GeriTech

In Search of Technology that Improves Geriatric Care

digital health

Health 2.0 Tools for the Elderly

[Guess what: the upcoming Health 2.0 Europe conference is featuring a special session focused on how digital health can meet the needs of aging adults! The following post – first published on THCB – is by Maneesh Juneja, who is organizing a “Tools for the Elderly” session at Health 2.0 London.]

In 2 weeks’ time, at Health 2.0 Europe, I am moderating a pre-conference workshop ‘Health 2.0 Tools for the Elderly’. Dr Leslie Kernisan wrote a blog post after attending the recent Health 2.0 Silicon Valley conference, observing that most Health 2.0 solutions are not designed with the elderly in mind.
That’s why I was very impressed when Health 2.0 invited me to curate and moderate the workshop on Nov 17th in London. We have 11 different technology solutions designed specifically for the elderly being demonstrated at the workshop. Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry, I acknowledge that technology is only one out of the array of solutions available to society.
Looking at the forecasts about the aging population, it’s way too easy to view the elderly as a burden, not a resource. Older people with their talents, wisdom and life experience have much to share with younger members of society. Could technology be used to connect those opposite ends of the age spectrum?
We’ve got a demo of GeriJoy, by Victor Wang, who gave a talk at TEDMED 2013, on how virtual companions might help ease our caregiving crisis.
On 1st Oct 2013, Silvia Stefanoni, Chief Executive of HelpAge International, said:
“The world is rapidly ageing: people over 60 years of age already exceed children under 5, and by 2050 they will outnumber children under 15. However, the continual exclusion of aging from national and global agendas is one of the biggest obstacles to meeting the needs of the world’s aging population.”
In the recently published Global Agewatch Index, in which 91 countries were ranked on social and economic wellbeing of older people, the UK was ranked 13th. Turkey was ranked 70th, below Dominican Republic & Ghana. Even the country that spends the most of healthcare, the USA, was ranked 8th.
This isn’t just about people getting older, but about their families and caregivers. What are the ways in which technology can help a son or daughter caring for a parent that has Alzheimer’s? Intelesant, winner of a Guardian award for Innovation with Technology, will be demonstrating their ELMA tool, for End of Life care. We don’t often hear End of Life Care being discussed in society, let alone at health technology conferences.
The UK set up the 3 million lives initiative, looking at how telehealth and better self care at home could improve the wellbeing of 3 million people with long term conditions and/or social care needs. I attended the inaugural Internet of Things World Forum (IoT) last week, where a vision of a future where billions of devices will be connected to the internet was shared. I’m really curious about the impact that ‘sensors’ may bring to our world.
With 13% of the UK population being non-white, what are the cultural differences? We have Janet Jadavji, as part of the panel discussion, who will be sharing her perspectives on how different communities are dealing with elderly relatives.
It’s not about the latest technology, as the digital divide does exist. 69% of people aged 75 or older in the UK have never used the internet. We will have a demo from SpeakSet, who have developed technology that connects families via the TV!
We will also have a talk from Sarah Reed, who will sharing valuable insights from her considerable experience with caring for older people. Beyond the headlines, Sarah will shed light on the daily challenges that elderly people face, and where the opportunities for technology are.
Urbanization is something that is changing the landscape of the planet, half the world’s population live in cities and this proportion will rise. Loneliness is a problem, and not only impacts physical health but mental health too. Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary in the UK, recently remarked that 5 million people say TV is their main form of company. In light of these trends, I wonder if technology can help us stay connected to elders, wherever WE might be in the world?
It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the scale of the challenges posed by aging populations in every country. However, I believe that by coming together, having open and mature conversations, we stand a chance of making a ‘tangible’ difference in the lives of billions.
Today, you may think that the needs of older people are not your problem. However, everyone gets old. In curating this workshop, I’ve observed that many of the innovators I met developed an idea driven by their own personal experience of caring for an elderly relative. Through courage and tenacity, they channelled their frustration into developing a product or service that could make all the difference.
What if you could play a role in building technology that could help older people and their families in the future? Whilst improving outcomes and reducing the cost of care is important, how might technology enable the healthcare system to also provide more ‘compassionate care’ to the elderly?

Knocking on Health 2.0’s Door

[This post was first published on The Health Care Blog on 10/16/13. See comments here, including one from Katy Butler, calling for a grassroots movement to demand changes in Medicare that would support more high-touch services and Slow Medicine. Hear hear!]

