten a lot of publicity in the past week. Considering that Wikipedia has <a href="http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/04/wikipedia-time.html">disavowed* usefulness for patients</a>, Medpedia sounds like a potentially great idea. <i>* See Jon's correction in Comments. --EPD</i></p>

<p>But when I saw their home page it literally took my breath away: there are invitations for doctors to join, and organizations to contribute content, but <b>nothing for patients – we can contribute ideas, not content.</b></p>

<p>Well, I clicked the Contribute Ideas link, and you bet I submitted an idea:</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<blockquote>Subject: <b>Accept input from patients about what works</b>

<p>As I've said repeatedly in my blogging, all the most valuable information I got during my near-fatal cancer episode in 2007 came from my peer group - other patients with my cancer. I'm astounded that your home page invites participation by everyone BUT patients, except as providers of feedback. Will you please consider that we have something of value to say, and give us a role too, as *contributors*?</p>

<p>I can give you specifics of the gaping flaws I encountered in the non-patient resources I used, if you want.</blockquote>Here’s the thing about patients vs observers, even the most knowledgeable observers: Until <i>you</i> have had your @$$ on the line, such that you’re really depending on the usefulness of answers you get from a source, you don’t really know your @$$ from a hole in the ground regarding where to find useful information. You need a reality check from street level: "Hey, how's it going? Are we on track? Is it working for you?"</p>

<p>If anyone from the established medical reference sites had asked me that last year, it would have been a resounding no, with details.</p>

<p>Here in April, John Grohol <a href=”http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/04/wikipedias_arca.html” target=”new”>wrote</a> about the Wikipedia disavowal, and Gilles Frydman (founder of the peer network that was my best resource) commented:<blockquote>“No wonder e-patients have learned to trust their peers, because so far their exchanges have retained the right balance between a high level of freedom and a good amount of constant monitoring and peer-challenge when some information sounds off-track.”</blockquote>Amen. </p>

<p>Medpedia, please open your doors to substantial patient contributions. </p>

<p>========</p>

<p>I anticipate that someone will respond with this, from the FAQ page:<blockquote>Who can contribute to the content on Medpedia?</p>

<p>Anyone. There are multiple ways of contributing. If you are an MD or PhD in the biomedical field, you can apply to become an Editor and make changes directly to Medpedia articles (See more below). If you are anyone else, you can use the "Make a suggestion" link at the top of any page to make a suggestion for that page. An approved Editor will review and potentially add your suggestion.</blockquote>Please see my observations above about reliability of information at ground level. <i>It is an error to think that only approved medical professionals can say what information is useful.</i>  That's the whole point.  </p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Take control of your images!Where to get DICOM readers</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/take_control_of.html" />
<modified>2008-07-28T00:16:21Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-26T14:03:56Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.213</id>
<created>2008-07-26T14:03:56Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">links to free viewers for Windows, Mac, and Linux, for the DICOM image format used for scan imagesBackground information on DICOM, and the Wikipedia entryLinks to sample images, so you can experiment with a viewer Why I&apos;m writing about this:...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dave deBronkart</name>
<url>http://patientdave.blogspot.com/</url>
<email>epatientdave@comcast.net.</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>e-pts=resources</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<ul><li><a href="http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html#links"><b>links to free viewers</b> for Windows, Mac, and Linux</a>, for the DICOM image format used for scan images</li><li><a href="http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html">Background information</a> on DICOM, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICOM">the Wikipedia entry</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html#linkimg">Links to sample images</a>, so you can experiment with a viewer</li></ul>
<strong>Why I'm writing about this: </strong>Linux guru Doc Searls wrote a profound piece last month about inability to read his own medical images, which led to inappropriate surgery with severe consequences.  <em>This could happen to you.</em>  Our Jon Lebkowsky wrote a <a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/06/doc_searls_pati.html">superb and enlighting post</a> about it, which opened my eyes to a new (for me) dimension of patient empowerment:  whose data is it, anyway?]]>
<![CDATA[<p><strong>An opportunity to transform healthcare:  </strong>Those who provide our care (docs, hospitals, etc) can take responsibility for getting their hands on every bit of data that exists about the patient, and help us do so.</p>

