Jeffrey Benabio, MD

A 35-year-old male with a 5-year-history of a changing mole on his back sends a picture of the lesion to a telemedicine website for advice. The photo reveals a black nodule. The clinician replies, advising the patient that the lesion is benign.

To most dermatologists, the above scenario would occur only in a bizarre nightmare, never in real life. In real life, if the words “black” and “nodule” are used to describe a lesion, they are followed by the verb “biopsy.” Most dermatologists would recognize this as a high-risk growth and recommend additional investigation.

Unfortunately, a recent study of direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine in JAMA Dermatology showed that 21% of the time, the patient was wrongfully reassured that a lesion was benign (JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152[7]:768-75). The study examined how 16 DTC telemedicine websites and apps handled six standardized dermatology cases designed to test the quality of the services. While some provided good care, others missed important diagnoses such as syphilis, eczema herpeticum, and melanoma. If these cases had been actual patients, the consequences for such mistakes could have been dire.

“The services failed to ask simple, relevant questions of patients about their symptoms, leading them to repeatedly miss important diagnoses,” Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and lead author of the study, told the Wall Street Journal.

The study is timely, as telemedicine is accelerating explosively. The low cost of connectivity, viable business models, and changing consumer behaviors are fueling its rocket growth. Startups in digital health and telemedicine have raised over $700 million already this year, indicating that there is more fuel to be burned and more money to be made.

DTC telemedicine describes the model when a patient sends photos directly to a clinician without a prior history with that provider. A teleconsultation, in contrast, is an interaction between two doctors. In DTC, the episode of care is usually isolated from the patient’s record, and the information is not transferred to the primary care physician. Patients pay a fee, which can range from $1.59 to $250.

Advocates of DTC cite its low cost and extraordinary convenience as arguments for its adoption. However, these disconnected visits are notable exceptions to the current trend toward better care coordination and information sharing among providers.

Quality is also a concern. Although consumers were often promised answers from board-certified physicians, the JAMA Dermatology study was unable to verify this in many cases. The researchers also found that nondermatologists, physician extenders, and physicians practicing in India were often the providers, facts that were not obvious to users.

Worse, the study found both the quality of the diagnoses and the recommendations were poor. All the providers missed the cases of syphilis and most missed eczema herpeticum. Risks of prescription medications were not disclosed two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, three services mistakenly advised that a nodular melanoma did not need further treatment. Had these been real patients, such wrongful recommendations could have resulted in deaths.

In an effort to ensure safety and reliability for consumers, the American Telemedicine Association has begun credentialing telemedicine providers. Such credentials are not required, however, and consumers are likely to be unaware of which providers have or have not met this standard. The American Academy of Dermatology addresses DTC teledermatology in its position statement, updated in 2016: “Dermatologists providing direct-to-patient teledermatology must make every effort to collect accurate, complete, and quality clinical information. When appropriate, the dermatologist may wish to contact the primary care providers or other specialists to obtain additional corroborating information.”

Currently, patients remain on their own in choosing telemedicine and other digital health services: caveat emptor. Do they want quality and convenient care? For now, it seems, they must pick only one.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. He is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

A 35-year-old male with a 5-year-history of a changing mole on his back sends a picture of the lesion to a telemedicine website for advice. The photo reveals a black nodule. The clinician replies, advising the patient that the lesion is benign.

To most dermatologists, the above scenario would occur only in a bizarre nightmare, never in real life. In real life, if the words “black” and “nodule” are used to describe a lesion, they are followed by the verb “biopsy.” Most dermatologists would recognize this as a high-risk growth and recommend additional investigation.

Unfortunately, a recent study of direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine in JAMA Dermatology showed that 21% of the time, the patient was wrongfully reassured that a lesion was benign (JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152[7]:768-75). The study examined how 16 DTC telemedicine websites and apps handled six standardized dermatology cases designed to test the quality of the services. While some provided good care, others missed important diagnoses such as syphilis, eczema herpeticum, and melanoma. If these cases had been actual patients, the consequences for such mistakes could have been dire.

“The services failed to ask simple, relevant questions of patients about their symptoms, leading them to repeatedly miss important diagnoses,” Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and lead author of the study, told the Wall Street Journal.

The study is timely, as telemedicine is accelerating explosively. The low cost of connectivity, viable business models, and changing consumer behaviors are fueling its rocket growth. Startups in digital health and telemedicine have raised over $700 million already this year, indicating that there is more fuel to be burned and more money to be made.

DTC telemedicine describes the model when a patient sends photos directly to a clinician without a prior history with that provider. A teleconsultation, in contrast, is an interaction between two doctors. In DTC, the episode of care is usually isolated from the patient’s record, and the information is not transferred to the primary care physician. Patients pay a fee, which can range from $1.59 to $250.

Advocates of DTC cite its low cost and extraordinary convenience as arguments for its adoption. However, these disconnected visits are notable exceptions to the current trend toward better care coordination and information sharing among providers.

Quality is also a concern. Although consumers were often promised answers from board-certified physicians, the JAMA Dermatology study was unable to verify this in many cases. The researchers also found that nondermatologists, physician extenders, and physicians practicing in India were often the providers, facts that were not obvious to users.

Worse, the study found both the quality of the diagnoses and the recommendations were poor. All the providers missed the cases of syphilis and most missed eczema herpeticum. Risks of prescription medications were not disclosed two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, three services mistakenly advised that a nodular melanoma did not need further treatment. Had these been real patients, such wrongful recommendations could have resulted in deaths.

In an effort to ensure safety and reliability for consumers, the American Telemedicine Association has begun credentialing telemedicine providers. Such credentials are not required, however, and consumers are likely to be unaware of which providers have or have not met this standard. The American Academy of Dermatology addresses DTC teledermatology in its position statement, updated in 2016: “Dermatologists providing direct-to-patient teledermatology must make every effort to collect accurate, complete, and quality clinical information. When appropriate, the dermatologist may wish to contact the primary care providers or other specialists to obtain additional corroborating information.”

Currently, patients remain on their own in choosing telemedicine and other digital health services: caveat emptor. Do they want quality and convenient care? For now, it seems, they must pick only one.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. He is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

A 35-year-old male with a 5-year-history of a changing mole on his back sends a picture of the lesion to a telemedicine website for advice. The photo reveals a black nodule. The clinician replies, advising the patient that the lesion is benign.

To most dermatologists, the above scenario would occur only in a bizarre nightmare, never in real life. In real life, if the words “black” and “nodule” are used to describe a lesion, they are followed by the verb “biopsy.” Most dermatologists would recognize this as a high-risk growth and recommend additional investigation.

Unfortunately, a recent study of direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine in JAMA Dermatology showed that 21% of the time, the patient was wrongfully reassured that a lesion was benign (JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152[7]:768-75). The study examined how 16 DTC telemedicine websites and apps handled six standardized dermatology cases designed to test the quality of the services. While some provided good care, others missed important diagnoses such as syphilis, eczema herpeticum, and melanoma. If these cases had been actual patients, the consequences for such mistakes could have been dire.

“The services failed to ask simple, relevant questions of patients about their symptoms, leading them to repeatedly miss important diagnoses,” Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and lead author of the study, told the Wall Street Journal.

The study is timely, as telemedicine is accelerating explosively. The low cost of connectivity, viable business models, and changing consumer behaviors are fueling its rocket growth. Startups in digital health and telemedicine have raised over $700 million already this year, indicating that there is more fuel to be burned and more money to be made.

DTC telemedicine describes the model when a patient sends photos directly to a clinician without a prior history with that provider. A teleconsultation, in contrast, is an interaction between two doctors. In DTC, the episode of care is usually isolated from the patient’s record, and the information is not transferred to the primary care physician. Patients pay a fee, which can range from $1.59 to $250.

Advocates of DTC cite its low cost and extraordinary convenience as arguments for its adoption. However, these disconnected visits are notable exceptions to the current trend toward better care coordination and information sharing among providers.

Quality is also a concern. Although consumers were often promised answers from board-certified physicians, the JAMA Dermatology study was unable to verify this in many cases. The researchers also found that nondermatologists, physician extenders, and physicians practicing in India were often the providers, facts that were not obvious to users.

Worse, the study found both the quality of the diagnoses and the recommendations were poor. All the providers missed the cases of syphilis and most missed eczema herpeticum. Risks of prescription medications were not disclosed two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, three services mistakenly advised that a nodular melanoma did not need further treatment. Had these been real patients, such wrongful recommendations could have resulted in deaths.

In an effort to ensure safety and reliability for consumers, the American Telemedicine Association has begun credentialing telemedicine providers. Such credentials are not required, however, and consumers are likely to be unaware of which providers have or have not met this standard. The American Academy of Dermatology addresses DTC teledermatology in its position statement, updated in 2016: “Dermatologists providing direct-to-patient teledermatology must make every effort to collect accurate, complete, and quality clinical information. When appropriate, the dermatologist may wish to contact the primary care providers or other specialists to obtain additional corroborating information.”

Currently, patients remain on their own in choosing telemedicine and other digital health services: caveat emptor. Do they want quality and convenient care? For now, it seems, they must pick only one.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. He is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

All young physicians are adept at using electronic medical records. Do you agree? If so, you’d be wrong. It’s true that young, so-called “digital-native” physicians have more training and experience using EMRs, compared with those who trained in the days of paper charts. But young physicians are also inexperienced at caring for patients, and using a keyboard adds complexity to an already difficult task. Some struggle with the sheer volume of work that EMRs create, while others wrestle with the intrusive computer in the exam room. The former is a complex problem, and solving it involves improving both system and individual work flows. The latter is one I’ve had great success with when coaching inexperienced doctors.

One of my roles at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, is to coach new physicians to help them perform at their best. In particular, we provide one-on-one help for physicians to optimize the quality of service they provide. More often than not, young physicians benefit from optimizing their work flow as much as from modifying their bedside manner.

Here are five common tips I share with them to improve their service while using EMRs:

• Preview coming attractions. High-quality interactions require that prep work be done before the visit begins. Before seeing your patient, review his or her record to learn about the medical history, particularly any recent important health issues. This is true even if the problem is not related to your specialty. This sends a strong signal to your patient that you know and care about him or her as a person.

• Connect with your patient first, then turn to HealthConnect (our version of the EPIC electronic record). For every patient, every visit, spend the first few minutes giving your undivided attention to them while in the room. Conversely, entering the room and logging on the computer immediately diminishes the quality of the experience for patients.

• Ask permission, not forgiveness. When you must use the EMR to review or to chart, ask permission first. Try something like, “This is important. Do you mind if I start typing some of this to be sure it is captured in your record?” I’ve never seen a patient object if you start typing. If they did, then the time isn’t right for you to go to the EMR, and it would best for you to address their concern first.

• Share the screen. Many patients love to see their chart. It’s like giving them a backstage pass. It’s also a great way to keep them engaged while you talk about their issues. Point things out to them and use it to engage in discussion. The better informed your patients are, the more likely they will evaluate you favorably, and the more likely they are to adhere to your advice.

• Complete diagnoses and write any prescriptions while in the room. This is a wonderful opportunity to engage with your patients on the risks and benefits of what you recommend, to review your specific instructions, and to allow them to see their diagnoses written out. Close with a printed copy of what just transpired. The act of giving something tangible makes the encounter feel complete, while also increasing patients’ retention of key information and their likelihood of following up as directed.

