LiveBlog: Touring Healthcare’s Best Web Strategies and Sites
Written November 5th, 2007 by Thomas Ames1:58:10 We’re still getting set up here in the presentation entitled Touring Healthcare’s Best Strategies and Sites. I think this presentation could be even more popular than the first presentation I attended, New Media Requires New Strategies. Should start here in a few minutes, so stay tuned.
2:03:59 There’s a few questions we’re asked often, and Kathy Divis, the presenter, hears them, too. “Who has the best Web site for a hospital?” Everyone has an opinion on that one. So here we go.
2:06:02 They really like the Web site of Sharp Healthcare. I believe they won a few awards last night at the Greystone conference. It’s a very clean, lightly colored design, with many functions readily available on their front page. Another neat thing they did was translated the entire site into Spanish.
2:06:59 Then there’s Spectrum Health. It has “modern colors and dynamic look and feel,” something we’re all looking for. They also mention New York-Presbyterian’s Web site, which, if I remember correctly, won Best Web site last night at Greystone. They have a lot of interactivity that is pretty impressive. Their design also includes the ability to view a video right on their front page. It too has Spanish content.
2:09:20 Now we’re on to the best physician directories. This can be a problem for many organizations, as we often generate this content from a physician database and then have to mold it into design. Northwestern Memorial Hospital has a nice key on the left side of the page so visitors can understand from the search results if a doctor is taking patients at that moment. I’ve always been a fan of physician directories that have videos and audio relevant to that doctor linked to the profile. It’s also important to have a call-to-action, and the most popular, of course, is the “make an appointment” module/function becoming more prevalent on healthcare Web sites.
2:13:45 The call center and Web site integration can also be difficult. NewYork-Presbyterian does it exceptionally well, with being able to request the call center to call the visitor back. They can even have a Web chat. I think half of the difficult for this function is getting on board with the different service lines, and the process by which you can take appointments. Meridian Health at Home also has a very nice call center integration.
2:16:01 Internal search results. Oh, don’t get me started. Many Web sites, frustrated by dysfunctional internal search results, now rely on Google. We’re considering that, too. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center’s internal search result looks very efficient. They broke out their results into segments of related pages, quick links, health encyclopedia, and some other nice results. The Medical University of South Carolina’s is similar with respect to segmentation for related pages, podcasts, and other Web 2.0 functions.
2:16:42 Wow, this is going quickly. Now we’re on to WAP Applications. Children’s Medical Center Dallas won an award for its low-cost mobile application. It’s simple but gets the point across, and also includes not just English but Spanish. For something you can develop in 2 to 4 weeks, that’s not bad at all.
2:18:19 Hospital fees. This is about putting pricing information online. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center allows visitors to see the prices for office visits, in and outpatient services, and even tests. Just select your insurance (if any) and the procedure/test, and you can see how much it will cost. It will even estimate how much you will owe. That’s astoundingly impressive. Spectrum Health does this, as well, and even segments it between their two locations.
2:20:35 Oakwood has a very clear and yet robust Web site, and their quality information was deemed the best. You can see the quality report and even definitions of what the terms mean. It’s not just numbers, either; it’s also charts and graphs, and compares it to the national average. Quality reports is actually one of the least viewed parts of our Web site. I wonder why that is.
2:22:57 Cleveland Clinic has a very comprehensive listing of research and clinical trials. It has a very nice Q&A describing the process for clinical trials and who to contact. It also includes any costs. A very nice database application for those looking for clinical trials. As a note, they also think Brigham and Women’s Hospital has a nice RSS subscription function for clinical trials. Very innovative.
2:24:41 Physician practice sites hits home for us: Washington University Physicians was selected as the best. They have a very clean design that offers physicians different functions for getting appointments set up with visitors.