<p>Please let that sink in.  Yesterday I mentioned this to a friend and he got this look of realization and said "Yeah -- my primary doctor's in one clinic and my endocrine is done at another, and they never know what each other is doing!  It ticks me off."  </p>

<p>We can let these professionals know, we want (expect!) them to talk to each other and exchange data. After all, whose data is it, anyway?</p>

<p>In my friend's case, it seems the institutions only feel responsible for their own data, not responsible for everything they can find out about "we the patients" - their customers, if you will.  It almost seems like if we get services elsewhere, it's not their problem.</p>

<p>Well, let's change that. This shift in viewpoint is one example of <a href="http://doctom.com/">Doc Tom</a>'s advice that we turn our view of healthcare <a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/steal_these_sli.html">upside down</a> .</p>

<p><strong>"But Dave, don't worry, we're fixing this":</strong>  There's a lot of work underway to develop standards for exchange of information, and sometimes when I mention this to someone involved in that work, they respond that the issue is solved (or identified and being solved). Fine, but please get your heads out of your process: <strong>that work has not borne fruit yet</strong>.   It obviously did no good at all for Doc, and lord only knows how long it will take before it does anyone any good.  It doesn't exist in reality yet.</p>

<p>Until then, <strong>you and I must take matters into our own hands.</strong> And that's not trivial. The tools we're given are mediocre - if we're given any at all: <ol><li>During my cancer adventure last year, each CD I got included a (mediocre) Windows viewer, sans documentation.</li><li>I don't know what they would have said if I'd asked for a Mac or Linux version.</li><li>But at least my hospital offers the images on CD (for free, no less).  Many people I talk to don't even have that option: they have to apply for the images and wait weeks.</li></ol><br />
We can easily see a solution by looking at other industries: our "vendors" (those who create the scans) can simply post the free DICOM viewers on their web site, for us to download.  And they can simply tell all their people (docs etc) about it.</p>

<p>That's why I'm writing this: so word can spread.</p>

<p>What you can do:<ol><li><strong>Download a viewer</strong> and see how it works.</li><li><strong>Tell your care providers</strong> that it's important to you to have your information accessible for sharing. In addition to telling your doc, go to the top: contact the CEO's office.</li><li><strong>Ask for your own images.</strong> Take responsibility for your own data.  Don't put this off; if your hospital doesn't yet have a way to deliver images promptly, you want them to start fixing that now, before you have a crisis.</li><li><strong>Tell friends and family</strong> that they too can request their images and share them.</li></ol>Doc Searls wrote about "patient as platform" - the idea that <em>you</em> are the center of care, and <em>you</em> walk in and present your data to the professionals, rather than you walking in and having them look it up in their system. </p>

<p>That ideal is a ways off, but there's no reason you and I can't be doing our part now.<br />
</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>An e-Patient Hero Leaves Us</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/an_epatient_her.html" />
<modified>2008-07-25T18:07:55Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-25T16:56:09Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.212</id>
<created>2008-07-25T16:56:09Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Randy Pausch, teacher, speaker, e-patient, and father dies at 47.</summary>
<author>
<name>Cheryl Greene</name>
<url>www.DrGreene.com</url>
<email>cgreene@drgreene.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>key people</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>Most of us know Randy Pausch from his video lecture <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo">"Achieving Your Childhood Dreams"</a>, taped at Carnegie Mellon as part of their "Last Lecture" series.  His hope and optimism in light of a crushing diagnosis brought millions up short as they examined their lives through the lens of this great man at the end of his short life.  What you may not know is that Randy was an e-Patient.  He was engaged in his own healthcare to the very end and <a href="http://download.srv.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/news/index.html">shared his journey freely with the world</a>.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Randy Pausch, teacher, speaker, e-patient, and father dies at 47.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Surprise! Students Find Inaccurate Health Information Online</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/surprise_studen.html" />
<modified>2008-07-22T23:43:34Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-22T17:55:29Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.211</id>
<created>2008-07-22T17:55:29Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">A new study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) suggests that inaccurate medical information is easily found and regurgitated by students. But the topic the study chose to study -- vaccines -- has been under increasing scrutiny and...</summary>
<author>
<name>John Grohol</name>
<url>http://psychcentral.com/</url>
<email>grohol@psychcentral.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>news&amp;gossip</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>A new study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) suggests that inaccurate medical information is easily found and regurgitated by students. But the topic the study chose to study -- vaccines -- has been under increasing scrutiny and controversy, limiting the generalizability of the results.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>The study was simply setup -- 34 high school students were asked to find websites about vaccines, and then rate their accuracy. Of the 40 sites found, 22 were described by the researchers as "inaccurate," including well-known sites such as CBS News. The search term "vaccine dangers" returned virtually all inaccurate search results out of the first 20, while the search term "vaccine safety" returned virtually all accurate search results.</p>