As more young physicians join us in the workforce, we know that it doesn’t matter much if you grew up with Facebook and Snapchat; using EMRs effectively is a learned skill that all of us can improve upon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

All young physicians are adept at using electronic medical records. Do you agree? If so, you’d be wrong. It’s true that young, so-called “digital-native” physicians have more training and experience using EMRs, compared with those who trained in the days of paper charts. But young physicians are also inexperienced at caring for patients, and using a keyboard adds complexity to an already difficult task. Some struggle with the sheer volume of work that EMRs create, while others wrestle with the intrusive computer in the exam room. The former is a complex problem, and solving it involves improving both system and individual work flows. The latter is one I’ve had great success with when coaching inexperienced doctors.

One of my roles at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, is to coach new physicians to help them perform at their best. In particular, we provide one-on-one help for physicians to optimize the quality of service they provide. More often than not, young physicians benefit from optimizing their work flow as much as from modifying their bedside manner.

Here are five common tips I share with them to improve their service while using EMRs:

• Preview coming attractions. High-quality interactions require that prep work be done before the visit begins. Before seeing your patient, review his or her record to learn about the medical history, particularly any recent important health issues. This is true even if the problem is not related to your specialty. This sends a strong signal to your patient that you know and care about him or her as a person.

• Connect with your patient first, then turn to HealthConnect (our version of the EPIC electronic record). For every patient, every visit, spend the first few minutes giving your undivided attention to them while in the room. Conversely, entering the room and logging on the computer immediately diminishes the quality of the experience for patients.

• Ask permission, not forgiveness. When you must use the EMR to review or to chart, ask permission first. Try something like, “This is important. Do you mind if I start typing some of this to be sure it is captured in your record?” I’ve never seen a patient object if you start typing. If they did, then the time isn’t right for you to go to the EMR, and it would best for you to address their concern first.

• Share the screen. Many patients love to see their chart. It’s like giving them a backstage pass. It’s also a great way to keep them engaged while you talk about their issues. Point things out to them and use it to engage in discussion. The better informed your patients are, the more likely they will evaluate you favorably, and the more likely they are to adhere to your advice.

• Complete diagnoses and write any prescriptions while in the room. This is a wonderful opportunity to engage with your patients on the risks and benefits of what you recommend, to review your specific instructions, and to allow them to see their diagnoses written out. Close with a printed copy of what just transpired. The act of giving something tangible makes the encounter feel complete, while also increasing patients’ retention of key information and their likelihood of following up as directed.

As more young physicians join us in the workforce, we know that it doesn’t matter much if you grew up with Facebook and Snapchat; using EMRs effectively is a learned skill that all of us can improve upon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

All young physicians are adept at using electronic medical records. Do you agree? If so, you’d be wrong. It’s true that young, so-called “digital-native” physicians have more training and experience using EMRs, compared with those who trained in the days of paper charts. But young physicians are also inexperienced at caring for patients, and using a keyboard adds complexity to an already difficult task. Some struggle with the sheer volume of work that EMRs create, while others wrestle with the intrusive computer in the exam room. The former is a complex problem, and solving it involves improving both system and individual work flows. The latter is one I’ve had great success with when coaching inexperienced doctors.

One of my roles at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, is to coach new physicians to help them perform at their best. In particular, we provide one-on-one help for physicians to optimize the quality of service they provide. More often than not, young physicians benefit from optimizing their work flow as much as from modifying their bedside manner.

Here are five common tips I share with them to improve their service while using EMRs:

• Preview coming attractions. High-quality interactions require that prep work be done before the visit begins. Before seeing your patient, review his or her record to learn about the medical history, particularly any recent important health issues. This is true even if the problem is not related to your specialty. This sends a strong signal to your patient that you know and care about him or her as a person.

• Connect with your patient first, then turn to HealthConnect (our version of the EPIC electronic record). For every patient, every visit, spend the first few minutes giving your undivided attention to them while in the room. Conversely, entering the room and logging on the computer immediately diminishes the quality of the experience for patients.

• Ask permission, not forgiveness. When you must use the EMR to review or to chart, ask permission first. Try something like, “This is important. Do you mind if I start typing some of this to be sure it is captured in your record?” I’ve never seen a patient object if you start typing. If they did, then the time isn’t right for you to go to the EMR, and it would best for you to address their concern first.

• Share the screen. Many patients love to see their chart. It’s like giving them a backstage pass. It’s also a great way to keep them engaged while you talk about their issues. Point things out to them and use it to engage in discussion. The better informed your patients are, the more likely they will evaluate you favorably, and the more likely they are to adhere to your advice.

• Complete diagnoses and write any prescriptions while in the room. This is a wonderful opportunity to engage with your patients on the risks and benefits of what you recommend, to review your specific instructions, and to allow them to see their diagnoses written out. Close with a printed copy of what just transpired. The act of giving something tangible makes the encounter feel complete, while also increasing patients’ retention of key information and their likelihood of following up as directed.

As more young physicians join us in the workforce, we know that it doesn’t matter much if you grew up with Facebook and Snapchat; using EMRs effectively is a learned skill that all of us can improve upon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

In what might have been a lecture from the early 19th century, CEO of the American Medical Association James Madara gave a fire and brimstone address railing against snake oil hucksters, at the AMA annual meeting. The quacks he attacked, however, are of a 21st century kind: those peddling digital health wares.

Dr. Madara claimed, “Appearing in disguise … are other digital so-called advancements that don’t have an appropriate evidence base, or that just don’t work that well – or that actually impede care, confuse patients, and waste our time. From ineffective electronic health records, to an explosion of direct-to-consumer digital health products, to apps of mixed quality. This is the digital snake oil of the early 21st century.”

Dr. Madara listed telemedicine as an example of “positive” digital products, then spent the bulk of the speech admonishing health app and EMR vendors. “American physicians have become the most expensive data entry workforce on the face of the planet,” he said to resounding applause from his audience of AMA delegates. In what was most likely a reference to Dr. Eric Topol’s work, he criticized, without naming, a book for touting a future where patients order their own labs and treat their own diseases, an ostentatious prediction that Dr. Madara pointed out sells books but fails to resonate with real medicine. There are digital tools that “impede care, confuse patients, and waste our time,” he added. So, is Dr. Madara right? Is all digital medicine just snake oil?

Dr. Madara used his time on the dais to defend doctors and patients. His voice trembled and brow furrowed as he spoke; no doubt many of us feel the same frustration with the practice of medicine today. And digital tools are as fine a scapegoat as any. His snake oil analogy, however, is misleading. While no physician loves his or her EMR, and all physicians wish they could spend more time caring and less time typing, EMRs, unlike snake oil, are not without benefit. From a population health and patient safety perspective, they are as efficacious as any quality evidence-based medicine. The fact that EMRs have increased drudgery and decreased patient time for physicians is an undesirable, but predictable side effect – one that we ought to mitigate as we take a more active role in designing future versions.

As for the innumerate apps, wearables, and websites that promise more health than they deliver, Dr. Madara pointed out: “Only in the fine print [do they] say ‘for entertainment purposes only.’ ” While this is true, these apps aren’t the real problem. There have always been and will always be alternative health products of dubious benefit that patients love. I’m quite sure randomized controlled trials don’t exist for apple cider vinegar cures, but it doesn’t seem to hurt their popularity, or us. Dr. Madara argued that we should be working to leverage, not eliminate, physicians. The real threat here is that we fail to appreciate and to meet our patients’ needs and wants.

We want to spend more time with our patients and believe that a deep doctor-patient relationship is a key factor in good medicine. But a profound connection with their doctor is not always what our modern patients want. The proliferation of $1.99 health apps is not the evidence here; rather, it is the proliferation of retail health clinics and virtual health. On-demand telephone and video appointments are exploding in popularity. This type of growth cannot be from slick sales pitches; rather, the growth stems from true patient demand.

We have throughout our history stayed close to our patients and adapted to their changing desires. In antiquity, we were spiritual; in the 18th and 19th centuries, we were personal (picture the family doctor arriving in horse and buggy to see the patient, pat the kids on the head, and do little more than listen). In the 20th century, we became scientific, accurate, and effective. Today, patients have added demands for us to be convenient, current, and affordable. For us to meet these changing requirements, we must add digital tools to our black bag. It is up to us to design and deploy them.

I disagree with Dr. Madara when he says that other industries have benefited from digital tools whereas medicine has not. Digital killed Borders and Blockbuster. Digital has saved radiology and rural medicine. Compelling and competing arguments are being made from many industries as to whether digital technology has either decreased or increased U.S. productivity. I am glad this speech has incited so much discussion in health care. We have a lot to talk about.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter.

In what might have been a lecture from the early 19th century, CEO of the American Medical Association James Madara gave a fire and brimstone address railing against snake oil hucksters, at the AMA annual meeting. The quacks he attacked, however, are of a 21st century kind: those peddling digital health wares.

Dr. Madara claimed, “Appearing in disguise … are other digital so-called advancements that don’t have an appropriate evidence base, or that just don’t work that well – or that actually impede care, confuse patients, and waste our time. From ineffective electronic health records, to an explosion of direct-to-consumer digital health products, to apps of mixed quality. This is the digital snake oil of the early 21st century.”

Dr. Madara listed telemedicine as an example of “positive” digital products, then spent the bulk of the speech admonishing health app and EMR vendors. “American physicians have become the most expensive data entry workforce on the face of the planet,” he said to resounding applause from his audience of AMA delegates. In what was most likely a reference to Dr. Eric Topol’s work, he criticized, without naming, a book for touting a future where patients order their own labs and treat their own diseases, an ostentatious prediction that Dr. Madara pointed out sells books but fails to resonate with real medicine. There are digital tools that “impede care, confuse patients, and waste our time,” he added. So, is Dr. Madara right? Is all digital medicine just snake oil?

Dr. Madara used his time on the dais to defend doctors and patients. His voice trembled and brow furrowed as he spoke; no doubt many of us feel the same frustration with the practice of medicine today. And digital tools are as fine a scapegoat as any. His snake oil analogy, however, is misleading. While no physician loves his or her EMR, and all physicians wish they could spend more time caring and less time typing, EMRs, unlike snake oil, are not without benefit. From a population health and patient safety perspective, they are as efficacious as any quality evidence-based medicine. The fact that EMRs have increased drudgery and decreased patient time for physicians is an undesirable, but predictable side effect – one that we ought to mitigate as we take a more active role in designing future versions.

As for the innumerate apps, wearables, and websites that promise more health than they deliver, Dr. Madara pointed out: “Only in the fine print [do they] say ‘for entertainment purposes only.’ ” While this is true, these apps aren’t the real problem. There have always been and will always be alternative health products of dubious benefit that patients love. I’m quite sure randomized controlled trials don’t exist for apple cider vinegar cures, but it doesn’t seem to hurt their popularity, or us. Dr. Madara argued that we should be working to leverage, not eliminate, physicians. The real threat here is that we fail to appreciate and to meet our patients’ needs and wants.

