Financial incentives urging medical facilities to adopt Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) recently started flowing to qualified organizations.  Penalties for failing to adopt start in 2015.  So, over the next 4 ½ years, physicians and medical administration alike will be pushing forward in the quest for an EMR.

With incentives for adopting earlier rather than later offering extra financial advantages, current EMRs on the market seem to have the edge on competitors.  So, what types of products are flooding the market?

Historically a PC-saturated industry, the EMR market is PC-friendly rich in EMR options.  However, the adoption of EMRs may cause a shift in the market to a Mac standard. 

Chris Thorman of Software Advice’s article Mac EMR Software | A Guide to Medical Software for Apple Computers touches on this very subject.

Many providers, notably smaller offices, are choosing Apple computers over PC-based systems to run their practice. Their reasons are the same reasons consumers choose Mac products: stability, simplicity and ‘coolness’".   ~Chris Thorman, Software Advice

Will Apple take a large slice out of the PC’s medical industry?  Or, will a lack of available Mac options early on in this race minimize the potential effect of the market?

The market likes options, so more Apple-friendly EMRs are bound to spring up.  But, with incentives rewarding quick implementaiton, facilities may jump the gun instead of waiting for more products to surface.

For a succinct article outlining current Mac compatible products and web-based EMR check out Thorman’s article on Mac EMR Software.

Read more: http://www.softwareadvice.com/articles/medical/mac-emr-software-a-guide-to-medical-software-for-apple-computers-1051810/#ixzz0oaEFQ8NS
 

The growth of new health information technologies is spurring on a communication revolution pointed towards delivering better health care and encouraging proactive health strategies. With these developments comes a series of questions surrounding the acceptance and implementation of new technologies, which affect diverse businesses and perspectives.

Defining eHealth Terms

Headlines on the eHealth revolution contain certain building blocks that should be defined to better understand the current state of the technologies: EMR, EHR, and PHR. Pinpointing the meaning behind these three acronyms portrays how daunting the responsibility to design effect eHealth communication tools is given the array of stakeholders sharing interest in the technology’s success (patients, providers, medical practitioners, insurance carriers, policy makers).

The National Alliance for Health Information Technology offered the following definitions in Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms (2008).

EMR – Electronic Medical Record – “An electronic record of health-related information on an individual that can be created, gathered, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff within one health care organization.” (Bell et al, 2008) It is important to note that information on an EMR cannot necessarily be exchanged between organizations.

EHR – Electronic Health Record – “An electronic record of health-related information on an individual that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be created, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff across more than one health care organization.” (Bell et al, 2008) Given the industry’s push towards nationally recognized interoperability standards, EMRs will be phased out and replaced by EHRs.

PHR – Personal Health Record – “An electronic record of health-related information on an individual that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be drawn from multiple sources while being managed, shared, and controlled by the individual.” The key difference here is the consumer, or patient, holds control over managing how the information is used and accessed. For a record to be considered a PHR, the individual must hold personal responsibility for disseminating the information.

The short of the definitions comes down to EMRs and EHRs being tools for medical providers. PHRs on the other hand focus on involving the consumer in personal health initiatives to enhance wellbeing.

Current PHR Affairs

By fostering an individual’s interaction through documenting, tracking and evaluating their health conditions a PHR can lead to better informed health care decisions, superior health status, and thus, reduced health-related costs and superior quality of care. (Bell et al, 2008) With all of these benefits, where are PHRs falling short for today’s consumer markets? Developing a widely accepted technology warranting frequent interactions from a colossal population base is challenging for any marketer. But, put the jeopardy of individuals’ lives on the line and the stakes rise to an all-time high.

