Vitals raises $22 million to add staff, health insurance decision-support tools to doctor appointment and ratings website to satisfy consumer demand for healthcare price transparency
Vitals currently serves as a doctors review website and soon will help patients in the US to get through their health insurance journal.
I took the opportunity to check some of the doctors I visited myself in the US for their reviews in Vitalis. To make it short: If you get good reviews, you’r off great, with many stars blinking into the potential patients eyes. But if there is only one or two patients who weren’t happy with you, it looks bad, as the dominating star rating immediately downgrades you.
So how to handle such rating systems that they stay objective? What about just showing star rating after a doctor got e.g. 10 written reviews? What about fine tuning, e.g. separating organizational issues (waiting times) from medical issues?
Doctors rating will come more and more in Europe too, so maybe it’s time to think about a system more elaborate than Amazon-like stars.
See on medcitynews.com
Today we discuss the dissemination of research results, clinical trials, and other oncology news using social media, as well as what type of media oncologists use, how useful and relevant this type of information is for most oncologists, and where oncologists can plug into information and communication sources.
We speak with Michael A. Thompson, MD, PhD, who was the medical director of cancer research at ProHealth Care Regional Cancer Center, in Wisconsin, and clinical trials lead investigator of the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program. Dr. Thompson has a blog over on ASCO Connection, a professional networking site for communication within the worldwide oncology community, and he is active on Twitter. You can find his tweets at the Twitter handle, which is the same as a username, @mtmdphd.
A very insightful interview with one of the leading onoclogists on Twitter and other social networks. Read it to understand what’s evolving on social media for oncologists and how to get into it.
See on member.ubmmedica.com
An iPhone and iPad app that offers oncologists a full range of clinical decision support tools has become the latest mobile application to be classified as a medical device.
OncoAssist is designed to save oncologists time by providing quick and easy access to prognostic tools that can help with decisions on risk stratification and clinical trial.
OncoAssist seems to be a very interesting app for oncologists, aggregating a bunch of useful tools from certified sources and seeking approval from authorities. Right now only available (and certified) in the UK and Irland, we are looking forward seeing this app in the Swiss app store. For more information: http://oncoassist.com
For a walkthrough:
See on www.pmlive.com
Smartphone apps that assess moles for skin cancer risk missed threatening moles one-third of the time, say dermatologists who tested some of the apps. The apps could give people a false sense of security about their skin.
Ferris and her colleagues used photos of 188 moles, 60 of which were confirmed as melanoma, to test four find-the-skin-cancer apps: three that do instant in-phone diagnosis, and one that ships the mole mug shots to a real live dermatologist for review.
The dermatologists correctly identified the suspicious moles 98 percent of the time. But the apps that relied on algorithms were much less reliable, missing the melanoma 30 percent of the time.
“One app would pick up a certain melanoma, and it would be missed by another,” Ferris tells Shots. And it wasn’t like they were going out of their way to stump the app. “These are melanomas that I could show to an untrained person and they’d go, ‘That looks bad’“.
With pattern recognition known as one of the things humans overrule computers by far, the outcome of this study actually does not suprise too much. But again an example how important it is that apps get reviewed and tested.
See on www.npr.org
The survey asked how interested the respondents were in communicating with healthcare providers or obtaining diagnostic tests through a smartphone or tablet […]
Some 43 percent of respondents were interested in asking doctors questions, another 45 percent were interested in booking appointments, while 42 percent were interested in checking the effects and side effects of a medicine. While the percentage differences between the age groups didn’t vary much, people over the age of 65 were less interested than other age groups. Of the healthcare services listed, the patients were least interested in getting reminders to participate in programs for exercise, diet, weight loss and other wellness programs.
About 30% of respondents of the questionnaire like to interact with their physician online and would approve of tools allowing to do so easily. Unfortunately, the article does not state which percentage of total American adults online those respondents represented. Still, an app supporting patient/physician interactions can definitively improve communication, which is especially important with diseases as complex as cancer, enhancing patients trust in doctors and medications.
See on mobihealthnews.com
See on Scoop.it – oncoTools
The amount of clinical data available in oncology has increased exponentially over the last several years –the number of cancer-related journal articles posted to PubMed has increased 349% since 1999. It should be no surprise that the number of cancer-related conversations has exploded in similar fashion. As those cancer-specific conversations continue to grow, it’s important to take a closer look at the physicians who are driving them. That desire to understand physicians’ online activity led to the publication of the MDigitalLife Social Oncology Project 2013.
Another important learning was that, increasingly, there isn’t just one cancer conversation – there are distinct and recognizable conversations happening now about dozens of different cancer varieties – each with its own participants, preferred channels, media coverage, and physician influencers. As we looked at physicians who were engaging in cancer conversations, we were pleased to see that not only is their number increasing, but also that their conversations are becoming increasingly more robust and sophisticated.
But what’s more interesting (and, we believe, valuable) is to know which physicians are discussed most actively by their physician peers.
And while it would be a mistake to accept the number of peer-mentions as a 1×1 proxy for influence, when physicians cite and engage with each other online, it is a strong indicator that the mentioned physician is either a) consistently engaged in creating and sharing strong, credible content online, and/or b) exceptionally well networked with a peer group that has formed around a specific topic area.
Separate infographics will be posted this week covering breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer and lung cancer at w.cg/tsop13.
Being a KOL in the time of social media, discussing with 140 characters.
So what is discussed? In an older article of KevinMD (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/10/physician-twitter-examining-data.html), we found that paragraph:
What’s more interesting, of course, is the substance of their tweets. We examined a sample of tweets related to 3 therapeutic areas: diabetes, breast cancer and prostate cancer.
It was also interesting to note that prostate cancer was as widely discussed as it was … 70% of specialties mentioned it in their tweets. Much of the volume there was driven by this summer’s controversy about the validity of the PSA test as a means of lowering morbidity; In fact, 43% of the tweets about prostate cancer between May and September were related to this specific issue.
Relatris will definitively starting to follow what’s going on on Twitter and examine, if it’s a US phenomenon or if there are any European oncologists out there (in this project, only US physicians were included).
See on www.kevinmd.com