I recently attended the flagship Health 2.0 conference for the first time.
To avoid driving in traffic, I commuted via Caltrain, and while commuting, I read Katy Butler’s book “Knocking on Heaven’s Door.”
Brief synopsis: healthy active well-educated older parents, father suddenly suffers serious stroke, goes on to live another six years of progressive decline and dementia, life likely extended by cardiologist putting in pacemaker, spouse and daughter struggle with caregiving and perversities of healthcare system, how can we do better? See original NYT magazine article here.
(Although the book is subtitled “The Path to a Better Way of Death,” it’s definitely not just about dying. It’s about the fuzzy years leading up to dying, which generally don’t feel like a definite end-of-life situation to the families and clinicians involved.)
The contrast between the world in the book — an eloquent description of the health, life, and healthcare struggles that most older adults eventually endure — and the world of Health 2.0′s innovations and solutions was a bit striking.
I found myself walking around the conference, thinking “How would this help a family like the Butlers? How would this help their clinicians better meet their needs?”
The answer, generally, was unclear. At Health 2.0, as at many digital health events, there is a strong bias toward things like wellness, healthy lifestyles, prevention, big data analytics, and making patients the CEOs of their own health.
Oh and, there was also the Nokia XPrize Sensing Challenge, because making biochemical diagnostics cheap, mobile, and available to consumers is not only going to change the world, but according to the XPrize rep I spoke to, it will solve many of the problems I currently have in caring for frail elders and their families.
(In truth it would be nice if I could check certain labs easily during a housecall, and the global health implications are huge. But enabling more biochemical measurements on my aging patients is not super high on my priority list.)
Don’t get me wrong. There was a lot of cool stuff to see at Health 2.0; a lot of very smart people are creating remarkable technologies and tools related to healthcare. The energy, creativity, and sense of exciting possibility at a gathering like this is truly impressive.
And yet, most of the time I couldn’t shake the feeling that all this innovation seemed unlikely to result in what our country desperately needs, which is more compassionate and effective healthcare for Medicare patients and their caregivers.
The need to improve healthcare is particularly urgent for those seniors who have 3+ chronic diseases, or have developed cognitive and/or physical disabilities, since health issues seriously impact the daily lives of these patients and their caregivers. And of course, these patients are where most of the healthcare spending goes.
So here we have a group that uses healthcare a lot, and their problems are the ones who challenge front-line clinicians, healthcare administrators, and payors the most. And we love these people: they are our parents, grandparents, and older loved ones. Many of us are even taking care of them, sometimes to the detriment of our own health.
Knock knock. Who is listening? Where is the disruptive innovation we need to help elders, caregivers, and their clinicians?

Real impediments to the Health 2.0 Revolution

“Ready to Revolutionize Healthcare?” asks the Health 2.0 homepage.
Yes, I’m ready. But we’ve got a ways to go before these revolutionary tools can actually revolutionize the average older person’s experience with healthcare.
Why? Two key reasons come to mind.
1. Most solutions not designed with the Butlers in mind. As best I can tell, most innovators don’t have the situation of the Butlers in mind when they design their healthcare solutions. They neither understand the situation from the point of view of the Butlers themselves, nor do they understand the situation from the perspective of the front-line clinicians who could and should do better.
For instance, did the Butlers need games to maintain healthy behaviors and keep Mr. Butler walking and exercising after his stroke? Did they need for all interventions to be considered in light of “Healthspan” rather than “lifespan”?
(What is Healthspan for a slowly declining person with dementia and incontinence anyway? We geriatricians think of improving function, wellbeing, quality of life. And most importantly, of prioritizing the issues because you can’t possibly address them all so go with a combination of what matters most to the patient and what seems most feasible.)
And did the clinicians involved need predictive analytics to help them identify when Mr. Butler was at risk getting worse on some axis that the population health management gurus are worried about?
Which of these innovations will help patients, caregivers, and front-line clinicians establish an effective collaboration on mutually agreed-upon goals, and tailor healthcare to the patient’s situation and needs? How to convert population level processes regarding outcomes and cost-containment into real improvements in the healthcare experience of most elderly patients?
Finally, Medicare is the 600 pound gorilla in healthcare, both as a payer and as what most healthcare providers spend most of their time serving. You want to change healthcare? Change how we care for seniors. (And I don’t mean the healthy ones over-represented at AARP.)
2. Too many solutions to choose from. If you are a patient or caregiver, and decide to consider a new approach to weight loss, or timed toileting, or tracking a symptom: the number of approaches you could try – whether tech enhanced or no — is overwhelming. Especially if you research online.
If you are an individual clinician — or a smaller practice — and would like to consider a new and improved way of doing things: the choices are overwhelming. (A lot of primary care is provided by small practices; there’s obviously a trend towards consolidating but also some backlash.)
Now of course, big organizations have more resources with which to choose solutions for their providers, and big payers can choose solutions for individual patients and families. But unfortunately, when tools aren’t chosen by those who use them, users tend to end up with crummy user experiences.
There is probably an innovative way to work around this and make it possible for end-users to more easily find tools that are a good fit for them. But until those innovations become widely available, I think many in the trenches — patients, caregivers, and clinicians — may find that supposedly helpful innovations are actually not so helpful…a frustrating state of affairs when one is overwhelmed with the challenges of helping an aging adult in declining health.