We want to spend more time with our patients and believe that a deep doctor-patient relationship is a key factor in good medicine. But a profound connection with their doctor is not always what our modern patients want. The proliferation of $1.99 health apps is not the evidence here; rather, it is the proliferation of retail health clinics and virtual health. On-demand telephone and video appointments are exploding in popularity. This type of growth cannot be from slick sales pitches; rather, the growth stems from true patient demand.

We have throughout our history stayed close to our patients and adapted to their changing desires. In antiquity, we were spiritual; in the 18th and 19th centuries, we were personal (picture the family doctor arriving in horse and buggy to see the patient, pat the kids on the head, and do little more than listen). In the 20th century, we became scientific, accurate, and effective. Today, patients have added demands for us to be convenient, current, and affordable. For us to meet these changing requirements, we must add digital tools to our black bag. It is up to us to design and deploy them.

I disagree with Dr. Madara when he says that other industries have benefited from digital tools whereas medicine has not. Digital killed Borders and Blockbuster. Digital has saved radiology and rural medicine. Compelling and competing arguments are being made from many industries as to whether digital technology has either decreased or increased U.S. productivity. I am glad this speech has incited so much discussion in health care. We have a lot to talk about.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter.

In what might have been a lecture from the early 19th century, CEO of the American Medical Association James Madara gave a fire and brimstone address railing against snake oil hucksters, at the AMA annual meeting. The quacks he attacked, however, are of a 21st century kind: those peddling digital health wares.

Dr. Madara claimed, “Appearing in disguise … are other digital so-called advancements that don’t have an appropriate evidence base, or that just don’t work that well – or that actually impede care, confuse patients, and waste our time. From ineffective electronic health records, to an explosion of direct-to-consumer digital health products, to apps of mixed quality. This is the digital snake oil of the early 21st century.”

Dr. Madara listed telemedicine as an example of “positive” digital products, then spent the bulk of the speech admonishing health app and EMR vendors. “American physicians have become the most expensive data entry workforce on the face of the planet,” he said to resounding applause from his audience of AMA delegates. In what was most likely a reference to Dr. Eric Topol’s work, he criticized, without naming, a book for touting a future where patients order their own labs and treat their own diseases, an ostentatious prediction that Dr. Madara pointed out sells books but fails to resonate with real medicine. There are digital tools that “impede care, confuse patients, and waste our time,” he added. So, is Dr. Madara right? Is all digital medicine just snake oil?

Dr. Madara used his time on the dais to defend doctors and patients. His voice trembled and brow furrowed as he spoke; no doubt many of us feel the same frustration with the practice of medicine today. And digital tools are as fine a scapegoat as any. His snake oil analogy, however, is misleading. While no physician loves his or her EMR, and all physicians wish they could spend more time caring and less time typing, EMRs, unlike snake oil, are not without benefit. From a population health and patient safety perspective, they are as efficacious as any quality evidence-based medicine. The fact that EMRs have increased drudgery and decreased patient time for physicians is an undesirable, but predictable side effect – one that we ought to mitigate as we take a more active role in designing future versions.

As for the innumerate apps, wearables, and websites that promise more health than they deliver, Dr. Madara pointed out: “Only in the fine print [do they] say ‘for entertainment purposes only.’ ” While this is true, these apps aren’t the real problem. There have always been and will always be alternative health products of dubious benefit that patients love. I’m quite sure randomized controlled trials don’t exist for apple cider vinegar cures, but it doesn’t seem to hurt their popularity, or us. Dr. Madara argued that we should be working to leverage, not eliminate, physicians. The real threat here is that we fail to appreciate and to meet our patients’ needs and wants.

We want to spend more time with our patients and believe that a deep doctor-patient relationship is a key factor in good medicine. But a profound connection with their doctor is not always what our modern patients want. The proliferation of $1.99 health apps is not the evidence here; rather, it is the proliferation of retail health clinics and virtual health. On-demand telephone and video appointments are exploding in popularity. This type of growth cannot be from slick sales pitches; rather, the growth stems from true patient demand.

We have throughout our history stayed close to our patients and adapted to their changing desires. In antiquity, we were spiritual; in the 18th and 19th centuries, we were personal (picture the family doctor arriving in horse and buggy to see the patient, pat the kids on the head, and do little more than listen). In the 20th century, we became scientific, accurate, and effective. Today, patients have added demands for us to be convenient, current, and affordable. For us to meet these changing requirements, we must add digital tools to our black bag. It is up to us to design and deploy them.

I disagree with Dr. Madara when he says that other industries have benefited from digital tools whereas medicine has not. Digital killed Borders and Blockbuster. Digital has saved radiology and rural medicine. Compelling and competing arguments are being made from many industries as to whether digital technology has either decreased or increased U.S. productivity. I am glad this speech has incited so much discussion in health care. We have a lot to talk about.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter.

Health care is changing. For some, this is cause for celebration: A safer, convenient, more efficient system is upon us. For others, the end is nigh: impossibly demanding patients, crushing bureaucracy, and a once sacred relationship desecrated by invasive technology.

The ascent of digital health technologies is an important driver of health care change, yet its impact is still indeterminate. Any technology that empowers patients as well as physicians will improve patients’ health outcomes. Or so it might seem. The truth is more nuanced: Some services will improve outcomes, others won’t. Fitting Fitbits into our current system is like inserting the wrong key into a lock: It might go in, but it doesn’t open anything. Fortunately, some keys are opening doors to better care – doors that that we’ve never entered – but finding the right ones is laborious. Dr. Joe Kvedar is here to help.

As a physician leader who straddles the gap between physician-centered and consumer-centered health care, Dr. Kvedar has spent his career leveraging technology to improve care delivery for both. In his new book, “The Internet of Healthy Things,” he shares what he has learned. He uses numerous examples from his experience as a physician and pioneer in digital health care with Partners HealthCare, Boston, delving deeply into the business of health care and the behavioral habits of patients.

As he notes, Partners was “prescient” in the health care landscape, introducing video conferencing in the 1990s, second opinions on the Internet in 2001, and texting as a tool for health messaging in 2008. He asks now: “What are the connected health devices and applications that our clinicians will be using in 5-10 years?” Then he uses his acumen and research to answer his own question. The ensuing chapters are more prescriptive than predictive, however. None of us knows where health care will be in 10 years, but we should think about where it ought to be.

Whether you chart on an Apple Watch or on paper, this discussion is important to you. Physicians are key players in determining where and how medicine is practiced, and we need to understand relevant risks and benefits to make the right decisions.

Confusing the matter is that desired outcomes are not absolute but relative. It depends on the frame of reference. Patients measure outcomes with service, payers with cost, and we physicians with quality. Which measurement is correct? How can we know if a remote monitoring device is worthwhile if we can’t agree on what it delivers? Is it simply sending home “the sicker even quicker?” Does a Big Pharma beyond-the-pill app really only increase consumption of the costliest medications or create more affordable alternatives?

Technologies that increase access to services such as live chat, messaging, and monitoring may be preferred by patients, but physicians see them as piling on to backbreaking loads. More artificial intelligence is needed to enable these services without requiring physician work. We need driverless health care.

Keeping patients involved has a whole other set of requirements. The tools must be easy, the information personal, the data actionable, and its use Candy-Crush-Saga addictive. This is no small feat, but there is hope.

Partner’s Text 2 Move program, which Dr. Kvedar describes as the “gold standard of what learning about your consumer means,” showed that highly personalized, targeted text messages could have a significant impact on patients’ behavior and health. It is just this type of technology that many are relentlessly pursuing to deliver care more effectively.

Dr. Kvedar devotes significant attention to the patient/consumer experience in a thoughtful, complex manner. Rather than elevate or denigrate the rise of the engaged patient, he examines this phenomenon through several lenses, addressing equally the concerns of practicing physicians and health care entrepreneurs. Nearly 20 years ago, Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School, Boston, predicted the rise of health care consumerism. Retail clinics, direct-to-consumer services, and the “Yelpification” of health care are signals that we’ve arrived.

It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future, Yogi Berra warned us. The book’s mention of Theranos, the failing pinprick blood lab company founded by celebrity Stanford student Elizabeth Holmes, is an example of how risky it is to place bets on where we are headed and how quickly we will get there. DIY at-home labs are further off than they appeared, and that is the hazard of any such books: it is difficult to see more than what’s just in front of us.

Ultimately, Dr. Kvedar’s message is as realistic as it is optimistic: “The same information that could help drive healthcare costs down can be used to create highly individualized programs that will help people stay healthier and happier.” But we should resist the urge to ask “Are we there yet?” No. We’ve a ways to go.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Health care is changing. For some, this is cause for celebration: A safer, convenient, more efficient system is upon us. For others, the end is nigh: impossibly demanding patients, crushing bureaucracy, and a once sacred relationship desecrated by invasive technology.

The ascent of digital health technologies is an important driver of health care change, yet its impact is still indeterminate. Any technology that empowers patients as well as physicians will improve patients’ health outcomes. Or so it might seem. The truth is more nuanced: Some services will improve outcomes, others won’t. Fitting Fitbits into our current system is like inserting the wrong key into a lock: It might go in, but it doesn’t open anything. Fortunately, some keys are opening doors to better care – doors that that we’ve never entered – but finding the right ones is laborious. Dr. Joe Kvedar is here to help.

As a physician leader who straddles the gap between physician-centered and consumer-centered health care, Dr. Kvedar has spent his career leveraging technology to improve care delivery for both. In his new book, “The Internet of Healthy Things,” he shares what he has learned. He uses numerous examples from his experience as a physician and pioneer in digital health care with Partners HealthCare, Boston, delving deeply into the business of health care and the behavioral habits of patients.

As he notes, Partners was “prescient” in the health care landscape, introducing video conferencing in the 1990s, second opinions on the Internet in 2001, and texting as a tool for health messaging in 2008. He asks now: “What are the connected health devices and applications that our clinicians will be using in 5-10 years?” Then he uses his acumen and research to answer his own question. The ensuing chapters are more prescriptive than predictive, however. None of us knows where health care will be in 10 years, but we should think about where it ought to be.

Whether you chart on an Apple Watch or on paper, this discussion is important to you. Physicians are key players in determining where and how medicine is practiced, and we need to understand relevant risks and benefits to make the right decisions.

Confusing the matter is that desired outcomes are not absolute but relative. It depends on the frame of reference. Patients measure outcomes with service, payers with cost, and we physicians with quality. Which measurement is correct? How can we know if a remote monitoring device is worthwhile if we can’t agree on what it delivers? Is it simply sending home “the sicker even quicker?” Does a Big Pharma beyond-the-pill app really only increase consumption of the costliest medications or create more affordable alternatives?

Technologies that increase access to services such as live chat, messaging, and monitoring may be preferred by patients, but physicians see them as piling on to backbreaking loads. More artificial intelligence is needed to enable these services without requiring physician work. We need driverless health care.

Keeping patients involved has a whole other set of requirements. The tools must be easy, the information personal, the data actionable, and its use Candy-Crush-Saga addictive. This is no small feat, but there is hope.

Partner’s Text 2 Move program, which Dr. Kvedar describes as the “gold standard of what learning about your consumer means,” showed that highly personalized, targeted text messages could have a significant impact on patients’ behavior and health. It is just this type of technology that many are relentlessly pursuing to deliver care more effectively.

