Search results

This conceptual chapter aims to understand the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in value co-creation phenomena in a healthcare service ecosystem, through a literature review and the definition of a conceptual framework. AI, as an operant resource, can stimulate a completely patient-centered, adaptive and resilient healthcare system, and governance models in healthcare based on data-driven decision-making (DDDM), ensuring faster choices, more timely diagnosis and more personalized treatment paths. However, the full implementation of AI in healthcare is inhibited by some frictions, mainly related to the risk that the AI black box may generate an inadequate automatic decision, also due to the quality of data used, often partial and unstructured given the reluctance to share them by patients concerned by privacy threats. The co-design (multi-part and multi-level) of a predictive decision model based on the functional transparency of the AI algorithm would allow for augmented decision as result of an effective human–machine interaction. Healthcare actors could thus make decisions using the information detected by the software (based on clear cause-and-effect correlations and modifiable variables in case of mistakes), integrated with their professional knowledge. This would also help to strengthen the patient’s perception of the decision’s reliability and accuracy and the safety of the tool (factors that can affect his/her trust). AI may be considered as a driver for value co-creation in healthcare, thanks to transparency. It would allow the promotion of collaborative behaviors involving actors by generating new institutions and new resource integration practices among them.

Karl Marx could only pen the memorable line, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” because he was heir to the sanitary and public health reforms of the nineteenth century (Marx [1848] 1972, p. 335). The Black Death, which had wiped out much of fourteenth-century Florence and which had regularly decimated sixteenth- and seventeenth-century London, was now but a faint memory. Yet had a historian of some earlier period of European history thought to pen a line as presumptuous as Marx's, it might have read: “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggle with plague or pestilence.” Epidemics and pandemics have haunted human societies from their beginnings. The congregation of large masses of humans in urban settings, in fact, made the evolution of human infectious disease microorganisms biologically possible (McNeill, 1976; Porter, 1997, pp. 22–25). Epidemics have been as determinative of the course of economic, social, military and political history as any other single factor – emptying cities, decimating armies, wiping out generations and destroying civilizations.

A policy of surveillance which interferes with the fundamental right to a private life requires credible justification and a supportive evidence base. The authority for such interference should be clearly detailed in law, overseen by a transparent process and not left to the vagaries of administrative discretion. If a state surveils those it governs and claims the interference to be in the public interest, then the evidence base on which that claim stands and the operative conception of public interest should be subject to critical examination. Unfortunately, there is an inconsistency in the regulatory burden associated with access to confidential patient information for non-health-related surveillance purposes and access for health-related surveillance or research purposes. This inconsistency represents a systemic weakness to inform or challenge an evidence-based policy of non-health-related surveillance. This inconsistency is unjustified and undermines the qualities recognised to be necessary to maintain a trustworthy confidential public health service. Taking the withdrawn Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between NHS Digital and the Home Office as a worked example, this chapter demonstrates how the capacity of the law to constrain the arbitrary or unwarranted exercise of power through judicial review is not sufficient to level the playing field. The authors recommend ‘levelling up’ in procedural oversight, and adopting independent mechanisms equivalent to those adopted for establishing the operative conceptions of public interest in the context of health research to non-health-related surveillance purposes.

This mixed methods multiple case study examines the knowledge, understanding, and awareness of 25 health board/facility oversight managers and 20 health professional association directors about privacy and security issues important to achieving health information exchange (HIE) in the state of Nebraska. Within case analyses revealed that health board/facility oversight managers were unaware of key elements of the federal agenda; their concerns about privacy encompassed broad definitions both of what constituted a “health record” and “regulations centeredness.” Alternatively, health professional association leaders were keenly aware of national initiatives. Despite concerns about HIE, they supported information exchange believing that patient care quality and safety would improve. Cross-case analyses revealed a perceptual disconnect between board/facility oversight managers and professional association leaders; however, both favored HIE. Understanding state-level stakeholder perceptions helps us further understand our progress toward achieving the national health information interoperability goal. There is an ongoing need to assure adequate patient privacy protection. Licensure and facility boards at the state level are likely to have a major role in the assurance of patient protections through facility oversight and provider behavior. The need for these boards to take an active role in oversight of patient rights and protections is imminent. Similarly, professional associations are the major vehicles for post-graduate education of practicing health professionals. Their engagement is essential to maintaining health professions knowledge. States will need to understand and engage both of these key stakeholders to make substantial progress in moving the HIE agenda forward.

This paper proposes an organizational change process to prepare physicians and other health professionals for their new roles in patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). It provides physician-centered tools, models, concepts, and the language to implement transformational patient-centered medical care.

To improve care delivery, quality, and patient engagement, a systems approach to care is required. This paper examines a systems approach to patient care where all inputs that influence patient interactions and participation are considered in the design of health care delivery and follow-up treatment plans. Applying systems thinking, organizational change models, and team-building, we have examined the continuum of this change process from ideation through the diffusion of new methods and behaviors.

PCMHs make compelling business sense. Studies have shown that the PCMH improves patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes and reduces underuse and overuse of medical services. Patient-centered care necessitates transitioning from an adversarial to a collaborative culture. It is a transformation process predicated on strong leadership able to align an organization toward a vision of patient-centered care, creating a collaborative culture committed to health-goal achievement.

This paper proposes that the PCMH is a rigorous team-building transformational organizational change, a radical departure from the current hierarchical, silo-oriented, medical practice model. It requires that participants within and across health care organizations learn new skills and behaviors to achieve the anticipated quality and efficiency improvements. It is an innovative health care organization model of the future whose success is premised on teams supplanting the individual as the building block and unit of health care performance.

Existing descriptions of trust in health care largely assume a straightforward association between a patient’s relationship with a regular provider and his or her trust in health care. I extend status characteristics theory (SCT) and social identity theory (SIT) to suggest greater variability in this association by investigating the role of social differences between patients and their regular providers. Whereas the SIT extension predicts lower trust in dissimilar than similar dyads, the predictions from the SCT extension depend on status in dissimilar dyads. Further, research examining how social differences in patient–provider dyads shape trust largely emphasizes racial differences, but the theories implicate gender differences too.

I analyze a longitudinal dataset of patient–provider dyads offering a conservative test of the extensions.

Results generally support predictions from the SCT extension. Specifically, patients’ status based on differences in either race or gender: (1) is inversely related to their trust in health care and (2) influences the resiliency of their trust, whereby the degree health care met prior expectations matters less (more) for the trust of low (high) status patients than equal status patients.

When patients and providers differ on both race and gender, findings sometimes depart from predictions. This indicates differences in two social categories is a unique situation where the contributions of each category are distinct from that of the other.

This research extends SCT to explain greater variability in the connection between patient–provider dyads and trust in health care, while also showing how gender compares to race.