Discussions

profilecadvad

I have to respond to the following statements of my classmates. Please provide 100-150 words to each statement with a reference to each.

 

 

 

As described by John Trader, the transparency of real time communication regarding the healthcare institution and industry and have a positive impact on institution and physicians while building trust throughout the community (Trader, 2014).  That is the simple answer to a changing culture within the US.  Many times the primary means of communication is through social media or other technology based sites.  Posting things that are positive about the physician, staff, or experience on that particular day or encounter and build trust and awareness with other members of the community that wouldn't otherwise obtain that information.  The days of the news and newspapers have decreased because of the convenience of social media and being able to write and distribute easily.  It is important to know the audience and community that is using this information to not only send things out for the institution itself yet receive praise and feedback on the care and services provided.  The social media sites can be used as a two way avenue with the facility providing information along with the patients regarding care, services, and outcomes.  It is a great way to brag and obtain customers with easy access and availability on the road, at work, or leisure times.

 

 

 

In addition to traditional media methods, it  is extremely important to use social media in reaching out to health care consumers. The reason being is that now days technology is a huge demand. There are more people than not on at least one social media. Facebook and twitter are among the many sites of social media. It seems to me that social media is a huge part of people's lives and it would be very beneficial to use social media to reach out to health care consumers. I agree with Jess that social media can be positive and negative in regards to results. I think that one negative would be the negative feedback without knowledge or reason. One this that I notice about social media is that people say what they want to say without reason or rhyme. Many times you see rants that can affect the opinions of others. The good thing about social media is it is fast and reaches so many people at the blink of an eye. Social media grabs that the attention of the public and makes an everlasting impression. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the situation at hand.

 

 

 

Social media is a great way to interact with health care consumers. Social media sees thousands of advertisements a day; therefore, this is a great way to unleash information to the patients. The social media is becoming the fastest way to advertise goods or services. Through Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Pintrest, and many other social media outlets consumers go crazy over advertisement and news articles. Majority of these social media outlets mainly consist of some form of advertisement; these sites are pushing merchandise, games, news, health care services, and many other products. According to Trader, (2013) "Real time social media communications platforms that allow open and honest dialogue presents a wealth of opportunities for the industry to capitalize on positive patient sentiment and build a trusted support community to actively engage with" (Social media and healthcare: Navigating the new communications landscape, para 1). By spreading the good word of health care products and services on social media sites the industry is profiting without spending any money. This is a free service and helps spread information at a rapid pace; therefore allowing the information to spread like wildfire.

 

 

 

I will certainly not disagree that releasing quality data can be a hard path to commute.  We have to ask ourselves what we are afraid of in the health care industry.  Why have we for so long kept ourselves behind closed doors, and not allowed the community to see how we provide health care.  It begins some time ago, when individuals viewed health care providers as "they can do no wrong"  in the 1940's physicians enjoyed a social class similar to royalty.  As we fast forward to new generations and a different society make up, we are quickly understanding that health care providers are human and can make mistakes. Up until the 1970's we had laws in place that protected the negligence and poor practice of health care providers, and inhibited the use of background checks.  Back to the question as to "why" unfortunately we operate in a quality industry as do many other areas of our society.  The use of quality indicators should not be viewed as a negative issue, but should be viewed as an area to become better.  Quality indicators and competitive nature can be used hand and hand, and make facilities strive to be better based on competition.  Who doesn't want to be the best at what they do, and organizations such as the Mayo Clinic, and MD Anderson have established the practice of creating high quality medicine that has increased their market share.  A simple comparison is looking at quality outcomes with sport team records, we all know who is the better team and in most cases we know why they are have a better record.

 

 

 

The information is a fundamental right, and the general public is who's paying to support the health care organizations, and customer has the right to know the performance and the quality of health care services delivered by a particular provider. The classical example is when an individual wants to buy a car; he goes to the car dealer and walk through the dealer inventory and makes comparisons, then selecting the quality, price, color, and model of the car, which best fits his needs. When providers make publicly the results of their outcomes, number one it gives a good impression to the customer, make him more confident in selecting this particular health care institution as his personal or family health care provided because he observes that the institution it's been transparent and honest, making publicly its outcomes results. Of course the data analysis is not easy to interpret, but the institution should study and simplify methods of how deliver this kind of information in publicly way. The Joint Commission considers that when data is placed in the public domain, both the floor and the ceiling improve. When this kind of information is posted to be analyzed by the public or customers, the health care institution shows that is a social responsible, and that represents a compromise with the institution itself in having a continue quality improvement programs, and try to be ahead of other institutions in quality of health care services provided.

 

 

 

 It does serve the general public to have outcome data posted publicly, even if they do not have an understanding of the data. Most if not all of the medical data posted is meant for the health providers who make decisions, as well as policy makers, clinical leaders, managers, researchers and patient groups. This information is normally free and provides a basis for decision-makers to use this data to be informed and better equipped to provide better care to the patients. "It tests current theory that the public release of performance data can increase the accountably of healthcare providers and motivate organizational quality improvement activities" (Berenson, Pronovost & Krumholz, 2013, para. 2).

 

 

Transparency and disclosure are two terms that have been broadcast over the airwaves within the last four years in diverse arenas such as politics, education, and health care. The release of information means the same thing in all three arenas, to inform the public to allow them a better opportunity to form an opinion. In health care the release of data is targeted at transparency to allow the consumer adequate information to act from a basis of knowledge in evaluating health providers and the services they provide. "Without measurement and transparency, clinicians, institutions, patients, and society cannot readily evaluate the value being achieved in the health care system" (Berenson, Pronovost & Krumholz, 2013, para. 2).

    • 9 years ago
    • 5
    Answer(1)

    Purchase the answer to view it

    blurred-text
    NOT RATED
    • attachment
      healthcare_discussions.doc