Islands of relevance at Health 2.0

At an event as big as Health 2.0, there are of course pockets of activity relevant to the care of geriatric patients. There was a session on tools to help family caregivers (which covered two care coordination tools and two sensor/alert type tools) and another on nifty tech to help patients take their meds.
And of course, there was the justifiably popular Unmentionables panel, led by Eliza Corporation’s Alex Drane, which highlighted pervasive issues that affect health but that we tend to not talk about much. These include financial stress, relationship stress, and caregiving. (Good recap of the panel at Healthpopuli.com, and I LOVE that caregiving is high up on this list.)

Words to keep in mind

Alex reminded the Health 2.0 crowd that when it comes to helping with health, we must meet people where they are at. “Health is life; care, completely; empathy absolutely.”
As for me, I found myself thinking of a quote from Larry Weed and “Medicine in Denial.”

“The religion of medicine is not feats of intellect. The religion of medicine is helping to solve the problems of patients, and the compassion involved in the very act of care.”

Similarly, for those who evangelize digital health, and believe that new technologies will revolutionize healthcare, I would say:

The religion of healthcare should not be feats of technology. The religion of healthcare should be to help solve the problems of patients and caregivers, and the compassion involved in the very act of care.

And I’d also recommend they read “Knocking on Heaven’s Door,” or something similar, while attending exciting conferences and planning to revolutionize healthcare.

Pew Publishes Report on Family Caregivers

I’ve been a fan of Pew’s reports on health and the Internet for quite some time, but now I’m a superfan.

Just today, Pew has published a health report focusing on caregivers: Family Caregivers Are Wired for Health. Based on survey data collected in Aug-Sept of 2012 from 3014 adults, Pew found that 39% of respondents were caring for an adult or child with significant health issues.

The whole report is interesting, but here are some particular findings that caught my eye:

  • Pew’s survey found that 30% of adults were caregivers in 2010, compared to 39% now. 
    • This strikes me as a big jump; I’d love to eventually learn more about just what went into this increase. (Is an aging population and increased chronic disease burden enough to explain such a jump in 2 years?)
  • 86% of caregivers have Internet access; of those, 84% went online to research health topics. In comparison, 64% of non-caregivers with Internet access went online to research health topics.
    • I’m not surprised that caregivers are doing more research; families often seem more worried to me than patients do.
  • 39% of caregivers are helping to manage medications. 
    • The report doesn’t say how many medications they have to manage. But if you have someone else involved in your care, I’m guessing it’s a lot of medications. I’d love to eventually find out how many meds caregivers deal with on average.
  • Caregivers are more likely than non-caregivers to tap both online and offline information sources, such as clinicians, friends/family, or patient communities. Pew reports that “thirteen percent of caregivers were in contact with a clinician both online and offline, compared with 5% of non-caregivers.”
    • This is good, 13% of caregivers with access to clinical help online and offline. But we need to make it better.
  • One in three caregivers tracks a health indicator for a loved one. Of these, 44% track in their heads, 43% use paper, and 8% use an app.
    • As a clinician, I often rely on caregivers to give me the information I need to help address their loved one’s symptom. We definitely need to make it easier for them to track on paper or electronically, as this supports better clinical collaboration between patient, caregiver, and clinician. 
  • 41% of the caregivers who track end up sharing the tracked information with another person. More than half of the caregivers who track report sharing the data with a health professional.
    • This is good and I hope to see these numbers go up over the coming years. 

