In today’s #HITsm chat, I saw an interesting tweet from Gus Gilbertson (@gusgilbertson) about incorporating various environmental scores into the healthcare analysis we do:
— Gus Gilbertson (@gusgilbertson) September 4, 2015
Which I retweeted with a question:
— EMR, EHR and HIT (@ehrandhit) September 4, 2015
In another tweet (which I can’t seem to find), someone else suggested that every patient should have a health score as well. I think it’s interesting that Gus compared these scores to the FICO score that we each have. Would it make sense for every patient to have their own FICO like health score?
My question above was sincere: Would a score be enough to do any good?
My feeling is that the answer to that is no. Unless of course we were given a whole range of scores as opposed to one overall health score. For example, maybe we’re given a diabetes score and a cholesterol score and a heart disease score, etc. If we were actually treating a healthy patient and trying to keep them healthy, then having these scores could help a doctor focus on the things that were most at risk for a patient. Plus, the change in score could help the doctor tell a story to the patient which would hopefully encourage the patient to change some behaviors like eating right or exercise.
I’ve seen some related scoring in hospitals already. The Rothman index is one example. As I understand it, that index essentially scores a patient in the hospital on how they’re doing and if that patient’s condition is deteriorating. Could we apply that same principle to a patient’s health status? Even those patients who “feel” healthy?
What’s clear to me is that we have too much data that’s heading doctors way. We need to find some way to present this data and the change in data to the doctor so they can actually use that data for the patient’s benefit. Plus, the data might promote a patient to seek medical care earlier. No doubt all of these changes will transform how we think about medical care. I think that’s a very good thing!