<p>I think the only conclusion we can draw from a study of this nature is that controversial medical topics -- whether the controversy is warranted and valid or not -- brings out a bias in search results as dozens of new sites pop-up to discuss and offer their own viewpoints on the controversy. </p>

<p>Less surprising is the fact that high school students couldn't differentiate an accurate site from an inaccurate site. There is no single indicator (or even set of reliable, research-proven indicators) that lets a user know a site is "trustworthy" and produces only trustworthy information 100% of the time -- even CBS News' article on this was deemed inaccurate by the researchers.</p>

<p>Sadly, the researchers noted no limitations of the current study (and surprisingly, JMIR apparently didn't require the researchers to do so before accepting their article for publication). So I'll list them for you:</p>

<p>- Small sample size<br />
- Unrepresentative sample (not randomized from the general population)<br />
- Students in high school (e.g. results are not generalizable to the Internet population as a whole, or adults).<br />
- Controversial health topic in the news that has likely spurred a temporary increase in controversial sites<br />
- Search terms may have been biased (why didn't the researchers include a more generic "vaccines" search term?)</p>

<p>This last point is an important one, because it occurs in research all the time. By asking the right questions, researchers can bias a study before ever collecting a single data point, ensuring the outcome they're seeking (unconsciously or not).</p>

<p>Students, too, may be especially naive when it comes to understanding the complexity of health and medical information online, since few have any direct or sustained interaction with health care concerns or treatments. I would expect adults to be a little less naive and a little more skeptical of any information they find on a site that proclaims to offer "Uncensored vaccine information that the government doesn't want you to know!"</p>

<p><strong>Reference:</strong></p>

<p>Kortum, P.,  Edwards, C. & Richards-Kortum, R.  (2008). <a href="http://www.jmir.org/2008/2/e17/">The Impact of Inaccurate Internet Health Information in a Secondary School Learning Environment</a>. J Med Internet Res, 10(2):e17.<br />
</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Now THAT&apos;s an e-participating patient</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/now_thats_an_ep.html" />
<modified>2008-07-19T23:05:47Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-19T22:54:46Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.209</id>
<created>2008-07-19T22:54:46Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">From ScienceRoll: &quot;Jan Martens at Medblog.nl ... mentioned Maarten Lens-Fitzgerald who should be considered one of the best examples of e-patients in the world. See why...&quot; Hey Jen McCabe Gorman, what is it with the Dutch?...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dave deBronkart</name>
<url>http://patientdave.blogspot.com/</url>
<email>epatientdave@comcast.net.</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>found on the net</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://scienceroll.com/2008/07/19/the-e-patient/">ScienceRoll</a>: "Jan Martens at Medblog.nl ... mentioned Maarten Lens-Fitzgerald who should be considered one of the best examples of e-patients in the world. See why..." Hey <a href="http://healthmgmtrx.blogspot.com/">Jen McCabe Gorman</a>, what is it with the Dutch?</p>]]>

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Can Professional Medical Societies Further the Ideals of Participatory Medicine?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/can_professiona.html" />
<modified>2008-07-17T01:04:53Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-17T01:54:00Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.206</id>
<created>2008-07-17T01:54:00Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Professional medical societies are not quite like the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University, but they may well look that way to many patients. In most cases, their sole reason for being is to serve their members in...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dan Hoch</name>