Unfortunately, although the demographics of the caregiver respondents are laid out, the main report doesn’t list the demographics of the care recipients. So, I don’t know just what proportion of these respondents are caring for elderly people, but presumably many respondents are caring for someone aged 65+.

All in all, this is a fascinating report and hopefully will generate some much needed attention to the need to educate and support caregivers.

If this topic is of interest to you, I’d also urge you to read Susannah Fox’s related blog post at e-patients.net, which is here. In it, she remarks

“Let’s stop there and consider: we have a large and growing group of people who are trying to conduct on-the-job training for themselves using the internet. They are more likely than other adults to have internet access and a mobile device. Many of them act like the kid who sits in the front row of every class, taking copious notes, clapping erasers for the teacher (anyone younger than 40, ask an older friend to explain). And yet if this report could be seen as a report card for how we as an online community are serving them, frankly it’s a D+.”

I myself am not sure just what grade I’d give the online community and digital health community when it comes to supporting caregivers…

But I think we can all agree that caregivers are very important, especially to those of who serve the elderly. Caregivers certainly need better support, education, and tools. This report should help spur additional attention to this essential issue.

Nice work, Pew!

ISO medication apps for dementia caregivers

I’ve been interested in apps for the caregivers of elders, but until recently I’ve also, like many physicians, been too busy to seriously research them or try them out.

(As I noted in my recent post on task management apps, selecting and learning to use an app can actually be quite time consuming.)

Time to change that. No, I’m not going to exhaustively research and review all caregiver apps on the market.

But, as I’ve been invited to give a technology talk to a local group of family caregivers later this summer, I would like to see if I can find a few specific apps or tools that are likely to help caregivers.

As this is an event specifically for younger caregivers, I’m expecting a group of caregivers that is generally comfortable with smartphones.

The care recipients, however, are primarily older adults with dementia. So this is a good match for my geriatrics background.

Which apps should I look for? I’m going to start by looking for apps that can support issues that I spend a lot of time counseling families on. As a major such issue is medication management, I’ll start my app search there.

How I usually advise caregivers on medications

I spend a lot of my clinical time both reviewing medications, and advising families on how to properly handle medications. Here’s what we usually end up discussing:
  • Maintaining an accurate and current list of all prescribed medications is essential. Older adults with dementia tend to see a lot of doctors, and have a lot of medications prescribed. Keeping track of them is crucial because:
    • Many medications have cognitive side-effects. These include sleep medications, allergy medications, overactive bladder medications, and others. (Unfortunately, although all these medications are on the Beer’s list, they continue to be often prescribed to older adults with dementia.) When an elder is getting worse cognitively, or has other complaints, it’s essential to be able to review an accurate medication list.
    • The treatment plan for any medical complaint should only be made after review of a current medication list. 
  • Keeping track of which medications the person is regularly taking is important. There is what’s been prescribed – or otherwise is on the list of biologically active substances regularly taken, many of which may be over-the-counter drugs or supplements — and then there’s what’s being taken most days. Although it can be theoretically be useful to have a log of when every single pill was taken, what is usually most useful is to start with a general sense of whether the patient is taking the drug regularly or not. 
    • For example, many older patients avoid their diuretics because they don’t want to have to pee more often. It’s important to find this out before attempting to increase the dose of blood pressure medication to bring hypertension under better control.
    • In other cases, patients are not taking a medication due to financial considerations, or concern about side-effects, or because their cousin Joe had a bad experience with it. All these issues merit a non-judgemental conversation, which can only get started when clinicians are alerted to the fact that patients are not taking prescribed medications.
  • Keeping track of how often a person takes “as needed” medications is important. These include medications for pain, for abdominal symptoms (heartburn, constipation), and even sometimes insulin. 
    • Reviewing the use of “as-needed” medication is needed to track the progression/resolution of a problem, and to inform future medication adjustments. 
    • Caregivers (and assisted living facility staff, for that matter) routinely underestimate the importance of tracking use of “as needed” medications; I know this because I often get blank looks when I ask how often an older person is requiring their “as-needed” medication.
  • Cognitively impaired older adults often need help remembering to take their medications. They also often need help refilling prescriptions. 
    • This can be a delicate matter, especially for those with only mild dementia who are often resistant to supervision or assistance from others. Still, it’s a real problem.

