Posts tagged "healthcare"

A Cambridge University academic is leading a call to dispense with medical jargon in favour of everyday language. Dr Melinda Lyons claims in the Lancet that patients can get dangerously confused by unfamiliar and similar-sounding terms (intra vs inter; hypo vs hyper), particularly in stressful and noisy situations.

This is something to be grateful for, because it’s more proof that healthcare is becoming more patient-focused. While not without its challenges, communication built on the needs and expectations of the end user is clearly the way forward. Dr Lyons’ work, and the fact her research featured in the morning Metro, reminds us that everyone has a stake and a growing interest in what happens in the healthcare world.

But it also reminds us that people aren’t the same. Words that are necessary to one person may patronise another. At Hive we play our part by first understanding who the end user is. Only then can we get the dialogue right between that person and the person looking after them. We do this by letting the HCP know more about who’s in front of them.

It’s a subtle thing, joining the dots between different mentalities and creating proper engagement, but it’s not new in marketing. Without the correct delicacy however, you get a fumbling disaster which tries too hard and fails.

So, between the patronising and the ancient Greek, lies a tone of voice that resonates. Finding it is a beautiful thing.

In the Rx marketing process, healthcare professionals have long been viewed as the biggest kids in the room, the holders of the power. Our first need was to have them on board, understanding and agreeing with our key messages, weighing up the facts and writing scripts like mad. Get the gate open - step back and watch the newly medicated sheep trot through. Understand the HCP, connect with their emotions and functional requirements and bang, product launched, sales incoming, off we go.

In these less bullish days (fewer new products, more chronic care, empowered patients), a new challenge has knocked on our door. Driving depth of use, and not just breadth, is an urgent requirement. It’s no longer enough to get a prescription written. We need to ensure that the sufferers have some part to play - complying, understanding, loyalty, enjoyment.

But as we shift towards end user strategy, we cannot lose sight of the HCP role. We need to acknowledge that instead of guarding the gate, the professional is becoming part of the medicine experience for the end user. This new dynamic means different ways of insight delving, tactical delivery etc.

We would be daft not to review how other industries have made this transition, especially other industries with gatekeepers as part of their brand journey. There isn’t a direct equivalent for the healthcare professional in industries such as automotive/computer/banking, but a lot of our challenges have been faced by these groups. In other words, these professionals are rarely or never responsible for public safety, but they also contribute to the brand experience for that most important player - the end user.

BMW invests hugely in understanding its end user. Only then does it understand its store environment, and then its independent sales advisors. In reconciling these insights, the showroom scene becomes a piece of the brand experience set up to gain loyalty from the customer.

I was lucky enough to sit next to a biggie at First Direct at dinner recently. With this service offer, their telephonists are the main touch point for consumers, their position is of unusually high responsibility within the brand journey. The satisfaction and loyalty of First Direct customers in general suggests that other companies could do well to infuse their call centre staff with new levels of responsiveness.

These two examples, and countless others, are strongly relevant to the healthcare model. They can help us learn how to respond to this turning environment, as we stand besides an open gate and really get to know those sheep.

Healthcare is a complex world to work in, whether we sell products or services. On top of our day to day business, we’re struck by reams of science, mode of actions, molecular specs, and more.

The result is that in healthcare, we are surrounded by distractions. When we’re asked to explain what it is we do, we get immediately sidetracked into describing stuff that is really besides the point. To be fair, there are times when we have to pass the time; fill in gaps in conversation. Perhaps this is why this kind of pointless talk has been described as “elevator speech”, or the more stylish “martini monologue”.

But sometimes it invades boardrooms, too. We lose sight of our brand as “the moral of our story” when we plan our communications. Or maybe we understand our brand in our own heads, but fail to produce a short, consistent description when asked. We prepare in the wrong ways, getting tangled in details when it’s really not necessary.

How do we get to that core of what it is we do? By asking yourself one question: why it is that we (or our service) can meet customer’s needs better than anyone else. If you can find a way to verbalise this to a stranger in a lift or a brand director over lunch, you’re practising engagement. That brand story will find its way into communications materials too - the places that you build on with key messages, that complicated MOA diagram, and so on.

Martini anyone?

A recent comment from a client made me think about how pharmacists act as brand enhancers for patients/consumers.

Pharmacists are highly educated healthcare professionals. Patients have long relied on their valuable skills and used their advice to make a purchase. However, it has been traditional for organisations to communicate with them principally in business terms. This retail-led approach creates dissonance between the relationship pharmacy has with a brand’s manufacturers and the one they have with the brand’s users.

The new Contract, however, changes things. Although the uptake of enhanced services seemed slow to begin with, pharmacy’s growing relationship with patients is now much in evidence. (As it is with other HCPs: the growing weight of pharmacy has strengthened links with prescribers.) With almost 2 years since the independent prescriber act, there are far better opportunities to be had than talking “stock pressure and profit on return”.