Dr. Kvedar devotes significant attention to the patient/consumer experience in a thoughtful, complex manner. Rather than elevate or denigrate the rise of the engaged patient, he examines this phenomenon through several lenses, addressing equally the concerns of practicing physicians and health care entrepreneurs. Nearly 20 years ago, Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School, Boston, predicted the rise of health care consumerism. Retail clinics, direct-to-consumer services, and the “Yelpification” of health care are signals that we’ve arrived.

It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future, Yogi Berra warned us. The book’s mention of Theranos, the failing pinprick blood lab company founded by celebrity Stanford student Elizabeth Holmes, is an example of how risky it is to place bets on where we are headed and how quickly we will get there. DIY at-home labs are further off than they appeared, and that is the hazard of any such books: it is difficult to see more than what’s just in front of us.

Ultimately, Dr. Kvedar’s message is as realistic as it is optimistic: “The same information that could help drive healthcare costs down can be used to create highly individualized programs that will help people stay healthier and happier.” But we should resist the urge to ask “Are we there yet?” No. We’ve a ways to go.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Health care is changing. For some, this is cause for celebration: A safer, convenient, more efficient system is upon us. For others, the end is nigh: impossibly demanding patients, crushing bureaucracy, and a once sacred relationship desecrated by invasive technology.

The ascent of digital health technologies is an important driver of health care change, yet its impact is still indeterminate. Any technology that empowers patients as well as physicians will improve patients’ health outcomes. Or so it might seem. The truth is more nuanced: Some services will improve outcomes, others won’t. Fitting Fitbits into our current system is like inserting the wrong key into a lock: It might go in, but it doesn’t open anything. Fortunately, some keys are opening doors to better care – doors that that we’ve never entered – but finding the right ones is laborious. Dr. Joe Kvedar is here to help.

As a physician leader who straddles the gap between physician-centered and consumer-centered health care, Dr. Kvedar has spent his career leveraging technology to improve care delivery for both. In his new book, “The Internet of Healthy Things,” he shares what he has learned. He uses numerous examples from his experience as a physician and pioneer in digital health care with Partners HealthCare, Boston, delving deeply into the business of health care and the behavioral habits of patients.

As he notes, Partners was “prescient” in the health care landscape, introducing video conferencing in the 1990s, second opinions on the Internet in 2001, and texting as a tool for health messaging in 2008. He asks now: “What are the connected health devices and applications that our clinicians will be using in 5-10 years?” Then he uses his acumen and research to answer his own question. The ensuing chapters are more prescriptive than predictive, however. None of us knows where health care will be in 10 years, but we should think about where it ought to be.

Whether you chart on an Apple Watch or on paper, this discussion is important to you. Physicians are key players in determining where and how medicine is practiced, and we need to understand relevant risks and benefits to make the right decisions.

Confusing the matter is that desired outcomes are not absolute but relative. It depends on the frame of reference. Patients measure outcomes with service, payers with cost, and we physicians with quality. Which measurement is correct? How can we know if a remote monitoring device is worthwhile if we can’t agree on what it delivers? Is it simply sending home “the sicker even quicker?” Does a Big Pharma beyond-the-pill app really only increase consumption of the costliest medications or create more affordable alternatives?

Technologies that increase access to services such as live chat, messaging, and monitoring may be preferred by patients, but physicians see them as piling on to backbreaking loads. More artificial intelligence is needed to enable these services without requiring physician work. We need driverless health care.

Keeping patients involved has a whole other set of requirements. The tools must be easy, the information personal, the data actionable, and its use Candy-Crush-Saga addictive. This is no small feat, but there is hope.

Partner’s Text 2 Move program, which Dr. Kvedar describes as the “gold standard of what learning about your consumer means,” showed that highly personalized, targeted text messages could have a significant impact on patients’ behavior and health. It is just this type of technology that many are relentlessly pursuing to deliver care more effectively.

Dr. Kvedar devotes significant attention to the patient/consumer experience in a thoughtful, complex manner. Rather than elevate or denigrate the rise of the engaged patient, he examines this phenomenon through several lenses, addressing equally the concerns of practicing physicians and health care entrepreneurs. Nearly 20 years ago, Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School, Boston, predicted the rise of health care consumerism. Retail clinics, direct-to-consumer services, and the “Yelpification” of health care are signals that we’ve arrived.

It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future, Yogi Berra warned us. The book’s mention of Theranos, the failing pinprick blood lab company founded by celebrity Stanford student Elizabeth Holmes, is an example of how risky it is to place bets on where we are headed and how quickly we will get there. DIY at-home labs are further off than they appeared, and that is the hazard of any such books: it is difficult to see more than what’s just in front of us.

Ultimately, Dr. Kvedar’s message is as realistic as it is optimistic: “The same information that could help drive healthcare costs down can be used to create highly individualized programs that will help people stay healthier and happier.” But we should resist the urge to ask “Are we there yet?” No. We’ve a ways to go.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

One of the most valuable things I learned in business school was how to be a better negotiator. Negotiation skills are helpful not only for job contracts, but also for many areas of life. Negotiating with your vendors, employees, health plans, and even spouse or children can be a fruitful experience. Indeed, using good negotiation techniques with your patients can help you optimize the best care with the best service whether in person or virtually.

The three principles I want you to understand are:

1. Negotiate on interests, not positions.

2. Frame or be framed.

3. Win/Win is not only possible; it is the most likely outcome of good negotiating.

Let’s use an example to illustrate each of these: If a patient comes to you asking for Vicodin (hydrocodone and acetaminophen) because you froze actinic keratoses, your first instinct might be to think this patient is a drug seeker and that he is not going to be satisfied unless you give in to his demand. You are a conscientious doctor and never prescribe narcotics for liquid nitrogen treatments. Here, you’ve just locked into a position, and there is no opportunity for negotiation. Instead, take a different approach – consider interests, not positions.

Positions are what you’ve decided. Interests, in contrast, are the reasons why you came to that decision. Think about both your interests and your patient’s interests. The patient wants something to block pain. You want to provide appropriate, safe care. In this instance, ask him why he wants Vicodin; probe about issues that might underlie his request. Keep asking until you feel you understand his interests. This is critical to good negotiation. Then think about your interests. You don’t want your patient to be in pain, and you don’t want to feed a patient’s dependency problem or risk your license for inappropriate drug dispensing.

Second, frame the problem (as you see it) or risk being framed by your patient. Your patient might see you as uncaring and unwilling to help him. You can change this by reframing yourself as the doctor who actually does care. For example, you might say, “I’m concerned about you. Taking Vicodin for this is not normal, and this drug is notorious for leading people into drug dependency. I don’t want to expose you to that risk.” Here, you have taken control of the frame and presented yourself as concerned rather than uncaring.

Third, in almost every negotiation there is an opportunity to expand the pie. That is, each party can offer something that was not in the original discussion but would benefit both. In this instance, you might offer to give the patient samples of a topical treatment for actinic keratoses. The patient, sensing your genuine concern, might offer to bring his mother to you for skin cancer treatment as she, too, is particularly sensitive to pain.

Of course, not all negotiations end in agreement. Sometimes your best option is to reject the request. If your patient is unwilling to compromise, then your best course of action might be to not treat him at all. Before doing so, remember that you will often have a better outcome if you try to reach agreement and that using sound negotiating practice will be a significant advantage. (Please, just don’t tell my wife about this column.)

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

One of the most valuable things I learned in business school was how to be a better negotiator. Negotiation skills are helpful not only for job contracts, but also for many areas of life. Negotiating with your vendors, employees, health plans, and even spouse or children can be a fruitful experience. Indeed, using good negotiation techniques with your patients can help you optimize the best care with the best service whether in person or virtually.

The three principles I want you to understand are:

1. Negotiate on interests, not positions.

2. Frame or be framed.

3. Win/Win is not only possible; it is the most likely outcome of good negotiating.

Let’s use an example to illustrate each of these: If a patient comes to you asking for Vicodin (hydrocodone and acetaminophen) because you froze actinic keratoses, your first instinct might be to think this patient is a drug seeker and that he is not going to be satisfied unless you give in to his demand. You are a conscientious doctor and never prescribe narcotics for liquid nitrogen treatments. Here, you’ve just locked into a position, and there is no opportunity for negotiation. Instead, take a different approach – consider interests, not positions.

Positions are what you’ve decided. Interests, in contrast, are the reasons why you came to that decision. Think about both your interests and your patient’s interests. The patient wants something to block pain. You want to provide appropriate, safe care. In this instance, ask him why he wants Vicodin; probe about issues that might underlie his request. Keep asking until you feel you understand his interests. This is critical to good negotiation. Then think about your interests. You don’t want your patient to be in pain, and you don’t want to feed a patient’s dependency problem or risk your license for inappropriate drug dispensing.

Second, frame the problem (as you see it) or risk being framed by your patient. Your patient might see you as uncaring and unwilling to help him. You can change this by reframing yourself as the doctor who actually does care. For example, you might say, “I’m concerned about you. Taking Vicodin for this is not normal, and this drug is notorious for leading people into drug dependency. I don’t want to expose you to that risk.” Here, you have taken control of the frame and presented yourself as concerned rather than uncaring.

Third, in almost every negotiation there is an opportunity to expand the pie. That is, each party can offer something that was not in the original discussion but would benefit both. In this instance, you might offer to give the patient samples of a topical treatment for actinic keratoses. The patient, sensing your genuine concern, might offer to bring his mother to you for skin cancer treatment as she, too, is particularly sensitive to pain.

Of course, not all negotiations end in agreement. Sometimes your best option is to reject the request. If your patient is unwilling to compromise, then your best course of action might be to not treat him at all. Before doing so, remember that you will often have a better outcome if you try to reach agreement and that using sound negotiating practice will be a significant advantage. (Please, just don’t tell my wife about this column.)

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

One of the most valuable things I learned in business school was how to be a better negotiator. Negotiation skills are helpful not only for job contracts, but also for many areas of life. Negotiating with your vendors, employees, health plans, and even spouse or children can be a fruitful experience. Indeed, using good negotiation techniques with your patients can help you optimize the best care with the best service whether in person or virtually.

The three principles I want you to understand are:

1. Negotiate on interests, not positions.

2. Frame or be framed.

3. Win/Win is not only possible; it is the most likely outcome of good negotiating.

Let’s use an example to illustrate each of these: If a patient comes to you asking for Vicodin (hydrocodone and acetaminophen) because you froze actinic keratoses, your first instinct might be to think this patient is a drug seeker and that he is not going to be satisfied unless you give in to his demand. You are a conscientious doctor and never prescribe narcotics for liquid nitrogen treatments. Here, you’ve just locked into a position, and there is no opportunity for negotiation. Instead, take a different approach – consider interests, not positions.

Positions are what you’ve decided. Interests, in contrast, are the reasons why you came to that decision. Think about both your interests and your patient’s interests. The patient wants something to block pain. You want to provide appropriate, safe care. In this instance, ask him why he wants Vicodin; probe about issues that might underlie his request. Keep asking until you feel you understand his interests. This is critical to good negotiation. Then think about your interests. You don’t want your patient to be in pain, and you don’t want to feed a patient’s dependency problem or risk your license for inappropriate drug dispensing.

