Healthcare information technology affects all players in medicine and healthcare, but the term creates confusion — MDs feel that’s the CMOs job; Patients aren’t clear if they’re included …. it’s a mess. We can change that !
Physicians, healthcare providers, patients, CMOS, developers, HIMMS, etc…
All of you…. your input is critical… your relevlance, sustainability, outreach and ability to scale may depend on it~!
Your thoughts are most welcome !
It seems that IE 7 and some others are having issues with being able to scroll down the embedded survey. Here is a link to the survey that should eliminate that issue!
Thanks for taking the time.
Andrew Spong says
Not sure if this embedded properly in your post (no submit button in Chrome!), so submitting my observation in the final free text field as a comment:
Howard, this is the same issue that we face when looking for novel/more effective methods of describing ‘epatients’, ‘mhealth’ etc.
Early adopters want to distinguish their activities from traditional usages. By adding prefixes. Sometimes these stick and become commonplace, at which point they lose their relevance.
As the emergent narrative becomes the dominant one…
epatients should simply be described as patients again (as participatory medicine paradigm becomes mainstream)
mhealth should just be described as health (as mobile use/interventions proliferate)
HIT should just be health. All of the aspects of HIT we wish to consider in isolation are a) facets of converging technology-driven healthcare innovations, and b) of less value considered in isolation than as part of the complex whole they collectively signify. In fact, *trying* to consider — for example — the EMR in isolation is a non-sequitur when viewed objectively.