Instead, manufacturers who understand and enhance the close relationship between pharmacist and consumer will gain more end-user engagement. A recent study showed that when pharmacists intervened in the sale - not by recommending, but by providing an informed brand initiation - patient compliance increased and patients were more likely to make a repeat purchase. Proof that what can be good for profits can be great for patients.

As the professional identity of the pharmacist sinks in, their challenges revolve around setting the clinical scene and promoting new services to patients. Pharmaceutical companies must continue to track areas of progress and deliver a rounded offer that benefits in-house experts and their patients.

There’s a really interesting new theory circulating called transmedia planning. A quick background: transmedia storytelling was a trend identified by the cultural academic Henry Jenkins, where entertainment brands used different media streams to tell pieces of a story or plot. Transmedia planning was born when a number of strategists, including Faris Yakob, adapted Jenkins’ theory for the marketing world.

TMP places control in the users’ hands by asking us to “Allow your audience to assemble your brand story”. It’s an interesting evolution of 360° marketing where one idea is expressed uniformly by multiple channels. TMP allows ideas (or parts of ideas) to reach consumers from a slightly different point of view, but deliver consistent value and meaning around a brand.

Hive’s business plan adopts a transmedia approach in the context of the important changes happening in healthcare. You don’t have to have read our recent blog comments to know that informed, or partially informed, patients are increasingly the norm. Growing access to different information sources gives patients more control over their treatment. The web allows communities to form and discuss treatment and results. Consumers are showing they need more than shallow promises and that’s where TMP fits the bill.

We have to remember though that the transmedia concept evolved in an unconstrained consumer world. In its purest form, TMP can’t apply directly to prescription brands because of the necessary limitations on patient communications. However, prescription drug users still form communities to share experiences about treatment, particularly those with chronic conditions. Using a transmedia approach here involves setting up the dialogue between prescriber and patient, but acknowledging that some of the dialogue and beliefs around the brand may also be acquired from less informed sources. The reality for patients/consumers is, the relative weight of advice sourced online vs the prescriber is not always as you would imagine.

Building relationships in any industry is about engagement with people. In the healthcare mainstream, the critical commitment may still be the prescriber’s. But it’s vital to remember that the prescriber is not the person experiencing the brand in a hands-on manner. Its time our communication to professionals and patients alike began to reflect that.

The 2004 “Choosing health through pharmacy” programme envisages that by 2015, pharmacy will be our first stop for health matters. Pharmacists will be qualified to identify disease risk factors, suggest the appropriate treatment steps and refer practitioners when necessary.Going hand in hand with this is the increasing switch of prescription-only-medicines (POMs) to P status - medicines that can be provided by a pharmacist without the need for a doctor’s script. This is good for the drugs bill and so far, good for patients - with a pretty clean slate for switches so far in terms of safety.

Mixed reactions come from pharmacy itself, however. On paper the industry are largely positive but seem reluctant to practice on real life customers. This is not the proactive response that government and industry had hoped for.

Some believe it is too much, too soon, to expect pharmacists to accomplish a GP consulting approach. The first and biggest hurdle may be acceptance. To quote a pharmacist I recently spoke to: “If I had wanted to be a GP I would have become one”.

But the cost of switches must be recouped. So are we doing something wrong? Pharmacists know that switch products have met stringent risk-benefit criteria - I believe so. They value the training on offer - yes. Should we be more aggressive - less trusting of their professional instincts, less patient?

I don’t think a macho upbringing makes strong people. So we need to think hard about support. While the NHS is the main driver of change, we cannot expect that our responsibilities end with branded training. Instead, we’re going to need to co-create opportunities with government and pharmacy to build the secure, confident community practitioners of the future. Watch this space.

I have been ‘doing’ billable healthcare digital for 14 years. In the beginning there were video presentations, online Q&A sessions and clinical summary downloads; more recently, a wealth of Flash-enabled tools. To date it’s been pretty easy to repurpose content or repackage it as a digital thing and sell it as exactly that - a thing, a tactical item, a separate channel for delivering traditional content. “A better mousetrap” as Ian would say.

The digital gold rush has produced an interesting response in the healthcare agency world. First, we have learned to bolt Shockwave Flash capability onto an existing production function. We expanded our in-house capability to do this, or outsourced to those talented Shockwave Flash savvy freelancers/e-lancers available locally or globally.

The second reaction is more radical. Agencies have been set up to focus purely on the digital channel, merging a healthcare marketing background with the ability to talk to internal and external audiences entirely through online means.

We’re responding to the rise of what we know as web 2.0 (every evolution must be named!). The success of brands such as Google, Facebook, eBay, YouTube have forced the agency world to find ways of incorporating the Web 2.0 experience into our healthcare approach. It appears no longer acceptable to consider “digital” as remote from the strategic process, interactive paper that crops up when useful. We must use its real advantages: to assist brands not only with functional delivery, but emotional answers and even a service offer.