Second, frame the problem (as you see it) or risk being framed by your patient. Your patient might see you as uncaring and unwilling to help him. You can change this by reframing yourself as the doctor who actually does care. For example, you might say, “I’m concerned about you. Taking Vicodin for this is not normal, and this drug is notorious for leading people into drug dependency. I don’t want to expose you to that risk.” Here, you have taken control of the frame and presented yourself as concerned rather than uncaring.

Third, in almost every negotiation there is an opportunity to expand the pie. That is, each party can offer something that was not in the original discussion but would benefit both. In this instance, you might offer to give the patient samples of a topical treatment for actinic keratoses. The patient, sensing your genuine concern, might offer to bring his mother to you for skin cancer treatment as she, too, is particularly sensitive to pain.

Of course, not all negotiations end in agreement. Sometimes your best option is to reject the request. If your patient is unwilling to compromise, then your best course of action might be to not treat him at all. Before doing so, remember that you will often have a better outcome if you try to reach agreement and that using sound negotiating practice will be a significant advantage. (Please, just don’t tell my wife about this column.)

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Can’t we just be friends? This is the disquieting question we ask someone when we want to set boundaries. It is meant to define expectation, level of trust and intimacy in a relationship.

We are capable of forming an astonishing variety of relationships with others. We form deep emotional connections with romantic partners, close family, and dear friends. We create more superficial ties with colleagues, distant family, and professionals. Understanding the nature of our relationships is important. There are reasons why professors should not engage in romantic relationships with their students: mixing relationships can lead to confusion and destroy trust. The risk for misunderstanding and harm to one or both parties increases as the intensity of the relationship increases. Can a professor who has a personal relationship with a student be objective? Does the student really want to be kissed or is she feigning interest for a better grade?

The stakes are even higher for us physicians. Forming inappropriate relationships with patients can result in the loss of your medical license. This seems obvious to most of us, but when we examine the appropriateness of other nonprofessional connections, it becomes less clear.

What if you have an intimate but nonsexual relationship with a patient? What about having a family member or close friend as a patient? Most medical ethicists say that any relationship other than the straightforward, professional doctor/patient one is improper. This strict definition exists primarily to protect our patients but also to help us. The highest levels of quality and service can only come from the sterile yet compassionate trust that occurs only in doctor/patient connections.

As a male dermatologist, something as seemingly innocuous as my following a female patient on Instagram puts our professional relationship at risk. If a patient views you as a friend as well as a doctor, would he hesitate to divulge things that are important to his health but inappropriate for a friend to know? Moreover, if I have such knowledge, won’t that impair the trust we share as friends? Such conundrums might hinder your ability to care for your patients and limit the quality of service they receive.

Social media have added many more levels to the already complex ways we can relate to our patients. There are Facebook friends, Snapchat buddies, and Twitter followers. Most of these are diminishingly shallow in terms of the depth and seriousness of the relationship, but they can be misconstrued. In most instances, keep it simple: I’m your doctor. You’re my patient.

When patients ask me to friend them, as they sometime do, I remind them: I’m not your brother or your son. I am not your friend. You pay me to provide a service, yet what I give cannot be bought. I work for you when I’m home. I worry about you when I drive to the office. Someday, I may save your life.

I’m your doctor. No, we cannot be Facebook friends.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Can’t we just be friends? This is the disquieting question we ask someone when we want to set boundaries. It is meant to define expectation, level of trust and intimacy in a relationship.

We are capable of forming an astonishing variety of relationships with others. We form deep emotional connections with romantic partners, close family, and dear friends. We create more superficial ties with colleagues, distant family, and professionals. Understanding the nature of our relationships is important. There are reasons why professors should not engage in romantic relationships with their students: mixing relationships can lead to confusion and destroy trust. The risk for misunderstanding and harm to one or both parties increases as the intensity of the relationship increases. Can a professor who has a personal relationship with a student be objective? Does the student really want to be kissed or is she feigning interest for a better grade?

The stakes are even higher for us physicians. Forming inappropriate relationships with patients can result in the loss of your medical license. This seems obvious to most of us, but when we examine the appropriateness of other nonprofessional connections, it becomes less clear.

What if you have an intimate but nonsexual relationship with a patient? What about having a family member or close friend as a patient? Most medical ethicists say that any relationship other than the straightforward, professional doctor/patient one is improper. This strict definition exists primarily to protect our patients but also to help us. The highest levels of quality and service can only come from the sterile yet compassionate trust that occurs only in doctor/patient connections.

As a male dermatologist, something as seemingly innocuous as my following a female patient on Instagram puts our professional relationship at risk. If a patient views you as a friend as well as a doctor, would he hesitate to divulge things that are important to his health but inappropriate for a friend to know? Moreover, if I have such knowledge, won’t that impair the trust we share as friends? Such conundrums might hinder your ability to care for your patients and limit the quality of service they receive.

Social media have added many more levels to the already complex ways we can relate to our patients. There are Facebook friends, Snapchat buddies, and Twitter followers. Most of these are diminishingly shallow in terms of the depth and seriousness of the relationship, but they can be misconstrued. In most instances, keep it simple: I’m your doctor. You’re my patient.

When patients ask me to friend them, as they sometime do, I remind them: I’m not your brother or your son. I am not your friend. You pay me to provide a service, yet what I give cannot be bought. I work for you when I’m home. I worry about you when I drive to the office. Someday, I may save your life.

I’m your doctor. No, we cannot be Facebook friends.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Can’t we just be friends? This is the disquieting question we ask someone when we want to set boundaries. It is meant to define expectation, level of trust and intimacy in a relationship.

We are capable of forming an astonishing variety of relationships with others. We form deep emotional connections with romantic partners, close family, and dear friends. We create more superficial ties with colleagues, distant family, and professionals. Understanding the nature of our relationships is important. There are reasons why professors should not engage in romantic relationships with their students: mixing relationships can lead to confusion and destroy trust. The risk for misunderstanding and harm to one or both parties increases as the intensity of the relationship increases. Can a professor who has a personal relationship with a student be objective? Does the student really want to be kissed or is she feigning interest for a better grade?

The stakes are even higher for us physicians. Forming inappropriate relationships with patients can result in the loss of your medical license. This seems obvious to most of us, but when we examine the appropriateness of other nonprofessional connections, it becomes less clear.

What if you have an intimate but nonsexual relationship with a patient? What about having a family member or close friend as a patient? Most medical ethicists say that any relationship other than the straightforward, professional doctor/patient one is improper. This strict definition exists primarily to protect our patients but also to help us. The highest levels of quality and service can only come from the sterile yet compassionate trust that occurs only in doctor/patient connections.

As a male dermatologist, something as seemingly innocuous as my following a female patient on Instagram puts our professional relationship at risk. If a patient views you as a friend as well as a doctor, would he hesitate to divulge things that are important to his health but inappropriate for a friend to know? Moreover, if I have such knowledge, won’t that impair the trust we share as friends? Such conundrums might hinder your ability to care for your patients and limit the quality of service they receive.

Social media have added many more levels to the already complex ways we can relate to our patients. There are Facebook friends, Snapchat buddies, and Twitter followers. Most of these are diminishingly shallow in terms of the depth and seriousness of the relationship, but they can be misconstrued. In most instances, keep it simple: I’m your doctor. You’re my patient.

When patients ask me to friend them, as they sometime do, I remind them: I’m not your brother or your son. I am not your friend. You pay me to provide a service, yet what I give cannot be bought. I work for you when I’m home. I worry about you when I drive to the office. Someday, I may save your life.

I’m your doctor. No, we cannot be Facebook friends.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter.

I’m happier doing patient messages these days. That’s because of a little feature that we turned on in EPIC, our electronic medical record. The change doesn’t make me any faster or smarter. It doesn’t make me any more money. It merely adds a sprinkle of meaning to the work I do, and that has made all the difference.

In contrast to the usually glamorous portrayal of physicians’ work, most of our days are mundane. On a typical clinic day I’ll get up to a dozen requests from patients asking for something. Usually it’s just a refill, but several are from patients asking for a earlier appointment, when there are none. Or asking for a stronger treatment, when there aren’t any. Most of these requests are from patients who do not have interesting diagnoses or require sophisticated treatments. They are the itchy, and they remain itchy despite my advice. After a long day of seeing patients, the long list of messages that requires action feels endless, burdensome. Optimizing extenders has made me more efficient, but the work that remains isn’t fulfilling. A subtle change in our EMR has helped, though.

What is different? Our EPIC now includes a photo of each patient. That’s it. Ostensibly, having a photo is a security feature: it allows us to positively identify a patient, thereby reducing the risk that we treat an imposter posing as that patient (a small but real problem with drug seekers).

Why might this matter for physician satisfaction? Because seeing a patient photo brings an actual person to the top of mind. This changes our emotional connection to the work: how we interpret work is all that matters when it comes to job satisfaction. This is why volunteer work is so rewarding, despite having no monetary incentive, and why highly compensated professions, like those of many Wall Street traders, can ultimately fail to be fulfilling.

Tonight, long after the sun has set, I’m still working through messages. The next one, however, is not from any patient with nummular eczema. I see it’s from Mrs. Morales (not her real name), a sweet older woman with a warm smile and rich accent. She teaches water aerobics and she spent 5 minutes describing a typical Puerto Rican dinner (lots of stews) during her last appointment with me. Seeing her smiling face in the top left corner of the chart reminds me that the work I’m doing is for someone I know, someone I care for.

Radiologists have actually studied this phenomenon. Like much of medicine, radiology can be tedious. Researchers devised a simple test to see if making radiology work more human could improve not only the experience for, but also the effectiveness of, doctors. With patients’ consent, they took photos of 300 participants before their films were sent for reading. Radiologists who saw a patient’s photo along with their radiographic studies reported feeling more empathy for their patients. They also reported reading cases with photos more meticulously than those cases without photos. But that’s not all. When the radiologists were later shown the same films but without the patient photos, the doctors were less likely to notice incidental findings in the radiographs. The authors concluded that seeing patient photos made radiologists both more effective and more empathic (ScienceDaily 2008 Dec 14).

So consider adding photos of your patients to your EMR. Then remember to take a second or two to look at them before engaging in the task to be done. You, and your patients, will be better off because of it.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts related to the topic of this column.

I’m happier doing patient messages these days. That’s because of a little feature that we turned on in EPIC, our electronic medical record. The change doesn’t make me any faster or smarter. It doesn’t make me any more money. It merely adds a sprinkle of meaning to the work I do, and that has made all the difference.

In contrast to the usually glamorous portrayal of physicians’ work, most of our days are mundane. On a typical clinic day I’ll get up to a dozen requests from patients asking for something. Usually it’s just a refill, but several are from patients asking for a earlier appointment, when there are none. Or asking for a stronger treatment, when there aren’t any. Most of these requests are from patients who do not have interesting diagnoses or require sophisticated treatments. They are the itchy, and they remain itchy despite my advice. After a long day of seeing patients, the long list of messages that requires action feels endless, burdensome. Optimizing extenders has made me more efficient, but the work that remains isn’t fulfilling. A subtle change in our EMR has helped, though.

