With increased attention on cost and quality, the impact of social media on healthcare consumer decision-making cannot be underestimated. Patients are using social media to learn about disease processes, discuss treatment options, assess risks related to medical imaging and contrast media, identify emotional support networks and choose their medical imaging center or healthcare provider. We need to increase our social media engagement as medical professionals, medical centers and medical specialty societies so that accurate and complete information is disseminated, unwarranted patient concerns are alleviated and a balanced portrayal of the risk-benefit ratio of imaging exams becomes part of the online conversation.

1. ©2016 MFMER | slide-1
Technology Disrupters: The
Impact of Social Media
Look to the Future SAM Session
Amy L. Kotsenas, MD
@AmyKotsenas
American Society of Neuroradiology 54th Annual Meeting
Washington, DC
May 23, 2016

2. ©2016 MFMER | slide-2
No financial disclosures
You are welcome to share my
content on social media

3. ©2016 MFMER | slide-3

4. ©2016 MFMER | slide-4

5. ©2016 MFMER | slide-5

6. ©2016 MFMER | slide-6

7. ©2016 MFMER | slide-7

8. ©2016 MFMER | slide-8

9. ©2016 MFMER | slide-9

10. ©2016 MFMER | slide-10
How is Social Media
Impacting Healthcare?
Some statistics...

11. ©2016 MFMER | slide-11
>40% of consumers say that information
found on social media affects the way
they deal with their health. (source:
Mediabistro)
YouTube traffic to hospital sites has
increased 119% year-over-year.
(source: Google’s Think Insights)
The Mayo Clinic’s podcast listeners rose
by 76,000 after the clinic started using
social media. (source: Infographics
Archive)

12. ©2016 MFMER | slide-12
If a personal trainer, health insurance company
or government organization makes a post about
health, only 30 to 40 percent of people will
trust the post. (source: Infographics Archive)
90% of respondents aged 18 to 24 say they
would trust medical information shared by
others on their social media networks.
(source: Search Engine Watch)
41% of people said social media would
affect their choice of a specific doctor,
hospital, or medical facility.
(source: Demi & Cooper Advertising
and DC Interactive Group)

13. ©2016 MFMER | slide-13
Social media posts and activity by doctors are
trusted by over 60% - more than those of any
other group. (source: Infographics Archive)
Patients trust us. Building a positive
online relationship with our patients
can build positive offline relationships

14. ©2016 MFMER | slide-14
Patient
engagement:
Focus on
Satisfaction
and
Education

15. ©2016 MFMER | slide-15
Patient Satisfaction
• Increasingly tied
to reimbursement
• Higher co-pays
and deductibles
•  increased
expectation for
high level of
service

16. ©2016 MFMER | slide-16
Ratings Websites
• Traditional surveys –
Press-Ganey, HCAHPS –
provide limited
information
• Only 6% of patients
aware of
HospitalCompare
• 65% aware of online
physician ratings sites
• Social media allows
expression of opinions in
free-text form

17. ©2016 MFMER | slide-17
Social-media driven
modification of radiology
practices could improve
quality and safety, reduce
medicolegal risk, improve
outcomes, and increase
revenue.

18. ©2016 MFMER | slide-18

19. ©2016 MFMER | slide-19
Ratings Websites
• Doshi et al JACR 2016
• Yelp reviews
• 126 imaging centers in 46 cities
• 1009 reviews, 2582 individual comments
• Average rating was 3.43  1.14 (range 1-5)
• Average restaurant rating is 3.8
• An increase of ½ star increases reservations
by 20%, revenue by 10%*
*Luca Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 12-016, September 2011.

