Skip to content Skip to navigation

Is Your Organization Getting the Right Facilitators for Patient Engagement Out There? Piercing the Fog on the Way Forward

July 15, 2016
| Reprints
An instant audience poll uncovered some of the challenges facing patient engagement efforts

The results of an instant audience poll on Wednesday of the audience at the Health IT Summit in Denver, sponsored by the Institute for Health Technology Transformation (iHT2, a sister organization to Healthcare Informatics under the Vendome Group umbrella), were revealing.

During the panel discussion, “Developing a Path to Patient & Consumer Engagement,” panelists asked the audience the following question: “Who is engaged in patient engagement at your organization?” Thanks to smartphone technology, audience members were able to participate in that instant poll, with the following results: 18 percent said, “Marketing”; 6 percent said, “Nursing Services”; 24 percent said, “Information Services”; and 53 percent responded, “Unique Collaboration” (meaning, a more customized approach that didn’t fit into the other categories).

Now, of course, the question could have been interpreted a few different ways, as is typical in polling situations. But how I interpreted it was this: who from your patient care organization is strategizing around patient engagement, and who is executing that strategy? (And that interpretation itself could reflect different levels of activity, and different understandings of what patient engagement looks like, of course.)

The results I’ve just referenced reflect what appears to me to be a broad set of issues and challenges in the U.S. healthcare system right now. On the one hand, the concept of patient engagement is one that’s being talked about more than ever, and indeed, a very large plurality, at least, of patient care organizations nationwide are trying to do something in this important area. And that is very good. On the other hand, in the absence of any practical, applied definition of “patient engagement,” as well as a lack of templates for action, things to be very clouded indeed. Is it patient engagement when a physician’s office tries to intensify its patient education on the individual patient level? Is it patient engagement when patients are encouraged to participate in their patient health records (PHRs)? Is it patient engagement when patients are encouraged to join social support networks, either online or in person?

And, per the instant poll conducted during the patient engagement session on Wednesday in Denver, who should be developing and executing such activities? The results of that instant poll speak to one of the core challenges, it seems: that there is no obvious, automatic locus for the strategizing, direction, or execution of patient engagement activities, either in medical groups, or at the hospital or health system level. Is patient engagement work the responsibility of the individual physician office? Of the case management nurses in the inpatient hospital? Of the marketing department? IT? One can easily see how the capabilities and involvement needed to execute on this important concept are ones that are difficult to bring together across the heavily balkanized operational silos of patient care organizations.

Ideally, as the leaders of patient care organizations move forward in developing accountable care organizations (ACOs), population health management, and care management strategies, that they will find in each organization the right locus for strategy, development, and execution around patient engagement.

One of the core problems that members of the patient engagement panel mentioned is one that should be underscored here. As Heather Haugen, Ph.D., health information technology director at the Denver-based UCHealth, put it, “We [as an industry] tend to think tactically about patient engagement, but we really need to think about it strategically.” That is particularly true in the context of another statement she made during the panel discussion Wednesday, which was that “The reason we do patient engagement is that we want to help patients, but we also want certain outcomes.”

Haugen’s point was further amplified during the discussion by fellow panelist Wayne Arvizu, telemedicine administrator in the Evans Army Community Hospital (Fort Carson, Colo.) informatics department, a facility within the Colorado Springs Military Health System. “We want the freedom to empower clinicians and the entire care team,” Arvizu said. “With regard to the clinics within our hospital, there’s been a lower level of satisfaction on the part of patients and higher acuity; but when we look at the office, and the way we empower the staff to communicate and the way families are able to access care in those communities, leads to a dramatic improvement in patient satisfaction within a couple of months. And that happens when we put full communication and a full team into this.”

What’s more, noted Colonel Kathy K. Prue-Owens, chief nursing officer at Evans Army Community Hospital, “Convenience improves both patient satisfaction and military readiness, so that the soldier doesn’t have to go so far” for care, and therefore is in a better position in terms of readiness. What’s more, she notes, “The fact is that our patients are younger people,” and therefore healthcare consumers who need a different kind of connection with their providers.