<email>dhoch@partners.org</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>reforming hc</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>Professional medical societies are not quite like the secret society <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones#The_Skull_.26_Bones_Hall.2C_or_.22Tomb.22.2C_and_its_Architecture">Skull and Bones at Yale University</a>,  but they may well look that way to many patients.  In most cases, their sole reason for being is to serve their members  in a pretty narrowly defined way.  The services generally include continuing medical education programs, an annual meeting, promoting research, advocating for public and political awareness of the value of the specialty, resources to support clinical practice, and more mundane perks like access to group insurance (malpractice and otherwise).  Define the mission of the society a little less narrowly and it’s not hard to see how that mission can be aligned with that of participatory medicine.  We often argue in this blog that full participation of all parties in health care will yield better, more efficient  care. Such care will benefit the members of a professional society.  Further, patients are taking part in research not just as guinea pigs, but as organizers and directors. This benefits the societies' research missions. But, are medical societies poised to understand this, and if so, how do we guide them?  </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>The answer to the first question is yes, for several reasons.  First, medical societies understand that the Internet is a critical tool for marketing and advocacy. Thinking about the Internet in that way, as “Web 1.0”,  most societies have unwittingly added young technical staff who realize that there’s been a shift to Web 2.0. They may not be <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/digitalnatives/about/">digital natives</a> (most digital natives are still in high school or college) but they are willing to challenge  the conventional wisdom linking this technology to marketing. Secondly, clinicians themselves may have a higher than average rate of technology adoption. The same doctor who resists use of the electronic medical record at work, may well use her  Blackberry to network with friends about hobbies, use the Web to contribute to blogs, have GPS integrated into her phone, etc. etc. Thirdly, some professional medical societies are using services like those of <a href="http://www.inspire.com/">Inspire.com,</a> to create and maintain interactive groups for support of members as well as patients interested in learning more about their illness. Finally, I’ve witnessed a subtle move in the direction of participatory medicine at the societies of which I’m a member.  The American Academy of Neurology, publisher of the journal <em>Neurology</em> , has promoted for several years it’s “<a href="http://neurology.org/cgi/search?tocsectionid=Patient*&displaysectionid=Patient+Pages&journalcode=neurology&hits=20">patient pages</a>”  that present important research findings to the general reader. Additionally, just over one year ago, the AAN totally revised it’s web site under the guidance of a very talented and forward thinking group of <a href="http://www.aan.com/go/about/site">Editors and Staff</a>.   So, how do we guide  a group like the AAN, and others, poised to embrace Web 2.0 and participatory medicine? <pr></p>

