IBM Watson in a Clinical Setting: Replacing Physicians?

Wondering if a computer can ever intuit as a human, no matter how good the programming…

Related articles

• IBM Watson in a Clinical Setting: Replacing Physicians? (scienceroll.com)
• Paging Dr. Watson: IBM Partners with Sloan Kettering and WellPoint to Treat Cancer (w/video) (medgadget.com)
• IBM Watson providing superior cancer treatment plans and will accelerate the adoption of new cancer research (nextbigfuture.com)
• IBM Watson Could be Offered as Technology as a Service (datacenterknowledge.com)
• Google Glass, iWatch and IBM Watson Revolutionizing The Practice of Medicine (scienceroll.com)
• Understand IBM Watson – Bring Artificial Intelligence to Clinical Decision Support (ehealth.johnwsharp.com)
• IBM’s Watson – the same machine that beat Ken Jennings at… (futureof.biz)

ScienceRoll

I’m a geek and you know how much I support the inclusion of digital technologies in medicine, healthcare and medical education. At the same time, I always highlight the fact that doctors will be needed for practicing medicine, robots cannot do their job. I know Vinod Khosla thinks otherwise.

Now, after watching the video demonstration of how Watson could help a clinician, I have doubts about a future. We will see how it gets integrated in everyday medicine. I support the IBM Watson project very much, but I hope medical professionals, humans, will always play the major role in the practice of medicine.

See also the Medgadget report.

View original post

Key Trends in the Future of Medicine: E-Patients, Communication and Technology

English: Watson demoed by IBM employees. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

From the 25 October 2012 post at Blogroll

 

…

Robots replacing doctors?

I’ve given hundreds of presentations and I teach at several universities about the use of social media in everyday medicine and I always highlight the importance of 1) doctor-patient relationship in person, and 2) good communication skills for doctors, but if I try to think ahead, I have to agree with Vinod Khosla that technology can replace 80% percent of the work of doctors.

Khosla believed that patients would be better off getting diagnosed by a machine than by doctors. Creating such a system was a simple problem to solve. Google’s development of a driverless smart car was “two orders of magnitude more complex” than providing the right diagnosis.

IBM’s Watson is just the perfect example here. They have been working closelywith oncologists at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York in order to see whether Watson could be used in the decision making processes of doctors regarding cancer treatments. Watson doesn’t answer medical questions, but based on the input data, it comes up with the most relevant and potential answers and the doctor has the final call. This is an important point as it can only facilitate the work of doctors, not replacing them…

..So what should we expect to see in the next decades? I think we will see amazing developments in many areas, except medicine in which small and slow steps will mark the way towards a more transparent healthcare system in which decision trees are available for everyone, online content and social media are both curated, patients are empowered, doctors are web-savvy, and collaborative barriers are gone forever. A new world in which medical students are trained to be able to deal with the rapidly evolving technologies and e-patients.

 

A great related graphic at http://envisioningtech.com/envisioning-the-future-of-health.pdf

(WordPress was not responding when an upload was attempted)

 

 

 

Related articles

• Vinod Khosla: Technology Will Replace 80 Percent of Docs (jflahiff.wordpress.com)
• Key Trends in the Future of Medicine: E-Patients, Communication and Technology (jflahiff.wordpress.com)
• IBM’s Watson Is Learning Its Way To Saving Lives (fastcompany.com)
• How Much is too Much and Who Decides? (finnpartners.com)
• “Third kind of computer” learns cancer medicine (computerworld.co.nz)
• Vinod Khosla Thinks I’m Narrow-Minded (thehealthcareblog.com)
• Topol says machines will be vital to healthcare transformation, new doc-patient partnership (medcitynews.com)

 

[Reblog] How hospitals recoup the cost of buying robotic surgery systems (& questions to ask surgeon before consenting to robotic surgery)

Image via Wikipedia

Posted February 6, 2012 by Gary Schwitzer at HealthNewsReview.org 

The blogger known only as the Skeptical Scalpel (self-described as a surgeon for 40 years and a surgical department chairman and residency program director for over 23 of those years) continueshis thread of posts raising questions about the proliferation of robotic surgery.

The latest is entitled “Study: Robotic surgery financials explained.” It’s his take on a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.  Excerpts:

The headline, “Robotic Hysterectomy Cuts Blood Loss in Obese,” is certainly catchy. Let’s look deeper. 