Communication proves a challenge for current PHRs. Although considered an emerging technology in the United States, PHR initiatives have been implemented in other nations. The successes and failures of countries such as Englad, Germany, Canada, Denmark and Australia serve as guidelines for realization of PHRs in the US. (Deutsch et al, 2009) Kreps and Neuhauser suggested new directions in which to take PHRs nationally in their article Rethinking Communication in the e-Health Era:

1. Enhance interactivity between consumer and caregiver –Medical guidance counselors should have collaborative lines of communication with which to share feelings and beliefs regarding treatment. Delivery of medical information can intimidate or discourage adoption of advice. (Neuhauser et al, 2008). Internalizing instructions occurs when recipients have an active role in the collaboration phase.
2. Increase interoperability of PHRs – Being able to send and receive health records in a timely fashion is of utmost importance; however, little progress has been made to develop national standards that would enable seamless use of PHRs.
3. Create dynamic and engaging communications – Capturing and holding an individual’s attention generates more challenges than ever before while crossing communication barriers such as literacy, language, culture, or disability will be no small feat. Capitalizing on the social networking frenzy may further the acceptance of the new technology.
4. Cost effect design control – Creating a personalized PHR feel without the personalized web-development cost is paramount. Interpersonal approaches to past health communication outcomes have proven to be more successful than targeting the mass media. The wealth of information available on the internet for free prohibits the typical consumer from justifying the purchase of a PHR. The time docked creating or using a free PHR may even seem like to much of an investment. Therefore, cost of the systems must be kept low.

Two other barriers prohibiting the use of PHRs are privacy and security. Ethical concerns surrounding privacy or confidentiality remain a hot topic for debate. All parties interested in PHRs have legal or ethical responsibilities to keep patient information confidential. However, many PHR companies do not feel obligated to follow HIPPA Privacy regulations.

The possibilities surfacing from standardized PHRs are seemingly endless…

• Web-cam Doctor Consultations
• Electronic Prescription Approval
• Personalized, Free Health & Wellness Plans

Consumers, medical professionals, and health care organizations would benefit from the additional information gleaned from a comprehensive and well-maintained PHR. Improved patient safety and health outcomes could be the result of PHRs for business stakeholders, while patients could benefit from more comprehensive health care and possibly healthier lifestyles.

Interested in learning more?

Bell, K. & Bradford, A. (2008). Report to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms. Department of Health & Human Services.

Deutsch, E., Duftschmid, G. & Dorda, W. (2010). Critical Areas of National Electronic Health Record Programs – Is Our Focus Correct? International Journal of Medical Informatics (79), 211-222.

Neuhauser, L. &. Kreps, G. (2003). Rethinking Communtion in the e-Health Era. Journal of Health Psychology (8), 7-22.
 

High Point, NC (Vocus/PRWEB ) March 25, 2010 — Amistaff Healthcare Technology, Inc. – leader in healthcare competency – continues to raise standards of validated exam development with their NurseTesting.com service releasing the new Registered Nurse Medical/Surgical Exam and Registered Nurse Pharmacology Exam. Utilizing a new validation process never before applied to healthcare competency exams, hospitals and healthcare staffing firms receive access to exam content linked directly to specific job functions and requirements. Assisting with hiring and retaining the most qualified personnel for healthcare positions directly correlates to improving quality of patient care.

The new exams augment NurseTesting.com’s extensive exam library which follows standards set forth by The Joint Commission (a national healthcare standards organization). The new content validation process takes the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) and applies them to the development of these assessments.

We are confident that with the use of our newly validated exams, a more accurate assessment of healthcare professionals will be available, empowering the employer to select the best candidate for the position, thereby improving the quality of care being delivered to patients across the country.

The two phase development process starts with an in-depth Job Analysis where Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) provide a series of ratings for key job/duties/tasks and specific knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of healthcare professionals on the first day of the job. Then SMEs develop a test plan and begin writing items for exams.

During both phases statistical data is collected and analyzed (i.e. inter-rater reliabilities and Angoff ratings) yielding final recommendations for which items to include in the assessments. The data collected affords the opportunity for assigning initial unmodified Angoff Cutoff Scores. Widely-used arbitrary cutoff scores leave hospitals and staffing agencies wide-open for adverse impact claims. Amistaff’s validation process helps minimize legal responsibility for hospitals and staffing agencies from the use of pass/fail cutoff scores.

Overseeing the implementation of the research and revision system, Chief Nursing Officer, James Ostmann Sr. RN, MBA, states, "We are confident that with the use of our newly validated exams, a more accurate assessment of healthcare professionals will be available, empowering the employer to select the best candidate for the position, thereby improving the quality of care being delivered to patients across the country."