<p>Let’s say that comments to this entry will be read by leaders and technical staff at medical societies everywhere. If so, the impact could be substantial. After all, these societies have money and incentive to change the way health care is performed. I’m hoping for a lively discussion. To get things moving, I will present some principles that I think should guide the next generation of online services at professional medical societies. With any luck, they are all wrong or incomplete and great new ideas will emerge from this discussion. Here are my starting guidelines: <pr><br />
<ol><br />
<li> Don’t even think about supplying “expert content”. Yes,  the society’s members may well be real experts on specific medical topics. Whether you like it or not,  it’s probably those very members who have been contributing to the myriad health content sites like <a href="http://www.adam.com/Our_Products/index.html">A.D.A.M</a>, <a href="http://www.healthwise.org/">Healthwise </a>and even the <a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/">National Library of Medicine </a> and specialty sections of NIH like the  <a href="http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/disorder_index.htm">National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke</a>. The private and public sector is already on it, and doing quite well, thank you. <br />
<li>Develop tools to facilitate the creation of a different kind of knowledge, the knowledge that comes from collaboration between patients and providers. Tools that promote interaction make “expert content” more useful to all parties, clinicians  included. Sub-specialty wikis of medical knowledge contributed by patients and clinicians should abound on your society’s web site. <br />
<li> Open membership to and engage  patients;  in the workings of the society, it’s offerings at conferences  and online. <br />
<li>Help keep members and patients organized. Use the bully pulpit and zeal of the society membership and the academic reputation of the society to become <strong>the</strong> entry point to resources of all kinds relevant to the illnesses of interest to the society. Don’t delude yourself into thinking only the society’s resources are valuable,  but partner with and link to <strong>all</strong> resources to support patients with the illness. Supply context for the resources, and ways to organize and track them. Experiment with tagging  and filtering.   Compete with Google!<br />
<li>Foster community though partnership with the rich network of online groups and discussions that are already in progress.  Respect those conversations, join them, and take part. Don’t oppress them. Create and foster social tagging and networking so that patients and clinicians talk together. <br />
<li>Make research transparent. While recognizing  the gifted scientists that are certainly members of the medical society, encourage patients to get involved and even take charge. They are often motivated by life and death concerns, medical researchers rarely bring that urgency to the lab or clinic. <br />
</ol><pr><br />
These are just a few starting guidelines. I would love to hear how others would advise a medical society to proceed. <br />
</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Steal these slides</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/steal_these_sli.html" />
<modified>2008-07-16T03:27:41Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-16T01:01:53Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.205</id>
<created>2008-07-16T01:01:53Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Click images to view full size originals. Last weekend I stumbled across the &quot;attic&quot; of Tom Ferguson MD, who was the &quot;George Washington of patient empowerment,&quot; as CNN put it this month, citing his work since 1975 to create a...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dave deBronkart</name>
<url>http://patientdave.blogspot.com/</url>
<email>epatientdave@comcast.net.</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>policy issues</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p><i>Click images to view full size originals.</i><br><a href="http://www.doctom.com/slideshows/tf005_files/1024x768/Slide88.html" target="_default"><img alt="Industrial Age Medicine" src="http://www.doctom.com/slideshows/tf005_files/1024x768/Slide88.png" alt="Doc Tom's pyramid model of industrial age medicine" title="Doc Tom's pyramid model of industrial age medicine"width="280" height="210"align="left" vspace="5" hspace="10"/></a> <a href="http://www.doctom.com/slideshows/tf005_files/1024x768/Slide88.html" target="_default"><img alt="Information Age Medicine" src="http://www.doctom.com/slideshows/tf005_files/1024x768/Slide89.png" alt="Doc Tom's inverted pyramid model of information age medicine" title="Doc Tom's inverted pyramid model of information age medicine"width="280" height="210"align="left" vspace="5" hspace="10"/></a>Last weekend I stumbled across the "attic" of Tom Ferguson MD, who was the "<a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/cnn_empowered_p.html">George  Washington of patient empowerment</a>," as CNN put it this month, citing his work since 1975 to create a world of freedom and power for patients.</p>

<p>(That's you. Thank him.)</p>

<p>Those familiar with this blog know about the white paper DocTom's team completed after his death in 2006.  But I  didn't know some of his earlier writings are around on <a href="http://www.doctom.com/">www.DocTom.com</a>, a modest web site including a few old slide shows. They're sans speaker notes, but the good stuff is the images: you can get the drift.</p>

<p>My favorites (above) are <a href="http://www.doctom.com/slideshows/tf005_files/800x600/Slide88.html">#88</a> and <a href="http://www.doctom.com/slideshows/tf005_files/800x600/Slide89.html">#89</a> from his 2003 slides.   Here's my narrative:<br />
</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<blockquote>In the industrial age, the means of production and ability to create value were centralized in massive facilities. If you didn't own the factory, you didn't have freedom and power.

<p>In the information age, those with access to information have access to power and can create value.</blockquote>Those slides were made in 1995, when the Web had just been born, but they hit the nail on the head: today we have access to tremendous resources, and that empowers and enables us.</p>

<p>Please don't interpret these slides as meaning that in the world of the future there will be no doctors. That's idiotic. Rather, Tom's vision is that "we the people" have a lot more ability to contribute than was once thought. And both costs and quality can improve as a result.</p>

<p>Compelling evidence to support this was collected into the white paper (above).  Further independent evidence from around the world is provided by PCPCC (the Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative), about which <a href="http://patientdave.blogspot.com/2008/05/patient-centered-primary-care.html">I wrote</a> on my blog in May, including a few of their slides.</p>

<p>Steal these slides. Show them to others, put them in your decks when you give talks. And look at those PCPCC slides, with their data on cost and quality.  It's a new world out there - feed your head! </p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Statistics, Genetics, and Playing the Lottery</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/fun_with_number.html" />
<modified>2008-07-14T18:09:40Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-14T16:57:51Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.204</id>
<created>2008-07-14T16:57:51Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I learned two important lessons in a statistics course I took in college: 1) don&apos;t play the lottery; 2) be skeptical of statistics, especially nice-looking charts and graphs. Yes, I did grow up to be a major purveyor of statistics,...</summary>
<author>
<name>Susannah Fox</name>