2:25:54 Here’s the patient portals! We all knew it was coming. Palo Alto Medical has a nice patient portal whereby they can request and cancel appointments, email a doctor, and is just a very nice, functional concept. Apparently they have 60,000 members signed up. They even have an advanced portal where visitors can pay out of their pocket to have that type of communication access with their physicians.
2:27:42 My fingers are starting to hurt and my legs are burning from the laptop. Bah! They only briefly went over CHOP’s physician portal, so I didn’t get to see much of it.
2:28:50 Lucille-Packard has a little children’s site where a patient can view information about the procedure before he or she comes in. Nice little feature, and is very kid-oriented.
2:29:30 Emory has a very nice FAQ section with video answers. Wow.
2:30:40 Virtual tours are something we all want. St. Margaret’s (Canada) has a nice map with a virtual tour positioned at different places on the map, and then a voice comes over and explains a little about teach virtual tour location.
2:31:21 Now we’re moving on to examples of Web 2.0. I actually heard this presenter, Robin Snow, yesterday in the Greystone portion. I wonder how much of this will be a repeat of what he said yesterday. As a note, he was one of the presenters I was referring to that focused on the value of YouTube, despite the most viewed video on the example had 44 hits.
2:34:02 Interesting quote from him. “Many of our clients are focusing not on the text-based Web but the video-based Web.” Obviously if you’ve seen my previous posts, you know that I’m in favor of content first, pizazz second. But unfortunately most of us (and our administrators) prefer the flashy stuff to the information. Information isn’t as fun, but it’s what your visitors are looking for. The videos are bonuses if used appropriately.
2:37:40 Rush Medical Center has a very impressive section on their Web site called “rushstories.” These are TV spots that are shortened patient profiles that still have an impact on viewers. They also host them on the Web, a smart move to cross-promote the same information.
2:40:02 University of Alabama-Birmingham uses Photobooks to make a nice, clear video archive with a wrap that doesn’t give you the slightest clue (outside of the URL) that you’re on someone else’s site. Very nice way to present the video without having to host it themselves.
2:42:40 Rush Medical Center has an interactive module with video and a voiceover that prompts the user to select answers to questions. In this case it’s about sleep problems. I’m not sure who they use, but this technology is available through a few resources, including Greystone.
2:45:12 UAB has an “intouch” section that provides personalized information. For instance, they provide healthTV, podcasts, and other Web 2.0 mediums through this section.
2:46:45 He’s now talking about how UAB has a comprehensive analytics package that told them which advertisements were most effective, at what times, what days, etc. How big is their Web team?!
2:48:02 I really like St. Joseph’s Web site. The site is just so clear and easy to navigate, my hat goes off to them. That, and their color scheme really complements their branding, and, unlike some organizations’ colors, really turns into a nice looking Web site.
2:51:04 Ah, a mention of Neil Linkon, a Webiscope member. He has an exceptional archive of audio that he has produced for his organization, if I heard correctly, entirely himself.
2:52:50 Robin is talking about some ways blogs can be applied. I’ve never understood construction blogs or Web cams. I could care less if someone is going through construction or what it looks like right now. I just want to get there on time.
2:53:55 Well he mentioned Wikipedia very quickly. It’s a good idea to update that yourself or otherwise someone else will. That’s it! See you at the next presentation (barring the inability to get access)!
November 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
‘Quality reports is actually one of the least viewed parts of our Web site. I wonder why that is.’
My guess? Patients/visitors either don’t know, or don’t care enough about quality reports. Hospitals tout quality reports and indicators, but really what does the general public know about what’s good and what’s bad, or what they really mean?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I guess in a sense we really don’t want them to, either. It’s well known that quality reports for children’s hospitals are grossly skewed because of the inability to present an accurate baseline. Most people assume it’s like an adult hospital, and that’s not true. We don’t hide it from them, of course, but we do need them to understand that there’s a difference between children’s and adult hospitals.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
We get a lot of requests by administrators to put more quality information on our site, and we started working with our quality group on it a year ago (that has been a slow moving project).