What is different? Our EPIC now includes a photo of each patient. That’s it. Ostensibly, having a photo is a security feature: it allows us to positively identify a patient, thereby reducing the risk that we treat an imposter posing as that patient (a small but real problem with drug seekers).

Why might this matter for physician satisfaction? Because seeing a patient photo brings an actual person to the top of mind. This changes our emotional connection to the work: how we interpret work is all that matters when it comes to job satisfaction. This is why volunteer work is so rewarding, despite having no monetary incentive, and why highly compensated professions, like those of many Wall Street traders, can ultimately fail to be fulfilling.

Tonight, long after the sun has set, I’m still working through messages. The next one, however, is not from any patient with nummular eczema. I see it’s from Mrs. Morales (not her real name), a sweet older woman with a warm smile and rich accent. She teaches water aerobics and she spent 5 minutes describing a typical Puerto Rican dinner (lots of stews) during her last appointment with me. Seeing her smiling face in the top left corner of the chart reminds me that the work I’m doing is for someone I know, someone I care for.

Radiologists have actually studied this phenomenon. Like much of medicine, radiology can be tedious. Researchers devised a simple test to see if making radiology work more human could improve not only the experience for, but also the effectiveness of, doctors. With patients’ consent, they took photos of 300 participants before their films were sent for reading. Radiologists who saw a patient’s photo along with their radiographic studies reported feeling more empathy for their patients. They also reported reading cases with photos more meticulously than those cases without photos. But that’s not all. When the radiologists were later shown the same films but without the patient photos, the doctors were less likely to notice incidental findings in the radiographs. The authors concluded that seeing patient photos made radiologists both more effective and more empathic (ScienceDaily 2008 Dec 14).

So consider adding photos of your patients to your EMR. Then remember to take a second or two to look at them before engaging in the task to be done. You, and your patients, will be better off because of it.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts related to the topic of this column.

I’m happier doing patient messages these days. That’s because of a little feature that we turned on in EPIC, our electronic medical record. The change doesn’t make me any faster or smarter. It doesn’t make me any more money. It merely adds a sprinkle of meaning to the work I do, and that has made all the difference.

In contrast to the usually glamorous portrayal of physicians’ work, most of our days are mundane. On a typical clinic day I’ll get up to a dozen requests from patients asking for something. Usually it’s just a refill, but several are from patients asking for a earlier appointment, when there are none. Or asking for a stronger treatment, when there aren’t any. Most of these requests are from patients who do not have interesting diagnoses or require sophisticated treatments. They are the itchy, and they remain itchy despite my advice. After a long day of seeing patients, the long list of messages that requires action feels endless, burdensome. Optimizing extenders has made me more efficient, but the work that remains isn’t fulfilling. A subtle change in our EMR has helped, though.

What is different? Our EPIC now includes a photo of each patient. That’s it. Ostensibly, having a photo is a security feature: it allows us to positively identify a patient, thereby reducing the risk that we treat an imposter posing as that patient (a small but real problem with drug seekers).

Why might this matter for physician satisfaction? Because seeing a patient photo brings an actual person to the top of mind. This changes our emotional connection to the work: how we interpret work is all that matters when it comes to job satisfaction. This is why volunteer work is so rewarding, despite having no monetary incentive, and why highly compensated professions, like those of many Wall Street traders, can ultimately fail to be fulfilling.

Tonight, long after the sun has set, I’m still working through messages. The next one, however, is not from any patient with nummular eczema. I see it’s from Mrs. Morales (not her real name), a sweet older woman with a warm smile and rich accent. She teaches water aerobics and she spent 5 minutes describing a typical Puerto Rican dinner (lots of stews) during her last appointment with me. Seeing her smiling face in the top left corner of the chart reminds me that the work I’m doing is for someone I know, someone I care for.

Radiologists have actually studied this phenomenon. Like much of medicine, radiology can be tedious. Researchers devised a simple test to see if making radiology work more human could improve not only the experience for, but also the effectiveness of, doctors. With patients’ consent, they took photos of 300 participants before their films were sent for reading. Radiologists who saw a patient’s photo along with their radiographic studies reported feeling more empathy for their patients. They also reported reading cases with photos more meticulously than those cases without photos. But that’s not all. When the radiologists were later shown the same films but without the patient photos, the doctors were less likely to notice incidental findings in the radiographs. The authors concluded that seeing patient photos made radiologists both more effective and more empathic (ScienceDaily 2008 Dec 14).

So consider adding photos of your patients to your EMR. Then remember to take a second or two to look at them before engaging in the task to be done. You, and your patients, will be better off because of it.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts related to the topic of this column.

“Keep an eye on that one, and call me if it changes,” is as much a stock phrase for dermatologists as “Wear your sunscreen.” Yet, how do patients know if a mole changes? I’m quite sure many of my patients wouldn’t notice if I shaved my head and grew a beard, let alone notice if 1 of 30 moles on their back changed color.

Mole Mapper is an iPhone app developed by the department of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) to solve this problem. The app provides a framework for patients to photo, measure, and track their moles. With clear instructions, an anatomical map, and sophisticated markers, it is a significant aid for motivated patients who want medical-grade photos suitable for tracking.

To standardize the photos, the app prompts you to include a nickel, dime, or quarter in photos with nevi of interest. The user then calibrates the app by pinching onscreen circles overlying the photo such that they correspond exactly to the circumference of the coin and to the mole. Using a coin as a standard, the app then calculates the precise size of the mole regardless of the size of the photo. For example, photos taken 2 feet and 4 feet away both give the same diameter because both photos are calibrated by the dime in each.

The app was developed by a cancer biologist, Dan Webster, Ph.D., to help his wife monitor her moles between dermatology appointments. Interestingly, it was largely developed by a single person, a sign that creating apps is nearly entering into a DIY era. This increases the possibility for useful health care tools to be developed while also increasing the already crushing crowd of apps, few of which are truly useful.

The app’s functionality would not have been possible without the inclusion of Apple’s ResearchKit and Sage Bionetworks’ Bridge Server. ResearchKit provided open-source tools to facilitate informed consent over the phone and the ability to conduct participant surveys, among other activities. Bridge Server enabled the app to encrypt and securely transfer participant data from the phone to firewalled storage. The combination of these two software frameworks is paving the way for an exciting future of integrated technology and biomedical research.

According to Dan Webster, “ResearchKit is a game-changer because it provides an open-source platform for elegant informed consent, measurement tools, and participant data protection. The ability for participants to have so few barriers to contribute to a research study is the truly transformative aspect of ResearchKit, and we have seen unprecedented numbers of research study enrollees as a result.”

But that’s not all. The app is more than just a consumer tool for tracking – ResearchKit allows OHSU researchers to gather data on nevi, track them over time, and learn characteristics associated with melanoma from user-generated outcomes. This could significantly increase our understanding of melanoma and perhaps spawn an artificially intelligent app that learns to diagnose melanoma without human assistance.

Because of the institutional review board’s requirements for their research, users must be 18 years old to participate in the study. The app gracefully walks users through the consent process and even has a knowledge check at the end to ensure that they understood the risks and benefits of participating. The consent process is so streamlined that it ought to be a model for us to consent any patient for any reason.

To be clear, the app does not make diagnoses. It only provides a framework for patients to photograph their moles and track them. It also politely prompts users to rephotograph moles every 30 days so changes can be recorded.

There are apps with similar names, so be sure you have Mole Mapper from Sage Bionetworks. I tried it out to offer my experience here. Taking photos was as simple as any photo on an iPhone. Like any selfie, however, there are azimuth limits to the human arm – you can’t get shots in remote bodily corners easily. Also, placing a coin on yourself is easier said than done, unless you want to use your bubble gum to hold it in place while you take the shot. (I asked for assistance from my wife instead.)

The photos I took were accurate when compared with the measured diameter in real life, but there are still user-dependent adjustments that could lead to large artifacts. Making the measurement circles even slightly smaller or larger around the coin or the mole can lead to more than a millimeter of margins of error. If detecting melanoma requires less than 1-mm error in mole changes, then this could limit its usefulness.

Whether or not it leads to an app that automatically diagnoses melanoma from patient mole selfies, Mole Mapper has value. Any tool that empowers patients to be actively involved in their care and to meticulously monitor their moles will surely help us in keeping them safe.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts relating to the topic of this column.

“Keep an eye on that one, and call me if it changes,” is as much a stock phrase for dermatologists as “Wear your sunscreen.” Yet, how do patients know if a mole changes? I’m quite sure many of my patients wouldn’t notice if I shaved my head and grew a beard, let alone notice if 1 of 30 moles on their back changed color.

Mole Mapper is an iPhone app developed by the department of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) to solve this problem. The app provides a framework for patients to photo, measure, and track their moles. With clear instructions, an anatomical map, and sophisticated markers, it is a significant aid for motivated patients who want medical-grade photos suitable for tracking.

To standardize the photos, the app prompts you to include a nickel, dime, or quarter in photos with nevi of interest. The user then calibrates the app by pinching onscreen circles overlying the photo such that they correspond exactly to the circumference of the coin and to the mole. Using a coin as a standard, the app then calculates the precise size of the mole regardless of the size of the photo. For example, photos taken 2 feet and 4 feet away both give the same diameter because both photos are calibrated by the dime in each.

The app was developed by a cancer biologist, Dan Webster, Ph.D., to help his wife monitor her moles between dermatology appointments. Interestingly, it was largely developed by a single person, a sign that creating apps is nearly entering into a DIY era. This increases the possibility for useful health care tools to be developed while also increasing the already crushing crowd of apps, few of which are truly useful.

The app’s functionality would not have been possible without the inclusion of Apple’s ResearchKit and Sage Bionetworks’ Bridge Server. ResearchKit provided open-source tools to facilitate informed consent over the phone and the ability to conduct participant surveys, among other activities. Bridge Server enabled the app to encrypt and securely transfer participant data from the phone to firewalled storage. The combination of these two software frameworks is paving the way for an exciting future of integrated technology and biomedical research.

According to Dan Webster, “ResearchKit is a game-changer because it provides an open-source platform for elegant informed consent, measurement tools, and participant data protection. The ability for participants to have so few barriers to contribute to a research study is the truly transformative aspect of ResearchKit, and we have seen unprecedented numbers of research study enrollees as a result.”

But that’s not all. The app is more than just a consumer tool for tracking – ResearchKit allows OHSU researchers to gather data on nevi, track them over time, and learn characteristics associated with melanoma from user-generated outcomes. This could significantly increase our understanding of melanoma and perhaps spawn an artificially intelligent app that learns to diagnose melanoma without human assistance.

Because of the institutional review board’s requirements for their research, users must be 18 years old to participate in the study. The app gracefully walks users through the consent process and even has a knowledge check at the end to ensure that they understood the risks and benefits of participating. The consent process is so streamlined that it ought to be a model for us to consent any patient for any reason.

To be clear, the app does not make diagnoses. It only provides a framework for patients to photograph their moles and track them. It also politely prompts users to rephotograph moles every 30 days so changes can be recorded.

There are apps with similar names, so be sure you have Mole Mapper from Sage Bionetworks. I tried it out to offer my experience here. Taking photos was as simple as any photo on an iPhone. Like any selfie, however, there are azimuth limits to the human arm – you can’t get shots in remote bodily corners easily. Also, placing a coin on yourself is easier said than done, unless you want to use your bubble gum to hold it in place while you take the shot. (I asked for assistance from my wife instead.)