Amistaff will continue utilization of this rigorous content validation process on future exams in an effort to provide high caliber pre-screening assessment tools for the healthcare industry. Implementing pre-screening standards aimed at hiring and retaining the best qualified healthcare professionals attests to facilities’ and staffing agencies’ commitment to improving quality of patient care.

About Amistaff Healthcare Technology – Amistaff Healthcare Technology was founded in 2004 as a healthcare staffing solutions provider. Amistaff creates products and services that help hospitals and healthcare staffing firms improve recruitment, retention and placement of caregivers. Amistaff includes a team of IT professionals, RN’s and former recruiters allowing Amistaff to base their products on an in-depth understanding of each client’s unique staffing requirements. All of the Amistaff products, including Prophecy Health, NurseTesting.com, and BlueSky Medical Staffing Software, are web-based solutions designed to simplify workflow and increase efficiency. Visit www.amistaff.com for additional information.

Healthcare Reform, a dinner topic for many Americans, has topped the headlines for 18+ months.  During this period, certain suggestions on reforming healthcare grabbed my attention.

Last week we focused on how polarized the pro’s and con’s on reform have become.  Although poignant, the arguments for and against were meant to stir emotions on this pressing issue.

So, this week we turn our attention to reform alternatives – beyond those typically proposed – to continue stirring the passion pot!

Proceedings’ Time Management

Let’s start with Mary R. Grealy’s, writer for Disruptive Women in Healthcare, first-hand opinion on how time was managed at the 2010 Healthcare Summit.  The title really sets the tone: “Missed Opportunities and the Mandate Dilemma.”

“I can’t help but believe that a valuable opportunity was squandered during the health reform legislative process.  This was a time for a dialogue between political leaders and the American people on the steps necessary to achieve accessible, affordable health insurance for all…

Instead, we spent valuable months arguing over whether government should take the unprecedented step of creating a health insurance entity to “compete” in the private marketplace.  The disproportionate focus on the government plan option undoubtedly helped fuel fear of expanded federal influence over healthcare and, subsequently, to the anti-mandate legislative measures we’re seeing today.”

In another portion of the post, Grealy compares an individual’s responsibility to carry health coverage to one’s responsibility to have property insurance.  If everyone could take out a policy when their house was on fire, then our property insurance system would fail.  She articulates that our health insurance will crumble to ruins in the same light if the healthiest of us could defer insurance until an illness arises. 

Urine, or You’re Out

One of the more ingenious ideas for reforming the current healthcare budget stemmed from nothing more than a FWD:  Alright – you caught me!  Now and then a catchy subject line piques my interest and “Urine or You’re Out” did just that.

I unfortunately do not have an author with whom to attribute this idea, so please allow for a bit of ambiguity:

“Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.  In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem)

What I do have problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my Question: Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? (I’ve taken the liberty to delete a bit of description here…if you are interested in it – let me know in the comments section below!)

 I guess we could title that program, ‘Urine or You’re Out’.” ~ Anonymous

Stop Cushioning Wallets

This idea may not have the shock factor of the last, but has been receiving publicity as of late.  Rosemary Gibson, author of “The Treatment Trap, Stop Running Red Lights AND Pay for Health Care Reform” compares medical treatments to traffic lights.

• Life-threatening procedures, such as fixing a ruptured appendix are considered green. 
• Yellow procedures involve weighing benefits and risks, such as the recent mammogram discussion.
• “Overuse”- a term coined by a panel from the Institute of Medicine –are red procedures where negatives outweigh the positives.

And, look at these research findings Gibson references:

In a survey conducted by the American College of Physician Executives, eighty percent of physicians who responded said they were very concerned or moderately concerned about their physician colleagues over treating patients to boost their income. Fifty-four percent said they were concerned about their peers admitting patients to a hospital to increase their bottom line. The survey respondents are in leadership positions in hospitals, medical practices and other health care organizations.

Wrap-Up

Overall, please note that in my opinion there is no simple, quick, stress-free option for  Healthcare Reform !  I just found the arguments for and against reform, as well as the ideas floating around for enhancing the reform process, interesting.

My hope is that these two posts stretched you beyond the ‘comfort zone.’  If you have other creative ideas for reducing costs in the healthcare budget, or ways to speed up the reform process, please comment below. 
 