App features to support dementia caregivers

Given that I find myself repeatedly discussing the above issues with dementia caregivers, I’ll be looking for apps that can support caregivers and clinicians in these arenas. Specifically, I’m looking for apps that:

  • Make it easy for families to maintain an accurate and up-to-date medication list. Ideally this would be easy even if the patient sees multiple providers or uses multiple pharmacies (both situations are common among the elderly). It should also be very easy to enter medications and dosages, as well as update the list.
    • What I really hope to find are apps that don’t require laborious  manual entry of long drug names and dosages. If I can snap a picture of a check, why can’t caregivers snap a picture of their prescriptions and have the medication entered into their list?
  • Make it easy for families to share the list with clinicians. I once had a young caregiver hand me her smartphone, so that I could copy the medication list. Which of course was not formatted for the use of clinicians. (All the meds were organized by “morning meds,” “noon meds,” “evening meds,” which is handy for the caregiver but a pain for the busy clinician.)
    • At a minimum, it should be easy to print a medication list that can be handed to a clinician. Paper is not yet so outdated; every doctor’s office is equipped to scan paper and enter into its electronic record system. 
  • Make it easy for caregivers to track the use of “as-needed” medications. A good tool should treat “as needed” medications differently from the others on the list. I would love to find something that encourages caregivers to note when these “as needed” medications are used. 
    • Bonus if the tool includes a little text field so that caregivers can note how the patient felt after using the medication. (We clinicians need to know whether we are getting successful symptom control or not.)
    • Big bonus if the tool can summarize how much “as needed” medication was used over a given interval, either via text or graphic. I have in the past had caregivers keep time charts to track when they gave pain medication for an elderly person with advanced arthritis, and then found myself laboriously counting how many doses in a day, in a week, all in order to adjust the person’s long-acting pain medication. Surely tech tools can make this a little easier for all involved.
What about features to remind a person to take their medication at specific times of day? I’m interested in this too, but honestly it’s less of a priority to me. This is because I’ve found that when it comes to helping an elder take daily medications, the physical set-up and the establishment of a daily routine end up being very important. Would a dinging device three times daily also help? Maybe. But it’s not what I most want to find for caregivers at this point.
Needless to say, any medication tool for use by older adults and caregivers should be usable by those who have 10+ medications on their list.
Last but not least, I’d like to find tools that are available for both iPhone and Android.
If you have come across any medication apps or tools that you think might meet my criteria, please comment or send me an email.

Why We Can’t Leave It to Business to Educate Us

[This post was first published on The Health Care Blog on 4/5/13.]

Recently I came across yet another media article with suggestions as to how digital health products can gain more widespread adoption. The writer notes that “we can learn a lot from the pharma and healthcare industries,” and goes on to discuss the importance of engaging the doctor.

This article, like many I read, doesn’t acknowledge the downsides of using pharma’s tactics.

I have to assume that this is because from a business perspective, there aren’t a lot of downsides to pharma’s tactics. Pharma, along with many other healthcare industry players (hospitals, insurance companies, device manufacturers) has overall been extremely successful from a business standpoint.

So if the intent is to help digital health companies succeed as businesses, then by all means one should encourage them to copy pharma’s tactics.

But as we know, what works for business has often not worked well for serving the needs of individual patients, or to society from a health services and public health perspective.

This despite the fact that pretty much all businesses in healthcare proclaim that they are there to serve patients and society. Of course they will say this. This isn’t surprising at all.

What I have found a bit surprising, though, is the extent to which most of the media coverage of digital health is business-oriented and business-boosting. (I suppose this is because tech has always had a very close relationship with business and consumerism.)

Now, I do firmly believe that digital health innovations are absolutely essential to solving the country’s most pressing healthcare problems. I also believe that dynamic entrepreneurial energy is generally better at developing these innovations than are academic institutions or government entities.

But I worry about the extent to which business and entrepreneurs are directing the conversation on which innovations and approaches will best serve individual patients, and society. Business’ track record in this respect is really bad. Which makes sense: once a company has invested time and resources in bringing a product or service to market, they are going to try to sell it to the rest of us, whether or not it’s good for us.

In other words, although we need business innovations to help drive much-needed change in healthcare, I’m leery of letting business dominate the outreach to clinicians and society.