The photos I took were accurate when compared with the measured diameter in real life, but there are still user-dependent adjustments that could lead to large artifacts. Making the measurement circles even slightly smaller or larger around the coin or the mole can lead to more than a millimeter of margins of error. If detecting melanoma requires less than 1-mm error in mole changes, then this could limit its usefulness.

Whether or not it leads to an app that automatically diagnoses melanoma from patient mole selfies, Mole Mapper has value. Any tool that empowers patients to be actively involved in their care and to meticulously monitor their moles will surely help us in keeping them safe.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts relating to the topic of this column.

“Keep an eye on that one, and call me if it changes,” is as much a stock phrase for dermatologists as “Wear your sunscreen.” Yet, how do patients know if a mole changes? I’m quite sure many of my patients wouldn’t notice if I shaved my head and grew a beard, let alone notice if 1 of 30 moles on their back changed color.

Mole Mapper is an iPhone app developed by the department of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) to solve this problem. The app provides a framework for patients to photo, measure, and track their moles. With clear instructions, an anatomical map, and sophisticated markers, it is a significant aid for motivated patients who want medical-grade photos suitable for tracking.

To standardize the photos, the app prompts you to include a nickel, dime, or quarter in photos with nevi of interest. The user then calibrates the app by pinching onscreen circles overlying the photo such that they correspond exactly to the circumference of the coin and to the mole. Using a coin as a standard, the app then calculates the precise size of the mole regardless of the size of the photo. For example, photos taken 2 feet and 4 feet away both give the same diameter because both photos are calibrated by the dime in each.

The app was developed by a cancer biologist, Dan Webster, Ph.D., to help his wife monitor her moles between dermatology appointments. Interestingly, it was largely developed by a single person, a sign that creating apps is nearly entering into a DIY era. This increases the possibility for useful health care tools to be developed while also increasing the already crushing crowd of apps, few of which are truly useful.

The app’s functionality would not have been possible without the inclusion of Apple’s ResearchKit and Sage Bionetworks’ Bridge Server. ResearchKit provided open-source tools to facilitate informed consent over the phone and the ability to conduct participant surveys, among other activities. Bridge Server enabled the app to encrypt and securely transfer participant data from the phone to firewalled storage. The combination of these two software frameworks is paving the way for an exciting future of integrated technology and biomedical research.

According to Dan Webster, “ResearchKit is a game-changer because it provides an open-source platform for elegant informed consent, measurement tools, and participant data protection. The ability for participants to have so few barriers to contribute to a research study is the truly transformative aspect of ResearchKit, and we have seen unprecedented numbers of research study enrollees as a result.”

But that’s not all. The app is more than just a consumer tool for tracking – ResearchKit allows OHSU researchers to gather data on nevi, track them over time, and learn characteristics associated with melanoma from user-generated outcomes. This could significantly increase our understanding of melanoma and perhaps spawn an artificially intelligent app that learns to diagnose melanoma without human assistance.

Because of the institutional review board’s requirements for their research, users must be 18 years old to participate in the study. The app gracefully walks users through the consent process and even has a knowledge check at the end to ensure that they understood the risks and benefits of participating. The consent process is so streamlined that it ought to be a model for us to consent any patient for any reason.

To be clear, the app does not make diagnoses. It only provides a framework for patients to photograph their moles and track them. It also politely prompts users to rephotograph moles every 30 days so changes can be recorded.

There are apps with similar names, so be sure you have Mole Mapper from Sage Bionetworks. I tried it out to offer my experience here. Taking photos was as simple as any photo on an iPhone. Like any selfie, however, there are azimuth limits to the human arm – you can’t get shots in remote bodily corners easily. Also, placing a coin on yourself is easier said than done, unless you want to use your bubble gum to hold it in place while you take the shot. (I asked for assistance from my wife instead.)

The photos I took were accurate when compared with the measured diameter in real life, but there are still user-dependent adjustments that could lead to large artifacts. Making the measurement circles even slightly smaller or larger around the coin or the mole can lead to more than a millimeter of margins of error. If detecting melanoma requires less than 1-mm error in mole changes, then this could limit its usefulness.

Whether or not it leads to an app that automatically diagnoses melanoma from patient mole selfies, Mole Mapper has value. Any tool that empowers patients to be actively involved in their care and to meticulously monitor their moles will surely help us in keeping them safe.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts relating to the topic of this column.

FaceTime with my mother would be better described as ForeheadTime. She loves to use video for our Sunday calls, yet when she does, she always talks into her iPhone as if it’s a speakerphone. As a result, all I see is the top of her head. “Mom. Lower the phone. Mom, I can’t see you,” I must repeat weekly.

Video provides a richer experience compared with telephone. It allows for a deeper, emotional connection. That’s why moms like mine prefer it to telephone conversations. In medicine, video visits are uncommon, but that’s changing as payers are now reimbursing and patients are demanding the service. For many, they offer a far more convenient and still effective method to receive medical care. Psychiatry is an obvious example. Less obvious, but still effective examples, include endocrinology, pediatrics, primary care, surgery (post operatively), and dermatology.

Like the example with my mom, quality of the experience matters, and issues often arise not from the technology, but from the technique. Making eye contact is more difficult on video, and not looking patients in the eye can harm doctor-patient bonding. Here are a few basic tips when using video with your patients:

• Be sure the light source is in front of you. Having windows behind you often puts you in shadow.

• The best place for the camera is at the top of your screen. It’s nearly impossible to look into the camera and see the patient if the camera is next to the screen instead of above.

• Remember, to look directly at the patient, you have to look into the camera. This is tricky and easy to forget.

• Be sure your entire head and upper torso are in the frame. Talking heads can be intimidating.

• When possible, use a headset with a microphone. Headsets help both you and your patient hear better and give the patient an increased sense of privacy.

• Generally speaking, video visits take as long or longer than in-person visits. Remember to be patient as some of your patients may experience technical difficulties. Our IT colleagues have a word for it: “picnic,” which stands for “Problem In Chair Not In Computer.” You should also train your staff to aid you and the patients. For instance, if a patient is struggling with the computer, you might have your assistant help him or her while you move on to the next patient.

• Although the patient can be home, it is best for you to be in your office. It’s possible to do video consults from home, but it is more difficult because you have to ensure that both your technology and your environment are secure and private. Otherwise, you risk violating HIPAA or other compliance requirements.

• Be sure to get the appropriate consent before conducting a virtual visit. In California, it requires only verbal consent, but your state’s requirements might be different.

• As for your appearance, there’s a reason why Kennedy won the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Video does reveal details that you might not want emphasized. A two-day beard might appear hip in person but unkempt and uncaring online. Bold stripes or checks on your shirt sometimes appear distorted, so opt for solids in soft shades. Scrubs are okay, but be sure to check your neckline, particularly as you move about. Whether it’s clothing or accessories, avoid anything overly distracting.

Video visits have had a long, slow ramp-up, but they seem to be gaining momentum. You may not use them in your practice now, but it’s likely we all will someday. Soon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter.

FaceTime with my mother would be better described as ForeheadTime. She loves to use video for our Sunday calls, yet when she does, she always talks into her iPhone as if it’s a speakerphone. As a result, all I see is the top of her head. “Mom. Lower the phone. Mom, I can’t see you,” I must repeat weekly.

Video provides a richer experience compared with telephone. It allows for a deeper, emotional connection. That’s why moms like mine prefer it to telephone conversations. In medicine, video visits are uncommon, but that’s changing as payers are now reimbursing and patients are demanding the service. For many, they offer a far more convenient and still effective method to receive medical care. Psychiatry is an obvious example. Less obvious, but still effective examples, include endocrinology, pediatrics, primary care, surgery (post operatively), and dermatology.

Like the example with my mom, quality of the experience matters, and issues often arise not from the technology, but from the technique. Making eye contact is more difficult on video, and not looking patients in the eye can harm doctor-patient bonding. Here are a few basic tips when using video with your patients:

• Be sure the light source is in front of you. Having windows behind you often puts you in shadow.

• The best place for the camera is at the top of your screen. It’s nearly impossible to look into the camera and see the patient if the camera is next to the screen instead of above.

• Remember, to look directly at the patient, you have to look into the camera. This is tricky and easy to forget.

• Be sure your entire head and upper torso are in the frame. Talking heads can be intimidating.

• When possible, use a headset with a microphone. Headsets help both you and your patient hear better and give the patient an increased sense of privacy.

• Generally speaking, video visits take as long or longer than in-person visits. Remember to be patient as some of your patients may experience technical difficulties. Our IT colleagues have a word for it: “picnic,” which stands for “Problem In Chair Not In Computer.” You should also train your staff to aid you and the patients. For instance, if a patient is struggling with the computer, you might have your assistant help him or her while you move on to the next patient.

• Although the patient can be home, it is best for you to be in your office. It’s possible to do video consults from home, but it is more difficult because you have to ensure that both your technology and your environment are secure and private. Otherwise, you risk violating HIPAA or other compliance requirements.

• Be sure to get the appropriate consent before conducting a virtual visit. In California, it requires only verbal consent, but your state’s requirements might be different.

• As for your appearance, there’s a reason why Kennedy won the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Video does reveal details that you might not want emphasized. A two-day beard might appear hip in person but unkempt and uncaring online. Bold stripes or checks on your shirt sometimes appear distorted, so opt for solids in soft shades. Scrubs are okay, but be sure to check your neckline, particularly as you move about. Whether it’s clothing or accessories, avoid anything overly distracting.

Video visits have had a long, slow ramp-up, but they seem to be gaining momentum. You may not use them in your practice now, but it’s likely we all will someday. Soon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter.

FaceTime with my mother would be better described as ForeheadTime. She loves to use video for our Sunday calls, yet when she does, she always talks into her iPhone as if it’s a speakerphone. As a result, all I see is the top of her head. “Mom. Lower the phone. Mom, I can’t see you,” I must repeat weekly.

Video provides a richer experience compared with telephone. It allows for a deeper, emotional connection. That’s why moms like mine prefer it to telephone conversations. In medicine, video visits are uncommon, but that’s changing as payers are now reimbursing and patients are demanding the service. For many, they offer a far more convenient and still effective method to receive medical care. Psychiatry is an obvious example. Less obvious, but still effective examples, include endocrinology, pediatrics, primary care, surgery (post operatively), and dermatology.

Like the example with my mom, quality of the experience matters, and issues often arise not from the technology, but from the technique. Making eye contact is more difficult on video, and not looking patients in the eye can harm doctor-patient bonding. Here are a few basic tips when using video with your patients:

• Be sure the light source is in front of you. Having windows behind you often puts you in shadow.

• The best place for the camera is at the top of your screen. It’s nearly impossible to look into the camera and see the patient if the camera is next to the screen instead of above.

• Remember, to look directly at the patient, you have to look into the camera. This is tricky and easy to forget.

• Be sure your entire head and upper torso are in the frame. Talking heads can be intimidating.

• When possible, use a headset with a microphone. Headsets help both you and your patient hear better and give the patient an increased sense of privacy.