<email>sfox@pewinternet.org</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>policy issues</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>I learned two important lessons in a statistics course I took in college: 1) don't play the lottery; 2) be skeptical of statistics, especially nice-looking charts and graphs.</p>

<p>Yes, I did grow up to be a major <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/">purveyor of statistics</a>, but I think it's a good thing that my first instinct is to be skeptical of the power of numbers when someone is telling a story. </p>

<p>That's why I was disappointed to miss a recent presentation entitled, "Consumer Interest in Health & Genomic Information," by Steve Bodhaine, a <a href="http://www.yankelovich.com/">Yankelovich </a>researcher, who appeared at an HHS-sponsored <a href="http://www.signup4.net/Public/ap.aspx?EID=ATRG11E">conference </a>. (For more on the event, read Jen McCabe Gorman's <a href="http://www.health20.nl/2008/07/09/is-it-all-in-the-genes-part-i-us-dhhs-meeting-on-consumer-direct-genome-sequencing/">summary</a> of a panel that included Esther Dyson, Matthew Holt, Linda Avey, and Rebecca Fisher).</p>

<p>Happily, I ran into Esther the next day as I walked down Connecticut Avenue to work.  She dug into her bag and handed me the Yankelovich slides, which include the finding that consumers are "interested but skeptical" about how genetic testing is used.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Since I missed the presentation, I asked Esther for her review of the findings. Here is what she wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
My data, my self

<p>Yes, people are woefully unprepared to understand this kind of data, just as they are unprepared to file taxes, handle a sudden request for a divorce, deal with a non-genetic diagnosis of cancer, respond to an SAT score that indicates a 20-to-1 chance of getting into Harvard and a 3-to-1 chance of getting into the local state university, etc. etc.  But we don't require that people hire professionals - even though mistakes are made.  In health care, people are not required to get (nor does the system usually pay for) second opinions, even though they would reduce error and heartbreak.   Life just *is* tough, and medical care is riddled with errors and dangers.</p>

<p>The best way for people to understand genomic data is to explore their own - ideally with competent, lucid explanatory information that is somewhat personalized.  And ideally, they could easily find experienced genetic counselors to help them interpret the data.  But even if they can't, those who want to explore their own data (and pay for it) should have the opportunity to do so.  It's amazing how people can understand complex batting averages, race-track betting odds or stock-market statistics, according to their interests.  I expect the same to happen with genomic information.  Just give people who are interested a chance to explore (with credible information and context), and it's amazing what they will figure out.  Over time, people will understand exactly what you can and cannot glean from genetic data - and as more of it becomes available for responsible research, the data itself will become more meaningful. The first adopters are benefactors (well beyond the money they spend); later users will be beneficiaries.  See "<a href="http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/02/27/what-you-can-do-for-23andme-and-future-generations/">What You Can Do for 23andMe (and Future Generations)</a>"</p>

<p>As for regulation, it's absolutely appropriate to regulate labs and to vet sites for misleading information, spurious promises and fraudulent sales pitches.  But I'd like to control my own data, please, and make my own decisions about whom to share it with, whether that's no one, a doctor, a relative...or the whole world.</p>

<p>[Disclosure:  I'm on the board of 23andMe, and I'm a research subject for the <a href="http://www.personalgenomes.org/">Personal Genome Project</a>, for which I will publish my full genome and my health records, personally identified, on the Web.]</blockquote></p>

<p>What is an e-patient to do when faced with questions about genomic data? One answer is to stay tuned to the statisticians who, as Sharon Begley writes in <em>Newsweek</em>, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/145865/output/print">"are the new sheriffs in town."</a> Another is to read a memoir like the one a friend handed to me last week, "<a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780385525718.html">Pretty Is What Changes</a>: Impossible Choices, The Breast Cancer Gene, and How I Defied My Destiny," by Jessica Queller. What are some other possibilities (besides playing the lottery)?  </p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Are on-line pharmacies a threat to participatory medicine?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/are_online_phar.html" />
<modified>2008-07-12T00:56:25Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-10T13:00:00Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.202</id>
<created>2008-07-10T13:00:00Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">In a piece in the New York Times 7/9/08 (Abuses are Found in Online Sales of Medication) a report (also out Weds) from Columbia University is described. According to the authors, 85% of online sites that sell medications directly to...</summary>
<author>
<name>Dan Hoch</name>