So, here are some related issues that I’ve been pondering lately:

  • How to encourage the media coverage of digital health to include a little more “in the interest of patients and the public” perspective?
  • How to help clinicians, academics, and health services experts learn about digital health, in a less marketing-directed way? (I’ve been informally polling my colleagues recently: most have never heard of e-patients and know very little about digital health. This means we have hardly anyone without financial ties to industry who can talk to tech journalists or others.)
  • How to foster more constructive interchanges between the digital health entrepreneurs, who have terrific new ideas, and health experts, who should be critiquing these new ideas and providing feedback on how the implications of adopting these products at scale, and how these products might be viewed in a broader health context?

For all these questions, it seems we would need to start by providing clinicians and healthcare experts with a way to keep current with digital health trends and technologies. And this way should not be unduly influenced by marketing efforts or entrepreneurial enthusiasm.

How should clinicians, academics, and non-profit experts learn about digital health?

It’s normal for the providers of these new technologies to volunteer to do the job (as pharma has historically done when it comes to new drugs), but we need viable alternatives that have fewer financial stakes in the education effort.

The problem, of course, is that our usual sources of more-objective-information-in-true-service-of-healthcare seem really unsuited to helping us understand emerging digital health technologies. For instance, by the time any high-quality peer-reviewed research is published, the technology studied is likely to be hopelessly outdated. Likewise, expert guidelines and panels take way too long to digest, process, and present their findings. So clinicians can’t keep current by relying on these time-tested methods of curating information.

Also, there is also a volume of information problem. I’ve been trying to learn about digital health for the past six months and it’s like trying to drink from a firehose.

Hence, I’ve been thinking that what I personally really need is a source of up-to-date commentary and information on digital health that is sensibly curated, and tailored to my clinical interests, i.e. the healthcare of medically complex older adults. To date, I’ve found sites that are related to caregiving, or consumer technology for seniors, or healthy aging, or evaluating assisted living. But none about technology for geriatric healthcare in particular.

So here is my latest idea: I’ve recently been wondering if something like the Journal Watch model could be adapted, to help clinicians keep up with key developments in digital health. (I subscribe to Journal Watch General Medicine.)

What I particularly like about Journal Watch is:

  • They review several key published articles every week, most of which are clinically relevant. (Occasionally there’s something about an exciting new bioscience breakthrough.)
  • They provide a nice concise summary of the research.
  • Each article summary is accompanied by a short comment written by a clinician-editor. The comment is by far the most valuable thing to read, since these editors tend to have an excellent grounding in the pragmatic aspects of clinical work, as well as a good understanding of the health-services implications of the study.

For comparison to the idea above, consider something like iHealthBeat.org. It is fantastic that the California Healthcare Foundation provides this service. And yet, I unsubscribed a while back.

Why? The snippets are too varied – nobody has selected items of special interest to clinicians and academics focused on medical care for older adults. Plus, the snippets themselves don’t feel like they’ve been selected and edited by someone who understands my needs and priorities – unsurprising since they aren’t chosen or commented on by another general internist.

Just as Journal Watch is intended to help clinicians keep up with “Medicine that Matters,” we need a Digital Health Watch service for clinicians, tailored for different specialties, to help clinicians and academics keep up with “Digital Health that Matters.”

Journal Watch, of course, isn’t free. But then again, most good sources of information aren’t.

If we had a good method for clinicians to learn about digital health, then we might see more healthcare experts constructively critiquing the efforts of the digital health entrepreneurs.

This might not be great for every company’s business, but could be very good for clinicians, individual patients and society.

Summing it up

It’s understandable that the entrepreneurial digital health community will want to engage and educate clinicians. However, as we’ve seen with pharma and other profit-oriented healthcare industries, there are significant downsides to letting business dominate and direct clinician education.

To date I’ve found that many of my colleagues in academia know little about digital health, or emerging technology innovations. This makes it difficult for medicine’s expert community to thoughtfully engage and critique the ideas of digital health entrepreneurs.

The overall healthcare needs of society would be much better served if clinicians and academics could learn about digital health via sources that have no significant financial conflict of interest. I would love to find a “Digital Health Watch” service similar to Journal Watch.

If you can recommend a high-quality, not-too-business-oriented source of information on digital health for me to follow, please comment or send me an email.