20. ©2016 MFMER | slide-20
Ratings Websites
• Service Quality - 86%:
• Professionalism of staff:
technologists,
schedulers,
receptionists, billers
• Office wait times
• Physical conditions
• Radiologist related -
14%
• Report content related -
3.4%
Doshi J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:210-216
SAM Alert

21. ©2016 MFMER | slide-21
Reviews
“the technologist made fun of me for
asking questions—he actually laughed
at me. They were so rude it made me
uncomfortable, I actually left and got
my MRI elsewhere.”
Doshi J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:210-216
“[the technologist] took the time to
explain each step carefully and I never
felt as though I didn’t know what was
happening next. Just outstanding care.”
OR

22. ©2016 MFMER | slide-22
Reviews
Unfortunately the neurologist
I was assigned to [redacted]
was arrogant and pedantic.
The one positive was I
was confident that
whoever read my MRI
was first rate and
eliminated the possibility
that I had a tumor.

23. ©2016 MFMER | slide-23
Reviews
..after reading everything
the Radiologist asked to
speak with me. She went
over all my films and I left
with a letter she signed
saying there were no
problems.

24. ©2016 MFMER | slide-24
Ratings Websites
• Patients expect high quality image
acquisition and interpretation from all
imaging centers
• Differentiator of imaging centers is related
to service quality
• Goal: Overall positive patient experience
Doshi J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:210-216

25. ©2016 MFMER | slide-25

26. ©2016 MFMER | slide-26
Patient Education

27. ©2016 MFMER | slide-27
CT Radiation Risk on @twitter
• Prabhu and Rosenkrantz
• Analyzed 621 posts by 557 unique twitter users
• Most are not healthcare personnel
• 90 physicians; only 17 radiologists (3%)
• Most posts were unfavorable
Prabhu AJR 2015;204(1):W48-51SAM Alert

28. ©2016 MFMER | slide-28
CT Radiation Risk on @twitter
• Prabhu and Rosenkrantz
• Links to 99 articles
• Only 13 were peer-reviewed medical sources
Prabhu AJR 2015;204(1):W48-51

29. ©2016 MFMER | slide-29
CT Radiation Risk on
Goenka ARRS 2016
• Goenka et al
• YouTube search
using phrase “CT
Radiation”
• 53 videos
generated 93,254
total views
• Half (53%)
intended for lay
audience
• 87% were > 2-
years old

30. ©2016 MFMER | slide-30
CT Radiation Risk on
• Goenka et al
• Majority of YouTube
videos on CT radiation:
• Uploaded by non-radiology
sources (57%)
• Misleading, unfavorable
towards CT radiation
• Yet, these videos are
viewed as often as videos
by radiology sources
Goenka ARRS 2016

31. ©2016 MFMER | slide-31
CT Radiation Risk on
Compared to all other
sources, videos by
radiology sources were:
• More likely to be
accurate (96% versus
57%, P=0.001)
• Present a favorable or
neutral position toward
CT radiation (91% versus
53%, P=0.003)
• Focus on risk-benefit
analysis of CT radiation
(70%)
Goenka ARRS 2016

32. ©2016 MFMER | slide-32

33. ©2016 MFMER | slide-33

34. ©2016 MFMER | slide-34

35. ©2016 MFMER | slide-35

36. ©2016 MFMER | slide-36

37. ©2016 MFMER | slide-37
Antheunis Patient Education and Counseling 2013:92(3);426–431
Health Related Use of Social Media
Healthcare ProfessionalsPatients

38. ©2016 MFMER | slide-38
Fig 1
Prabhu J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12:756-759
US Academic Radiology
Departments
• In 2014 only 15/183 academic radiology
departments had @twitter accounts
• Only 10 (5.5%) had ≥ 1 post in the prior 3
months

39. ©2016 MFMER | slide-39
Our patients are
using social media to
inform their
healthcare decisions;
we need to meet
them there to
become their trusted
source of
information.

40. ©2016 MFMER | slide-40

41. ©2016 MFMER | slide-41

42. ©2016 MFMER | slide-42

43. ©2016 MFMER | slide-43

44. ©2016 MFMER | slide-44
@YourNameHere

45. ©2016 MFMER | slide-45