<email>dhoch@partners.org</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>hc&apos;s problem list</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>In a piece in the New York Times 7/9/08 (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/health/09drugs.html" target="_default">Abuses are Found in Online Sales of Medication</a>) a <a href="http://www.casacolumbia.org" target="_default"> report (also out Weds) </a>  from Columbia University  is described. According to the authors, 85% of online sites that sell medications directly to the public do not require a prescription or substitute an online questionnaire for one. This is perceived as a problem, and several states have attempted to pass laws to prevent such activity. In Minnesota, a law requiring doctor patient consultation was enacted, but sites circumvented it with a 30 sec telephone “consultation” with a physician hired by the pharmacy. They are now considering laws that mandate a face to face consultation with a physician as a prerequisite to receiving any prescription.<br />
</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>At the heart of this controversy is the concept of the therapeutic relationship.  The traditional therapeutic relationship is based on direct, face to face history taking, examination (“laying on of hands”) and clinical decision making (hopefully, shared clinical decision making). Interestingly, early in the 20th century, the telephone was thought by the AMA to be a major threat to this relationship, since it reduced the need to “see” the doctor. It’s that “seeing” that is thought to be a safeguard against fraud and deception. Still, all of us have been conned during a face to face encounter, whether as clinicians or in the marketplace. I’m not going to argue that deception is no more likely through modern communication media (on the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog) than face to face, but I am worried that an over reaction to this fear will slow our progress toward participatory medicine. </p>

<p>The reasoning could go something like this: practitioners alone must control <strong>access</strong> to complex and dangerous procedures and drugs since great knowledge is needed to know how to apply them and a single gatekeeper will be less susceptible to fraud and abuse (or, at a minimum, this approach makes someone accountable). The more authority we vest in the patient, especially through nontraditional means like the internet, social networking software and collective wisdom, the greater the risk of deception and misapplication of these interventions. Thus, we need to limit the role of the patient. The opposite extreme is represented by the more libertarian views of folks like Glenn Greenwald, whom I <a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2007/05/too_radical.html">referenced</a> months ago in a “found on the net" entry to this blog. He argues that there is no clear reason to limit access to any medication by requiring a prescription from a medical practitioner.  </p>

<p>This problem is the reason I’ve moved away from obsessing too much over the e-Patient revolution and am so much more invested in the concept of participatory medicine. While the <u>e</u>lectronically <u>e</u>mpowered e-Patient is very important, there really are potential ways this “power” can be abused. The emphasis on the “e” in <u>e</u>ngagement as part of participation is more critical.  I strongly believe that the risks of deception and abuse of treatments and procedures is far lower when patients participate, especially as a group. On the one hand, the knowledge base is expanded and even the appropriateness of a practitioner-ordered treatment can be questioned in a good participatory relationship (how many patients have I heard wondering why their doc started them on an antibiotic for a clearly a viral illness?). On the other hand,  there is no doubt that patient communities have an extraordinary sense of when they are being conned, especially by one of their members. </p>

<p>So, while improved regulation of some online interactions  may be warranted, each proposal needs to be closely examined for it's unanticipated impact on the  participatory process. <br />
</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>E-patients with Agency (or Attitude?)</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/an_attitude_pro.html" />
<modified>2008-07-10T00:05:43Z</modified>
<issued>2008-07-09T17:28:41Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.e-patients.net,2008://2.203</id>
<created>2008-07-09T17:28:41Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">What are the social and psychological factors that affect how someone is treated -- or even their health outcomes? This question has popped up in my reading and in my work quite a bit this week, so I wanted to...</summary>
<author>
<name>Susannah Fox</name>

