Last year I wrote an article about the concept of the chief experience officer, a person in the organization who is in charge of taking the reigns to assure that the brand experience across the enterprise is both consistent and exceptional. Several organizations have embraced this concept, most notably The Cleveland Clinic. Others have written to me who are evolving this role in their hospitals, although they are not doing so at a C-Suite level. Since then I have spoken about the concept to many organizations. Here is the feedback I've received.
Philosophically, people agree with the concept. They accept the notion that people expect the quality of their healthcare to be good. They expect their doctors to be good. So often it comes down to the perception of the entire experience as a differentiator in choosing a hospital, becoming a loyalist, and spreading positive word of mouth to others.
The problem is not from those who "get it" but from their superiors, the decision makers who often don't understand the importance of the concept. They argue that they are known for their latest technology, the best cancer care, the fastest this, the largest that and so on. And they want to lead with what they believe are their strengths. However, if you promise x, y, and z and people come to you and have a lousy experience it doesn't mean a thing. They probably won't come back and they'll tell ten others not to consider you, too.
There are organizations that will clearly not make this a priority until they experience a pain point so great that they can not ignore the fact that no amount of expertise can take the place of a poor experience. To the people working in those organizations who embrace the CEO concept I say adopt it for your own function and if that is still hard to do adopt the principles for yourself and you own career enhancement.
Audit the Touch Points One of the hallmarks of organizations that examine the experience is that they audit every interaction with every audience. What are the points of interaction and what occurs from your perspective? Then ask the intended audience what their expectations are. Where are the gaps? How do you fill them?
OK, so let's apply that to marketing.
Marketing departments produce a lot of what I affectionately call "stuff." I know because I worked as a chief marketing officer in healthcare for more than 16 years. Hospitals seldom test the end product of their marketing efforts--the brochures, the Web sites, the advertisements--before a campaign. When they do, it is more about how people react to the creative as opposed to being moved to action by it.
Start looking at your output in a different light. What happens when a brochure hits the mailbox and is retrieved by the woman of the house? What happens when someone reads the patient blog or administrator blog that you initiated? What is the experience when someone first opens your home page? Looking at the emotional triggers before you fully launch a campaign can help you tweak it before or after launch.
Here is an example. The front page of Oregon's Mid-Columbia Medical Center is nice enough. But when I first saw the site for their cancer services I did a double-take. The images on that page tell a story. They are soothing. They say that this is a place where the patient will experience a different kind of care. Is it any wonder that patients from seven states come here for treatment?
This is what I mean when I say you should create experiences right within your function. There is something emotional happening when someone opens that cancer page. It is not a cold page full of technology images, speaking of features and not once showing a patient. That's what many hospital Web sites look like. It is not surprising that in a Planetree Organization the marketing department would be infused and empowered to offer experiences through what they do. Start looking at what you do in this light. How do you move people?
Let's Talk About You OK, so maybe the organization and your function do not have "experience" high on the list of priorities. But you as an individual can. Just as organizations have brands, so do people. There is a certain image that you project by the way you conduct yourself. And you have "targeted audiences" that you interact with daily.
The brand of a job candidate, for example, is not just the sum of his or her resume and the personal interview. It also includes his or her Internet search results and online presence on social networking sites. All of these add up to an impression.
Have you audited your own personal touch points? With whom do you interact? What is the experience like? How do people feel about it? How can you improve upon these interactions?
Creating an experience does not have to be an enterprise initiative. Starting with each individual then transforming a function can be steps that slowly change a culture resistant to the concept and philosophy of the chief experience officer to one that will consider it--and then, perhaps, embrace it.
Anthony Cirillo, FACHE, ABC is president of Fast Forward Strategic Planning and Marketing Consulting, LLC in Huntersville, NC. He may be reached at cirillo@4wardfast.com.
What many Americans (both inside and outside the system) don't recognize is how the healthcare industry is completely unique. Only in healthcare do capable, well-intentioned individuals, groups, government entities and corporate organizations attempt to introduce major change without actively involving the industry participants, particularly practicing physicians, who are the pivotal players in the system.
John Smale was an auto industry outsider, but he actually went to work for GM rather than starting his own not-for-profit, foundation or private corporation dedicated to "implementing automobile industry change and improving the driving experience." By working within the system, Smale's unrelated consumer products experience could be tempered with the realities of the auto industry resulting in workable solutions. Steve Case, et al, all of whom I admire, to my knowledge are not employed or seeking employment in the healthcare system, but instead are trying to lead the introduction of major technological change from the outside into an industry that is not well-positioned to implement the technology nor equipped to pay for it.
The federal government is guilty of the same behavior, and in addition, they have the big hammer. I met with Bill Frist's healthcare staff when he was the Senate majority leader, and it was clear to me that the government's agenda was to introduce its brand of technology into healthcare, to dictate its own standards and schedules, all with a "like-it-or-not" approach to physicians and healthcare providers, and even insurers. Do it our way or feel the impact of the hammer!
Imagine the federal government dictating to the auto industry not only what standards the companies had to meet, but the methods and technologies they had to use to meet them. Then telling the banks and finance companies how the cars were to be financed and the standards they had to meet and how they were to meet them. And finally, that all participants had to be linked together with a real-time information system operating under federal government standards and regulation in order to share information freely, but protecting the privacy of that information with severe penalties.