…

The lead author said, “The robotic hysterectomy does … offer lower rates of conversion to laparotomy but does cause higher facility and total charges, as well as higher reimbursement rates.” The mean total hospital charge for robotic hysterectomy was $44,700 versus $25,557, a statistically significant difference. The average charge for the robotic instruments was $8,322 compared to $3,762 for standard laparoscopy equipment, also a significant difference. In response to a question about why there was such a disparity, the lead author said: “The charges are likely to recoup the cost of the robot purchase. We have multiple robots … four at our main institution and several others at other sites.”

The reimbursement actually received for robotic hysterectomy was $19,000 and for standard laparoscopic, a mere $$8,000.

I congratulate the authors for their candor [though no doubt inadvertent] in sharing the financial data and the reasons why robotic surgery is more costly. I am gobsmacked* at the differential in charges and reimbursement for the two types of hysterectomy and that the secret would be so openly shared.

I guess someone has to help the hospital “recoup the cost of the robot purchase.” But I wonder why third party payers are shelling out almost two-and-a half times more money for a procedure that has not been proven more effective than standard laparoscopic surgery?

And you wonder why health care costs are skyrocketing?

Comments

Walter Lipman posted on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 am

Using this “pay as you use” logic, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see one set of charges for your bed being located in the hospital’s parking lot versus another and higher set of charges for your bed being located in a room inside the hospital.

Reply

Michelle Luthringshausen, MD posted on February 21, 2012 at 8:54 am

As a surgeon, I am fascinated by this shallow analysis of cost and complete disregard for what is best for the patient. An open hysterectomy has a complication rate of 11%, highest in obese patients. A robotic hysterectomy done by an experienced surgeon in an obese patient has a complication rate of 3%. Complications are expensive for hospitals, health systems and especially patients. According to the American College of Surgeons NSQIP data, one complication’s DIRECT costs are around $12,000.
My second comment is that “charges” are only relevant in the uninsured patient, which will rarely be recouped anyway. The “cost” is what the insurance company and patients actually pay or reimburse, which is a contracted price based on the procedure done, NOT the way it was done, in an insured patient. In most cases, the hospital and surgeon get paid the same fee whether the robot was used or not…..

Related article

A 27 February 2012 article at HealthNewsReview.org summarizes a recent Chicago Tribune article on the evidence (sorely lacking) that robotic surgery allows for quicker healing and less pain.

Excerpts

Despite a flood of scientific papers associated with the da Vinci, there is a dearth of randomized, controlled studies showing patients do best if procedures are performed with the da Vinci. Federal oversight of medical devices such as the da Vinci is light. There have been voluntary recalls — more than a dozen since 2005 — involving problems with software and surgical instruments. Lawsuits have helped raise concerns that some surgeons are using the devices before the doctors are adequately trained.

Here are some questions patients should ask their surgeon when considering a robot-assisted procedure:

•When did you do your first robot-assisted procedure? How were you trained? How many robot-assisted cases have you done? How often do you do them? How many robot-assisted cases have you done of my procedure?

•Are you more comfortable doing this type of procedure laparoscopically, robot-assisted or the traditional open approach? What are the pros and cons of each?

•What happens if the robot malfunctions during surgery or you have to convert to open surgery? How many open cases of my procedure have you performed? How often do you do them?

•What kind of training on the da Vinci do the nurses and other surgeons in the operating room get? How experienced are they? How experienced are they in converting to an open procedure mid-surgery?

•Will you be mentoring another surgeon during my procedure? Will he or she be doing any of it? If so, how many cases has he or she performed?

 

Related articles

• Could pricey surgical robots make their way into medium-sized hospitals? (medcitynews.com)
• Health Watch: Robotic Sleep Apnea Surgery (philadelphia.cbslocal.com)
• Men’s hopes for robot prostate surgery unrealistic: Study (vancouversun.com)
• Pricey Surgery Robots Lack Clear Benefits (nlm.nih.gov)
• Stemming the Tide of Overtreatment in Health Care (Chicago Tribune)
• Robotic surgeries costlier but safer than more invasive techniques (healthzone.ca)
• Remote-control surgery grows despite inconclusive evidence (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Houston Colorectal Surgeon Discusses Advanced Robotic Surgery for Cancer Treatment (prweb.com)
• Problems with robotic surgery (myblogroboticsurgery.wordpress.com)
• So many questions…. (myblogroboticsurgery.wordpress.com)

“When hospitals buy robots they also use them as a marketing tool in direct-to-consumer marketing. That startedwith the drug companies and it worked well. It’s very effective,” said Dr. Hugh Lavery, a urologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York who authored the study.”