<email>sfox@pewinternet.org</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>e-patient stories</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.e-patients.net/">
<![CDATA[<p>What are the social and psychological factors that affect how someone is treated -- or even their health outcomes? This question has popped up in my reading and in my work quite a bit this week, so I wanted to share what I have learned from three leading thinkers:  Peggy Orenstein, Dr. Jeffrey Lin, and Dr. M. Chris Gibbons.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.peggyorenstein.com/">Peggy Orenstein</a> recently published an essay in the <em>New York Times</em> entitled, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29wwlnlede-t.html?ex=1372305600&en=310e06bba5ba3f0a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Stress Test</a>." Here is an excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>We of the postfeminist generation grew up being told we could do anything, be anything, if we just put our minds to it. Yet, if we have the power to create our own fates, wouldn’t the corollary be that we’re also responsible for our own misfortunes? And, in a kind of double magical thinking, shouldn’t we be able to cure ourselves using the same indefatigable will? No surprise then, that in a 2001 Canadian study of 200 ovarian-cancer survivors, almost two-thirds believed that stress caused their disease and more than 80 percent attributed their survival to a positive attitude.</blockquote>

<p>She writes about her own experiences and the rage she feels when people make assumptions about the mind-body connection. She cites a study of women undergoing in vitro fertilization: "The fretful conceived as readily as the chill."</p>

<p>I wrote to Peggy, asking if she would identify as an e-patient.  Here is what she wrote back:<br />
<blockquote><br />
I do think that educating yourself, advocating on your own behalf and being engaged in your own health care decisions is crucial. And that's a lot more effective than thinking if you just have a "positive attitude" your disease will go away. Having a sense of agency is a lot different than just being "positive," especially because sometimes agency means being VERY uncooperative and unpleasant, as any long-time patient knows. At the same, time, it's hard to feel effective or to take control of your health if you're depressed. And it's easy to get depressed if you're being treated for a serious illness. Being depressed in and of itself may not affect your outcomes as a patient, but if it affects your behavior--if, because you're depressed you don't take your medication, don't exercise, don't eat right, skip doctors' appointments, don't act in your own best interests--then it's a problem and needs to be addressed. But there's a real distinction there (I hope!).</p>

<p>Illness is stressful, but your stress didn't cause your cancer, infertility etc. Reducing stress may well make you feel better, able to tackle what you need to more easily. But if you can't or don't want to or aren't able to reduce the stress it's important not to beat yourself up about it (which just creates more stress....).</p>

<p>Am I an e-patient? Sure. But I feel lucky to be in a position to be one. I'm educated, white, middle class. No one's going to mess with me or ignore me. I can navigate the system easily. I often think: what if I were poor? What if I were uneducated? What if I were a person of color? What if I were old? Would I get the outstanding level of medical care that I experience? Would I still be alive? Being an "e-patient' is an absolute necessity these days, but it's also, sadly, too often only possible for the privileged. And that's something I hope we can change.....</blockquote></p>

<p>These sentiments were echoed at this morning's Ovarian Cancer National Alliance conference, where I shared the stage with <a href="http://www.sibley.org/new/new2.tmpl?sku=10252006163538&id=10252006163538">Dr. Jeffrey Lin</a> and <a href="http://faculty.jhsph.edu/default.cfm?faculty_id=542">Dr. M. Chris Gibbons</a>. </p>

<p>I presented the Pew Internet Project's latest "<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/251/presentation_display.asp">thermometers of access</a>" (May 2008 data) showing disparities among demographic groups, connecting our politics research with our health research to show how some people are accessing "<a href="http://www.e-patients.net/archives/2008/07/participation_i.html">industrial strength</a>" information these days (while some are stuck with "consumer strength" information).</p>

<p>Dr. Lin, a gynecologic oncologist, shared his observations about what enables some patients to get the best care -- patient/family involvement (NOT "doctor knows best"); pick your battles (<em>Susannah's question</em>: how will patients know which ones to pick?); have realistic expectations balanced with hope (or, as he also put it, "a positive attitude framed by realism").</p>

<p>Dr. Gibbons, associate director of the Johns Hopkins Urban Health Institute, talked about the future of technology and health, including a great riff on what he tells doctors who are nervous about patients controlling doctors' access to their electronic medical records: "It is no different from our current situation. If a patient doesn't trust you they are already not telling you certain things."</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>

</feed>