In observance of National Patient Safety Awareness Week, the ECRI Institute is offering a free communications risk analysis through Saturday, March 13, 2010.  Per ECRI’s 3/4/2010 news release,

"communication is cited as a root cause in nearly 70% of reported sentinel events, surpassing other commonly identified issues such as staff orientation and training, patient assessment, and staffing. The increasingly complex healthcare environment can complicate the communication process and hinder the information exchanges necessary for optimum care."

Healthcare professionals have access to downloading "Communication" – the full risk analysis – from ECRI Institute’s Patient Safety Center Website.

We hope this resource is beneficial for your organizations!  For more information, see ECRI’s full news release. 

If any nurses on your floor are expected to deliver and titrate I.V. drugs, this resource should prove beneficial.  Take the angst and qualm out of calculating I.V. drip rates with these simplified equations from Ira Grene Reynolds, BSN, RN, PCCN-CMC in American Nurse Today.

As Reynolds writes, "Although many I.V. infusion pumps calculate drip rates automatically, these rates must be double-checked to ensure patient safety…If you feel uneasy when performing these critical tasks, you’re not alone.  To boost your confidence, this article presents simplified equations to help you breeze through selected I.V. drip rates calculations."

View the entire PDF by selecting the PDF icon:

Source: Ira Gene Reynolds, BSN, RN, PCCN-CMC, "Calculating I.V. Drip Rates With Confidence," American Nurse Today. October 2006: Vol 1, No 1.

Health Reform – controversial topic, yes, I know!

Welcome to Part I of the Healthcare Reform saga.  Scouting through a few of my favorite journalist I realized the vast perceptions on both sides of the spectrum.

Moving beyond the typical pro / con arguments, some venture to suggest ways to cut healthcare costs all together.  The idea here is that Healthcare Reform does not solely concern providing health insurance for all Amerians.  With the plethora of information available, I have chosen to separate this post into Part I: Polar Opposites and Part II: Why Didn’t the White House Think of This!

So, here we go.  Passion at its finest…

***Please do not read into the Pro’s being listed first.  One side had to be listed first, and Pro’s generally come before Con’s…I truly am trying to show both sides without a bias!***

Pro – Reform

Unnecessary Death Counts Will Rise

Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA states, “Failure to pass health reform—in effect, doing nothing to make health coverage and care affordable—results in…the ultimate, inexcusable consequence—lost lives.”

“Every day in 2010, approximately 68 non-elderly adult Americans across the nation will die prematurely due to lack of health coverage. If health reform fails, the Consumer Health Report "Lives on the Line: The Deadly Consequences of Delaying Health Reform", warns that the number of deaths would grow from 68 per day in 2010 to 84 per day in 2019,” summarizes Caralyn Davis from FierceHealthcare in “No insurance? Consequences Could be Deadly”.

Stimulate Economic Productivity

"Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, thus allowing them to contribute to society for a longer time. The cost of bad health and shorter life spans of Americans suffering from uninsurance amounts to $65-130 billion annually." From Pro & Con’s Argument: "Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?"

Constitutional Right

Many Americans have jumped on the band wagon that Health Insurance being affordable and provided to all citizens falls under the protection of the Preamble of the Constituation which states its purpose is to "promote general welfare."  Remember however that promote, not provide.  Much the same letters, but very different meanings.

These comments only scratch the surface on the conviencing arguments pro healthcare reform.  But, one would be naïve to look at just one side of the story…

Anti – Reform

Deter Competition = Hike Prices & Limit Quality of Services

I found many well-written arguments for government play in Healthcare leading to an overall increase in prices (the monopoly effect) and decrease in quality care.  However, I felt Chandler J. Rapsom from Workforce Management eloquently summarized the idea in the article “What Health Care Reform Really Needs: Effective Wellness and Free-Market Competition.”

"By removing any incentives for individuals to take control of their health and wellness, chronic conditions will soar in both prevalence and severity…By failing to include mandates that would level the playing field and allow insurers, third-party administrators and self-insured employers to compete equitably for providers and patients, there is no incentive for dominant carriers to keep premium costs down and expand the scope of coverage."

The increase in demand for healthcare may also decrease quality of care due to healthcare professionals becoming overstretched.

Detrimental to American Big Business

As sticky a subject as when his book, “Where Have All the Leaders Gone,” first came out, Lee Iacocca lists the debauchery in American politics and mentions that Healthcare costs already run American corporations into the red.

