Language Of Patient Experience

The Patient Experience needs a better Growth Marketer.

In her recent blog post titled "Patient Engagement versus Patient Experience", Dr. Adrienne Boissy, Chief Experience Officer at Cleveland Clinic, asked some awesomely stimulating questions about the meaning of "patient experience". Her line of thinking was spot on. Whether she realized it or not, she had authored a case study about the fundamental problem faced by growth marketers and stumbled upon the potential for a great solution, or at least an incremental path forward, to improve patient experience.

Dr. Boissy described the confusing interchange of what should likely be congruous ideas - patient engagement and patient experience. The terms she used happened to mirror tactical, growth marketing language even though she was describing the strategic concept of patient-centered, healthcare outcomes.

Growth marketing operates on a virtuous cycle.

A target (i.e. patient, consumer) starts at...

1. Acquisition (signs up) and then moves through...
2. Activation (first relevant encounter)...
3. Engagement (ongoing relevant encounters)...
4. Monetization (exchange of value from target to company/organization) and ends at...
5. Referral (positive outcome leading to promotion)

If it's all done correctly, the target is satisfied with his or her experience and, assuming a continued need, willingly starts it all over again. Done incorrectly, the target finds someone else's cycle to try.

Applied to healthcare (payers, government programs, health systems, and practitioners) this cycle is capable of illustrating a comprehensive patient experience. In her article, Dr. Boissy used words to describe the patient experience which are shared with, but do not have the same definition within, the vocabulary of the growth marketing cycle. This becomes apparent when she recounts a conversation with a software vendor where she observes his definition of "engagement" is likely "inadequate" within her community, even though the vendor's definition was pulled directly from the growth marketing glossary. They were using the same words but speaking different languages.

Imagine if we translated the growth marketing terminology into a new language of healthcare hospitality and redrew the virtuous cycle for patients to look like...

1. Acquisition (patient signs up with payer, program, health system, or practitioner) and then moves through...
2. Activation (first relevant encounter, may or may not be clinical)...
3. Engagement (ongoing path of therapy, additional clinical or business/customer service encounters)...
4. Outcome (recognition of value from target/patient/consumer to payer/program/health system/provider) and ends at...
5. Referral (positive outcome leading to promotion)

If it's all done correctly, the patient is satisfied with his or her experience and, assuming a continued need, willingly starts it all over again. Done incorrectly, the patient finds someone else's cycle to try.

This newly defined virtuous cycle of healthcare would now have a language translated from and cross-referenced against the modern, proven practices of communication, hospitality, and product professionals. A new path forward, the virtuous cycle of the patient experience, could be forged.

The patient experience is a virtuous cycle.

All comments, questions, suggestions, new ideas, and extensions of the conversation are welcomed!

------

A couple notes:

1. Step 3 is the hardest. If the Engagement bucket is leaking, it doesn't matter how much is being poured in.
2. Most folks define the virtuous cycle of growth marketing or "growth hacking" with Referral as step 4 and Revenue or Monetization as step 5. Personally, I see it a bit differently, and that's reflected here.