Greystone definitely recommends having this, and pricing info, on your public site. I also am dubious as to how much demand there is for the quality info, but if you have the content why not post it online (barring issues about skewed results, etc.). I think the future of the quality info is going to be the sites that allow patients to compare quality indicators across multiple facilities. Consumer Reports for healthcare.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
It was my understanding that publishing your quality reports was required. Perhaps I’m wrong. Our system, who does the quality reports, maintains that section of the Web site, and we merely link to them. It’s not the best process in the world, as the QR page has a HORRIBLE design on it. But it’s not our highest priority, either.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Just wanted to comment that UAB had only 2 people dedicated to the web till several months ago when a third person was hired. The team does an amazing amount of work and has a great network for outsourcing.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Wow, very impressive, Debbie. We organizations with a single person for the Web team are very jealous. Because we only have one person (me), we tend to outsource as much SEO and paid advertisements as possible.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Nice blog, Thomas. I think you got it mostly right in your comments. And I am amazed that anybody can type fast enough to do a live blog.
But… two quick points. You compare content and pizazz in discussing the value of video on the Web site. Video IS content, and, as most studies have show, is vastly more effective in communicating a message and converting a site visitor to a prospect than text.
On your reference to the YouTube video in the presentation having only 44 views… I think you are missing the point. The goal is not to have the next “Evolution of Dance” with 63 million views or the “UAB ER Rap” with 61,000 views. The goal is to expose the clinical service video content to a wide audience through another channel and to participate in a larger social environment. If done properly, through tagging, the videos can be seen by interested views in a relevant context.
Your thoughts?
November 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
@Robin: Fixed your links.
You claim that video is content, and while this is obviously true, I think what Thomas meant was that we’re missing the obvious fact that we’re not yet doing a good enough job marketing and integrating the content we already have (or more specifically, the content we are lacking). Specifically using meta tags and tieing in syndicated content with hospital-specific service line content.
Obviously a video produced by a hospital that is meant to either inform or market is not going to be nearly as viral as something that’s comedic or satirical in nature.
Just my $.02.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Thanks, Robin!
….That’s exactly right, Aaron. I can stick as many videos up on the Web as I want, but hospital videos aren’t likely to be all that interesting. However, subjects I do think would work on YouTube would be patient profiles about rarer diseases and procedures.
But, as Aaron said, we can talk about YouTube all you want, but without content to motivate the visitor to give you a call, your video was unsuccessful. It’s not about getting hits or views or even linkbacks/trackbacks from YouTube; it’s about motivating the viewer to do two things: first, think the video was good enough to warrant further research at your institution, and, second, once he or she gets to your page, to think THAT content is good enough to warrant contact with your organization.
I’ve talked about this a few times in a few previous blog posts. You have to tailor your content to motivate visitors to come to you. And some content (even when complemented by videos) just won’t be successful unless the procedure/treatment is competitive. This takes into consideration the availability of treatment, specificity or focus on rare procedures, and/or some other aspect that will drive visitors to want to come to your facility.
At this time, unless it’s an outstanding patient profile, I don’t see much use in YouTube. I know our media relations team is looking to put more videos online, but if they’re just talking heads of doctors talking about some procedure, I severely doubt we’ll get many referrals from the ordeal. It must be interesting and motivating.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Aaron, thanks for the link fix and your comments.
And Thomas, thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I’ll have to say I don’t disagree either of you.
All of your points are well made and not in conflict with any ideas presented in our presentation or with our advise to our clients. Content — text, images, audio, or video — must be relevant and informative. If properly integrated with related content and presented at a critical decision point, regardless of the platform, the prospective patient will be motivated to act on meaningful options and an online dialogue can begin. A newly diagnosed patient seeking a treatment may find an otherwise “boring hospital video” (or text for that matter) about a particular procedure extremely “interesting”. It’s all in presenting the right content at the right time to the right person.