Second Life - The future of health care?

The assignment for class this week was to explore the VR application Second Life for use as a new doctor-patient medium.  Although I can see this as a *futuristic* medium for this, or for use in specialized cases, it does not yet seem to have caught up with the masses.

When I look at new technologies to add to my personal repertoire, there are a few things that I generally look for:
* am I actually going to use it?
* does it do what I want it to do?
* what do I have to buy, including peripherals?
* how much time does it take to set it up the first time?
* how much time does it take to get it running every time I use it?
* does it work with other stuff I already have?

Past technologies that I have starting using, for comparison, include:
* the iphone, which won out over a blackberry, a palm trio (from a while ago) and other non-smartphones
* the ipad
* Macs (vs PCs, for home use and personal apps)
* PCs (for work and productivity apps)
* Google
* Gmail, for email and IM

All of my chosen technologies seem to work for one reason or another.  They all (usually) play well together when I need them to, and together give me the tools that I need.  I am sure my doppelganger has a different set of tools that also work, but the characteristics would often be the same.

When I first tried to jump into Second Life, I ran into roadblock after roadblock.  There seem to be two very key requirements for the program to run:  A decently powerful computer (Mac, PC or Linux) and high-speed broadband. See http://secondlife.com/support/system-requirements/ and look only at the "Recommended" column.

As it turns out, my home network, though appropriate for almost everything I do, including all work applications, is not quite up to par with what SL recommends (though it works).  My work network seems to have blocked a necessary port for SL.  A 3G connection is not even close.  Starbucks wi-fi works... sometime.  Delta's Go-go inflight wifi, well, don't even think about that one.

As for the computer, no, ipads don't work.  There is an IM app that you can get (Metaverse I think) but doesn't do the VR part of SL.  My mac is ill and at the doc so that didn't work.  My work computer was really my only option.  Even this computer is a 2.X Core 2 Duo, and again great for almost everything work related including video streaming, was struggling with SL. 

It took a couple of weeks to figure out which network and computer combinations this would work on, but once it was running, I could move around and explore.  There was supposed to be an hour-long briefing to go through which I couldn't seem to find.  I later learned that it was the Orientation Island walk through, which only took me 5 minutes.  I even took some time to kill some zombies and rabid dogs in a warehouse somewhere (hey, it's almost Halloween).

To compare this to applications that gain traction would be difficult.  It takes a specific configuration to get it to work.  To talk effectively, you need a headset (additional cost).   It could take a significant amount of time to set up if you don't happen to guess the configuration correctly the first time.  For those of us who travel, it doesn't work on the road (3G) or in the sky or with a convenient tablet.

So, as the question from class asks, how would this work for a doctor-patient relationship?  My answer would be that this is not going to be a mainstream application in the near future for this use.  It just takes too much time and too much equipment to make it work simply enough.  It also wouldn't work for the nearly 40% of people in the US who don't have broadband access.  This type of relationship really needs to be a special case.  The docs need to have the time and patience to help set up a system for the patients.

I can see this type of application growing in popularity in the future, somewhat.  Equipment and network issues will be lessened, which would have helped me out significantly.  Unfortunately, I think this will be a while, and we will have to see what level of adoption that drives.  Until then, I think my alter-ego Sherpa Goldshark won't get much VR facetime.

The EHR incentive program needs a lift

The EHR incentive program just isn't getting enough press.  Lately, providers have started asking about the program in many states and the questions are more akin to, "what is the program thing people talk about?" than, "I know I qualify, where can I attest?"  

This program, although limited by statute to higher volume Medicare and Medicaid could create the critical mass (or at least contribute to it) necessary to make EHRs mainstream.  The program needs a lift, in any way possible.  I personally think that the program should have been rolled out to all, or at least the majority of, providers in the US, though I understand where the government was coming from. 

One such lift that could help the cause is to include mental health providers.  The inclusion of mental health providers help not only the providers in the space and the patients they treat, but it would also promote the inclusion of mental health data in the overall patient record (with appropriate additional security measures appropriate for mental health and substance abuse, of course).  

The Program is, and should be, built on the basis of inclusion instead of exclusion.  Those providers that support and contribute to sustained positive health of patients should be included.  Physicians, nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, dentists, and some physician assistants are appropriately included as they meet that definition; mental health professionals should as well.

I can’t claim that his program is perfect, as nearly any government program is – there are just too many hands that get to touch it.  There is a considerable amount of good and forward thinking that is built into it, however.  Technology is the basis of much of our lives, whether we admit it or not.  Technology needs to, and will, make its mark on health care as well.  We need to help it along.

The link below is a little old, but since the topic is still active, I thought I would include it:  Bill gives EHR incentives to mental health practices

The beginning...

I feel that blogging is important, albeit awkward, social media tool.  We all have information overload and with the large variety of opinions out there, it is difficult to develop a trust for the information we read.  Instead, we tend to use a quick acid test to ensure it meets the loosest of standards and then take it for what it is. 

Wikipedia is a great example.  It is *usually* a great place to find information.  The content has the world's largest editorial staff, however, that editorial staff is not always qualified, may have alterior motives and is sometimes just plain jaded.

So, that begs the question - how do we find information that we can trust?  I don't believe a blog is the answer, but I do believe it is a start.  The key to a blog is that it is written by an individual; one that we can follow.  We can develop a history and a track record.  It is still should be taken with a grain of salt, but at least there will be sometime behind it, like a name. 

That is my goal here.  This blog is required by a class called The Internet and the Future of Patient Care at UC Davis.  Let's see if we can build something here.  I do invite you to use the comment section below to help guide this blog, as I think a blog should be interactive.