There is no question that the healthcare system can be improved, particularly with the application of information technology. But there are very good reasons for the industry not having done so. At the head of the list is the cacophony of government regulation imposed on healthcare, followed closely by the simple lack of available capital. Both can be solved by dramatically reducing government regulation and making capital for system innovation more readily available to physicians, hospitals, and other system providers.
Healthcare is really calling out for an opportunity to solve its problems using the same basic solution afforded other American industries--free market economics. The leaders of the technology, auto, banking and other industries are readily identifiable and take responsibility to introduce innovation and change. They are economically rewarded when they are right and penalized when they are wrong. Where the healthcare industry has lagged, particularly in the case of physicians, is in providing the leadership to take responsibility for evolving the industry.
Again, there are very good reasons why physician leaders have not emerged. Physicians are largely economically rewarded and penalized the same whether or not they innovate, introduce technology or drive major change. They get paid to provide services to patients, and the rewards for investing in innovation, including costly technology, are meager (for example, a 2 percent discount on a malpractice premium). And the penalties for not providing exactly the right patient services in the right way at the right time? Loss of career, reputation and financial security. How would we all handle that dilemma?
It is easy to find fault in the healthcare system, but the responsibility must be shared by all participants inside and outside the system. The right solutions will come from within the healthcare system with active physician participation and leadership, and I would encourage Case, Schmidt, Leavitt and any senator to join the healthcare system; get a feel for it; take a management job in a major hospital, clinic or integrated healthcare delivery system; understand the industry's regulation and economics; see the every-day challenges physicians face, first-hand; and then work with the physicians to bring about positive, constructive change, including but not limited to technology, that is appropriate and manageable and fully supports better patient health and disorder management.
The healthcare industry can well use the additional management and capital resources, and it will respond with market-driven solutions that will benefit us all. Guaranteed.
Buried in the blizzard of year-end holiday distractions was an announcement from Aetna that could prove, in hindsight, to be one of those watershed events. Just before Christmas (probably the least effective time to put out a press release), the insurance giant said it will pay for Web visit consultations to physicians in more than 30 specialties. Aetna has hooked up with RelayHealth, an online connectivity vendor that was acquired by another giant, McKesson, in June 2006.
A handful of physicians have been using the Relay technology, which enables secure messaging between physicians and patients. For non-urgent matters, this can be a real convenience for patients no doubt. How many times have you gone to the doctor, only to forget to ask a question? Or how many times have you had to skip work for a visit to resolve what proved to be a minor issue? In this column, I have publicly pined for such interactive capability with my own physician.
But despite the advantages for us patients, unless physicians can be paid for such visits and services, what good does the technology do them? I have interviewed many physicians who have put in EMR technology. Some have even opened up their scheduling system and clinical records to their patients, who can access their own chart electronically. But when the discussion shifts to online consultations, or so-called "e-visits," the tone changes. Physicians invariably say the same thing: Until there's payer support, we have no incentive.
Well now, at least for Aetna patients, that is starting to change. That's not to say this technology will spread like wildfire. Patients continue to have misgivings about the security of sharing health data online, as several recent surveys have attested. And physicians will have to, in the words of the management consultants, "reengineer their workflows" to make it happen.
I'm not one to make predictions. But I think that connectivity services that pull patients and providers together can only go up. This is, after all, a service industry. And the one-on-one relationships between consumers and providers comprise the cornerstone.
Baptist Health System has named Keith Parrott as president of Princeton Baptist Medical Center in Birmingham, AL. Expanding the hospital itself will be a top priority for the new president. The expansion plans should be completed in 2008 and almost certainly will include adding more operating rooms.
Kansas City, MO-based Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics is trying to become one of the best children's hospitals in the world--and pediatric research is part of the prescription for getting there. Funding for research at Children's Mercy has nearly doubled since the start of this decade, and the hospital is widely known for pediatric pharmacology research.
Lawyers representing uninsured and underinsured South Carolina hospital patients hope to convince the state's Supreme Court that their clients were routinely denied discounts offered to the insured through 2004. The discounts can shave 50 percent or more off a typical hospital bill, thanks to a little-known loophole that at the time required hospitals to offer anyone the best rate possible if their bills are paid within seven days of being treated. The hospitals' lawyers say the loophole is being misinterpreted.
Surgeons at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill are using electromagnetic seeds to make landmarks in lungs to help them perform more accurate biopsies for patients facing cancer. The system begins with the patient having a special CT scan that is used to create a 3-D map of the lungs. The map is used to chart the quickest route to nodules in the lungs, while electromagnetic seeds are placed to mark the way.
A commission appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said California needed to immediately set aside $1.2 billion to pay for lifetime healthcare promised to state employees. The panel said the commitments made to retirees were so large they would overwhelm the budget if money to cover them was not set aside now.
A group of healthcare, labor and civil rights activists will start a petition drive to put a universal healthcare proposal before before Michigan voters.
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare has acquired, for an undisclosed sum, a diagnostic imaging center known for providing MRIs to Chicago sports teams Evanston Northwestern operates three hospitals in the north Chicago suburbs. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.