• Generally speaking, video visits take as long or longer than in-person visits. Remember to be patient as some of your patients may experience technical difficulties. Our IT colleagues have a word for it: “picnic,” which stands for “Problem In Chair Not In Computer.” You should also train your staff to aid you and the patients. For instance, if a patient is struggling with the computer, you might have your assistant help him or her while you move on to the next patient.

• Although the patient can be home, it is best for you to be in your office. It’s possible to do video consults from home, but it is more difficult because you have to ensure that both your technology and your environment are secure and private. Otherwise, you risk violating HIPAA or other compliance requirements.

• Be sure to get the appropriate consent before conducting a virtual visit. In California, it requires only verbal consent, but your state’s requirements might be different.

• As for your appearance, there’s a reason why Kennedy won the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Video does reveal details that you might not want emphasized. A two-day beard might appear hip in person but unkempt and uncaring online. Bold stripes or checks on your shirt sometimes appear distorted, so opt for solids in soft shades. Scrubs are okay, but be sure to check your neckline, particularly as you move about. Whether it’s clothing or accessories, avoid anything overly distracting.

Video visits have had a long, slow ramp-up, but they seem to be gaining momentum. You may not use them in your practice now, but it’s likely we all will someday. Soon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Design thinking isn’t only for products such as the Apple watch. It is a methodology used to improve customer experiences not only with products but also with services. Much in the same way that the SOAP note shaped our thinking about diagnosis and treatment, design thinking provides a scaffold to help us better understand the needs and wants of customers, or in our case, patients.

Design thinking uses specific tools and methodologies to understand experiences from others’ perspectives. From its roots in Silicon Valley, design thinking has grown steadily in its influence. Its first high priests were people such as Steve Jobs and David Kelly, who famously designed the computer mouse. The principles learned or applied to increasingly complicated products and services led to the growth of an entire industry in Palo Alto, Calif., with companies such as IDEO and gurus such as IDEO CEO and President Tim Brown of Stanford (Calif.) University has an entire graduate school program on design thinking called d.school while Coursera offers online courses on design thinking.

The principles are simple: The better you understand your customers and their needs, the better you can design your services. There are many toolkits that are available for you to try for free. Empathy Mapping is an easy one you could apply to your practice to enhance your patients’ experience.

The idea behind this technique is to immerse yourself in your patient’s world. Pick a time when your practice is closed. Then take a journey through your office as if you were a patient. It’s important that you keep the experience as close to reality as possible. Start before you even arrive at your office. What is the experience like driving to your office? Do patients have to fight traffic to get to you? Is parking easy to find? How far must they walk from their car to get to your office? What is your check-in process like? Are patients greeted by name? Are they first handed paperwork to complete? Or are they introduced and warmly welcomed to your practice first?

What’s the experience like in the waiting room? Take note of not only what your patients see but also what they hear, smell, touch, and say. What experience does your furniture give patients? What type of magazines are available to them? Do you have Wi-Fi? Is there a television? If so, is it showing simply an advertisement, or is it something that your patients would connect with? Is there music playing?

Using the same process, continue your journey through an entire patient visit. Make note of what the experience is like walking back to your exam rooms. What do your patients see and smell while sitting in an exam room waiting for you? Does it smell of isopropyl alcohol? Is it cold or hot? What’s it like to sit in your room wearing nothing but a patient gown? Are there instruments such as cryo guns that could be intimidating to patients? All of these factors can be modified and thus “designed” to optimize the experience for your patients. Continue this journey including a physical exam and discussion with the doctor and other providers and assistants.

This is a great exercise not only for you but more importantly for your staff. Ask your staff to take notes as they walk through the same empathy mapping journey. It will give them an entirely new and valuable perspective on what it’s like to be a patient in your office. Once you’ve completed your empathy mapping, sit with your team and brainstorm about opportunities to improve the experience for your patients. Ask yourselves what things surprised you. What things do you feel could have the largest impact on your patients’ experience in your office? In what ways can you modify the spaces in your office to optimize your patients’ experience?

Having done this exercise in my own clinic, I found it highly impactful. It gave me a deeper understanding of and appreciation for my patients and caused me to make several minor but important changes in my exam room and to my and my staff’s interactions with patients. I hope you have a similarly informative experience.

If you’re interested in learning more about design thinking, then check out the following books and articles:

• “Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organization and Inspires Innovation,” by Tim Brown (New York: Harper Business, 2009).

• “The Art of Innovation,” by Tom Kelley (New York: A Currency Book, Doubleday, Random House, 2001).

• Design Thinking Comes of Age, by Jon Kolko (Harv Bus Rev. Sep 2015;pp 66-71).

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Design thinking isn’t only for products such as the Apple watch. It is a methodology used to improve customer experiences not only with products but also with services. Much in the same way that the SOAP note shaped our thinking about diagnosis and treatment, design thinking provides a scaffold to help us better understand the needs and wants of customers, or in our case, patients.

Design thinking uses specific tools and methodologies to understand experiences from others’ perspectives. From its roots in Silicon Valley, design thinking has grown steadily in its influence. Its first high priests were people such as Steve Jobs and David Kelly, who famously designed the computer mouse. The principles learned or applied to increasingly complicated products and services led to the growth of an entire industry in Palo Alto, Calif., with companies such as IDEO and gurus such as IDEO CEO and President Tim Brown of Stanford (Calif.) University has an entire graduate school program on design thinking called d.school while Coursera offers online courses on design thinking.

The principles are simple: The better you understand your customers and their needs, the better you can design your services. There are many toolkits that are available for you to try for free. Empathy Mapping is an easy one you could apply to your practice to enhance your patients’ experience.

The idea behind this technique is to immerse yourself in your patient’s world. Pick a time when your practice is closed. Then take a journey through your office as if you were a patient. It’s important that you keep the experience as close to reality as possible. Start before you even arrive at your office. What is the experience like driving to your office? Do patients have to fight traffic to get to you? Is parking easy to find? How far must they walk from their car to get to your office? What is your check-in process like? Are patients greeted by name? Are they first handed paperwork to complete? Or are they introduced and warmly welcomed to your practice first?

What’s the experience like in the waiting room? Take note of not only what your patients see but also what they hear, smell, touch, and say. What experience does your furniture give patients? What type of magazines are available to them? Do you have Wi-Fi? Is there a television? If so, is it showing simply an advertisement, or is it something that your patients would connect with? Is there music playing?

Using the same process, continue your journey through an entire patient visit. Make note of what the experience is like walking back to your exam rooms. What do your patients see and smell while sitting in an exam room waiting for you? Does it smell of isopropyl alcohol? Is it cold or hot? What’s it like to sit in your room wearing nothing but a patient gown? Are there instruments such as cryo guns that could be intimidating to patients? All of these factors can be modified and thus “designed” to optimize the experience for your patients. Continue this journey including a physical exam and discussion with the doctor and other providers and assistants.

This is a great exercise not only for you but more importantly for your staff. Ask your staff to take notes as they walk through the same empathy mapping journey. It will give them an entirely new and valuable perspective on what it’s like to be a patient in your office. Once you’ve completed your empathy mapping, sit with your team and brainstorm about opportunities to improve the experience for your patients. Ask yourselves what things surprised you. What things do you feel could have the largest impact on your patients’ experience in your office? In what ways can you modify the spaces in your office to optimize your patients’ experience?

Having done this exercise in my own clinic, I found it highly impactful. It gave me a deeper understanding of and appreciation for my patients and caused me to make several minor but important changes in my exam room and to my and my staff’s interactions with patients. I hope you have a similarly informative experience.

If you’re interested in learning more about design thinking, then check out the following books and articles:

• “Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organization and Inspires Innovation,” by Tim Brown (New York: Harper Business, 2009).

• “The Art of Innovation,” by Tom Kelley (New York: A Currency Book, Doubleday, Random House, 2001).

• Design Thinking Comes of Age, by Jon Kolko (Harv Bus Rev. Sep 2015;pp 66-71).

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Design thinking isn’t only for products such as the Apple watch. It is a methodology used to improve customer experiences not only with products but also with services. Much in the same way that the SOAP note shaped our thinking about diagnosis and treatment, design thinking provides a scaffold to help us better understand the needs and wants of customers, or in our case, patients.

Design thinking uses specific tools and methodologies to understand experiences from others’ perspectives. From its roots in Silicon Valley, design thinking has grown steadily in its influence. Its first high priests were people such as Steve Jobs and David Kelly, who famously designed the computer mouse. The principles learned or applied to increasingly complicated products and services led to the growth of an entire industry in Palo Alto, Calif., with companies such as IDEO and gurus such as IDEO CEO and President Tim Brown of Stanford (Calif.) University has an entire graduate school program on design thinking called d.school while Coursera offers online courses on design thinking.

The principles are simple: The better you understand your customers and their needs, the better you can design your services. There are many toolkits that are available for you to try for free. Empathy Mapping is an easy one you could apply to your practice to enhance your patients’ experience.

The idea behind this technique is to immerse yourself in your patient’s world. Pick a time when your practice is closed. Then take a journey through your office as if you were a patient. It’s important that you keep the experience as close to reality as possible. Start before you even arrive at your office. What is the experience like driving to your office? Do patients have to fight traffic to get to you? Is parking easy to find? How far must they walk from their car to get to your office? What is your check-in process like? Are patients greeted by name? Are they first handed paperwork to complete? Or are they introduced and warmly welcomed to your practice first?

What’s the experience like in the waiting room? Take note of not only what your patients see but also what they hear, smell, touch, and say. What experience does your furniture give patients? What type of magazines are available to them? Do you have Wi-Fi? Is there a television? If so, is it showing simply an advertisement, or is it something that your patients would connect with? Is there music playing?

Using the same process, continue your journey through an entire patient visit. Make note of what the experience is like walking back to your exam rooms. What do your patients see and smell while sitting in an exam room waiting for you? Does it smell of isopropyl alcohol? Is it cold or hot? What’s it like to sit in your room wearing nothing but a patient gown? Are there instruments such as cryo guns that could be intimidating to patients? All of these factors can be modified and thus “designed” to optimize the experience for your patients. Continue this journey including a physical exam and discussion with the doctor and other providers and assistants.

This is a great exercise not only for you but more importantly for your staff. Ask your staff to take notes as they walk through the same empathy mapping journey. It will give them an entirely new and valuable perspective on what it’s like to be a patient in your office. Once you’ve completed your empathy mapping, sit with your team and brainstorm about opportunities to improve the experience for your patients. Ask yourselves what things surprised you. What things do you feel could have the largest impact on your patients’ experience in your office? In what ways can you modify the spaces in your office to optimize your patients’ experience?

Having done this exercise in my own clinic, I found it highly impactful. It gave me a deeper understanding of and appreciation for my patients and caused me to make several minor but important changes in my exam room and to my and my staff’s interactions with patients. I hope you have a similarly informative experience.

If you’re interested in learning more about design thinking, then check out the following books and articles:

• “Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organization and Inspires Innovation,” by Tim Brown (New York: Harper Business, 2009).

• “The Art of Innovation,” by Tom Kelley (New York: A Currency Book, Doubleday, Random House, 2001).

• Design Thinking Comes of Age, by Jon Kolko (Harv Bus Rev. Sep 2015;pp 66-71).

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.