It strikes me that an uptake of “real digital” in healthcare, and the correct use of its communication opportunities, calls for agencies to evolve and not necessarily clients. For years I sat with numerous agencies and moaned about the slow adoption of digital in healthcare. Over time I started to see how the digital evolution meant an entirely new strategic process. Forget the production bolt-ons, our work now is a total re-think from the earliest stages of brand planning. That’s when we will see brand values such as ‘community building’ being agreed on and more importantly, delivered.

I came back from a meeting yesterday to find that our big pink sofa had finally arrived. Naturally, this was a sign to put the kettle on and get comfy. Naturally, we got round to talking about what makes prescription brands “engage” with people.

Engagement stretches from a transient coupling of user and product to a loyal relationship rich in mutual benefits. This depends on how much emotional value is delivered. The most successful brands in the world, like Apple, appeal to our most highly evolved values. Healthcare brands with a life-changing reputation (Seretide, Herceptin) come closest to this.

Most Rx brands however, don’t inspire much in end users. We take them for short term relief, or because the doctor/pharmacist said so, and never develop more than a functional relationship with them. Medicine is not something we buy because we want to.

But even though we’re largely indifferent, we can still forge long-term commitments with treatments because “we probably should”. Millions stick with a daily hypertensive because their physician has confirmed that their lifestyle hasn’t done them many favours. Changing brands only happens thus, when the doctor sees fit. There’s no dialogue going on here, but while there is forced engagement, does it really matter? We believe it does matter.

As preventative medicine becomes more of a priority, competition will drive prescription brands into more emotionally accessible areas. Certainly they will have to compete for prescriber loyalty.

For patients, new ways of engaging might go further than driving revenue. Putting a friendlier face on those boring old blood pressure pills might make people more adherent to their medication and perhaps think about taking more control of their health in other ways.

A recent post about the rise of the informed patient attracted some insightful comments. Dr J got me thinking about knowledge, responsibility and a few things in between.

Patient education is a good thing and we need more of it. The EMEA roadmap for 2010 promises more access to accredited medical information. Ideally this will help override the reams of flimsy information that, as Dr J points out, are in abundance.

I think the EMEA have their work cut out for them. How much information do people need for a start? Is it OK to broadcast an advert simply telling people to be more active, or do we need a clearer link to the real consequences of obesity? And what if we overload people with information - will we scare them into doing the wrong thing? Will they just stop listening?

What really alarmed me was Dr J’s comment that, even when patients know their onions, they often balk at decision time. Perhaps we know enough, but we’d still like to blame someone else if things don’t work out. Or is it the other way round - are we being urged to take more responsibility for our treatment, but don’t have enough insight to make decisions?

There’s a great take-out from this: We must be on the ball if our minds are boggling with the same question that patients’ are. What we all want to know is: how do we embrace patient empowerment without compromising medical integrity?

Looking forward to your thoughts on this one.

The PM Awards came round again recently, another superb day in Mayfair. Congratulations to Paling Walters for cleaning up in many of the categories with their usual excellent standard of ads and matching collateral.

This was Hive’s first year at the PMs - our company not yet a month old - so we naturally made use of the opportunity for our unveiling. Our plan to treat guests to honey-vodka body-shots did not quite cut the mustard with the organisers so we were forced into some last minute guerrilla tactics…

And a little something after dinner…

Working the room after lunch, we found that faces old and new seemed interested in our proposition. Indeed, the number of website hits we had over the weekend suggests our message is well and truly getting out there.

A few years ago, the rest of this consultation would have been relatively straightforward. I would ask some questions, run a couple of tests, recommend a treatment and the patient would feel reassured. Nowadays however, it tends to go rather differently.The patient will, more than likely, have already been on various websites looking for a diagnosis. They may also have looked into the different treatments available, even compiled a folder of information for discussion. They want and expect to be actively involved in their diagnosis and treatment plan. And if they aren’t completely satisfied with my opinion, they’ll get someone else’s. In short, “trust me, I’m a doctor” no longer holds much water.

Never before have patients been so well informed, so involved and influential in their healthcare. With a finger on the public pulse, the government is planning for personal healthcare budgets so that each patient can choose their hospital, consultant and treatment. Since I graduated 10 years ago, the face of medicine has become almost unrecognisable. It’s more like going shopping than to the doctor.

How does this make us healthcare professionals feel? I’ll be honest; a little mixed. The quality of information available to patients varies enormously and can sometimes do more to confuse than to clarify the situation. On the other hand it’s likely that a patient who feels invested and in control of their wellbeing will live a healthier lifestyle and engage with the required treatment. Isn’t that the aim?

Whatever the implications, the NHS claims to hold the needs and wishes of the patient at its core. This makes sense ethically and politically. The question is, why are healthcare communications agencies still servicing healthcare professionals before satisfying the public interest?