"We’re running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it’s getting worse every day!

We’ve lost the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs."

Why force companies to increase spending on Healthcare when this could further inhibit entrepreneurship and achieving the proverbial American Dream?

Socialism Decreases Strive for Excellence

Although some argue that Healthcare Reform should not be classified as socialism, many believe the similarities are too obvious to brush aside.

"Providing a right to health care is socialism and is bad for economic productivity. Socialized medicine is comparable to food stamps, housing subsidies, and welfare–all of which is charity. Distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity." From  Pro & Con’s argument: "Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?"

Part I Wrap-Up

So, if these Pro’s and Con’s got your blood boiling or gears turning, just wait for the ideas coming up in next week’s posting – Part II: Why Didn’t the White House Think of This!  Feel free to add comments or other arguments on the Pro’s and Con’s to Healthcare Reform.

After reading Christopher Cornue’s Disruptive Women in Health Care post last week on Nurses, Lawsuits, and Patient Safety, I was inspired to write my own post discussing ethical dilemmas rising from reporting wrong-doings in the workplace.

So in case you are not familiar with the recent case in Texas, skim the following press release from SafetyShare newsletter, Premier, Inc.

“Texas jury finds nurse not guilty for reporting a physician for unsafe practices.

It took the jury less than an hour on February 11, 2010, to return a not guilty verdict for the nurse, Anne Mitchell, of felony charges of “misuse of official information,” for reporting a physician to the Texas Medical Board for what she believed was unsafe patient care.
Since news of the criminal indictment – and Mitchell’s being fired from her job – first spread through the nursing community, nurses across the country have followed developments. Labeling the criminal indictments “outrageous,” an outpouring of support – and financial contributions to the Texas Nurses Association Legal Defense Fund – has continued.

According to a New York Times article on February 9, the prosecutors claimed that Mitchell intended to damage the physician’s reputation when she reported him to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors. Mitchell explained that she felt an obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures – including a failed skin graft that was performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges.

Conflicts of interest seemed to be part of this case with allegations that this case was, in part, a result of the local sheriff being good friends with, and a former patient of the physician, and bending the rules to protect his reputation.

A number of nurses who had previous worked at the same Winkle County Rural Health Clinic testified in court that they left the clinic because of their concern about the care provided by the same physician that had never been addressed. The case is no less perplexing as to why Mitchell was even indicted – all witnesses (even the state’s) have agreed nurses have a duty to report unsafe care.

The verdict is a resounding win on behalf of patient safety in the U.S., as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals who play a critical, duty-bound role in acting as patient safety watch guards in our nation’s health care system. The greatest concern with this case has been the disbelief that a case such as this was even allowed to reach the trial stage and what a different outcome could have potentially meant for patient safety in this country. Even with an acquittal, the felony charges and trial had a chilling effect on many nurses who may think twice before reporting unsafe practices.

A civil lawsuit has been filed in federal court charging the county, hospital, sheriff, doctor and prosecutor with vindictive prosecution and denial of the nurses’ First Amendment rights. A complete summary of the case is available on the Texas Nurses Association Web site.”

Thoughts Expanded

Especially in the medical profession, if those working hand-in-hand with you do not feel protected to disclose wrongdoings, then who will?  From an outsider’s perspective, I personally take this case to heart.  Knowledge has power.  Not coming from a medical background, my trust falls on the doctors and nurses to suggest best practices and procedures for me and my family.

And, to take this one step further, consider the fact that patients under the knife literally have “no say” in changes to protocol.

Ethically speaking, individuals fight an internal battle in these types of situations.  Although they seem black and white in nature – unsafe patient care gets reported – human emotions and moral compasses start blurring the lines.  Back lash from other co-workers, disruption to workplace flow, ruining a co-worker’s career, and many other ‘what-ifs’ could prohibit “tattle-telling.”  So it is up to the Human Resource department to create an atmosphere of open communication where making wise choices, ethically speaking, are rewarded and not condemned.

So how can you ensure that core values crossover into every department company wide?

Listen to the closing remarks from Tim Keenan, President of High Performance Technologies, Inc, in his webinar for Winning Workplaces on keeping employee communication a premium.

• Keeping Communication Lines Open – mp3 – 1.7 MB – 1:50

I completely agree with Keenan on listening, acting on what you hear, and being shameless, relentless, and creative in incorporating employee thoughts.  When employees feel their positive ideas are being heard they are more likely to bring forth troublesome issues without second guessing the decision.

The outcome of this case can be marked as a victory for nurses.  No need to fear!  Nurses should feel protected to speak their thoughts when it comes to patient safety.  If nurses do not feel they can grab hold of the reigns who will keep doctors from running wild?  Alright, that may be largely exaggerated, but you get the drift!

How do you keep lines of communication open in your organization?  Comments welcome!

In response to Mac unveiling the new, controversial iPad, our good friends at Medical Software Advice conducted an investigation to pinpoint the healthcare industry’s wish list for an ‘ideal’ tablet device.   The responses from the 178 physicians, nurses, medical students, and healthcare IT professionals may surprise you.

Over 50% of the respondents stated they were at least somewhat likely to buy a tablet in the 2010 year.  It sounds like the iPad’s timing couldn’t be better!  With over half of the target market anticipating a purchase soon, a substantial portion of the market share awaits to be claimed!

But, the question still remains….will the iPad hold up to the standards needed from the healthcare industry?

Moving from the general public to a narrow niche requires ample market research and specialized product development. Take a look at the wide variety of tasks the healthcare industry wants from the tablet:

Chart depicts what % of respondents thought a feature was a “must-have” in a tablet. 
Courtesy of Medical Software Advice, a blog about electronic health records.

From this long list of “must-haves,” Chris Thorman summed up the current deficiencies the iPad should be looking to overcome:

“It lacks a large number of features that healthcare professionals deemed important, such as resistance to dust and hospital fluids and disinfectants (the iPad does not have sealed ports); fingerprint access to the system (HIPAA compliance); barcode scanning (patient safety); and an integrated camera (documenting diagnosis). In fact, you could argue that the iPad’s difficulty in being disinfected or kept clean of hospital fluids is a deal breaker for healthcare workers.”

I found it interesting that nearly a dozen new tablet devices were showcased at the Consumer Electronic Show earlier this year.   But, before Apple’s announcement last week, a tablet was still a form of pill in my book. 

So, fellow marketers should be rejoicing over the free hype Apple’s device brought to the tablet marketplace.  After all, the iPad (or some play on that name!) has been a trending topic on Twitter since the announcement reached the general public.

For more details on Medical Software Advice’s investigation, check out their blog post: Healthcare Wants a Tablet, But Not Apple’s iPad | Survey Results

So what’s the latest buzz in Healthcare Technology’s hardware department – the Apple iPad. 

Those in the healthcare industry may already be familiar with some medical apps built for the iPhone and iTouch:

• Epocrates – Instant access to prescribing and safety info for over 3,500 prescription medications
• LifeScan – One ping technology allowing diabetes patients to track glucose levels and sugar intake
• iChart – Electronic Management Record system for charting patient files

But, what they might not know is that Apple is planning on marketing themselves heavily as a competitor to the Motion Computing C5 Mobile Clinical Assistant.

Jason Wilk at TinyComb shared some insider info about Apple trying to court doctors at Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles.

Apple has been going around targeting their first major paying customer for the device, which is not the average consumer, but the Healthcare industry (sorry fanbois, you’re not first priority here). This is a move widely overlooked by the media, since Apple has generally tried to own the consumer arena, and besides the film industry, hasn’t dominated enterprise. Well, now that they own the music, mobile, laptop and every teenager market, the medical industry is the next up to take over. [What's my intel? My Dad plays golf with Cedars-Sinai hospital execs, who say they have been getting frequent visits from Apple about a new device in the last 6 weeks].

Do you ever wonder where Jobs and the Apple clan get their inspiration? 

Out of adversity comes opportunity – Perhaps the iPad stemmed from Jobs frequenting hospitals while undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer. Did seeing nurses carry a hand-held device not branded by the "forbidden fruit" get Jobs’ wheels turning? 

After all – an apple a day keeps the doctor away! 

Regardless of what spurred on the tablet’s development, if the Healthcare Market adopts the Mac, Electronic Management Technology will be one step closer to an iTouch away.