The following is a guest article by Stephen Dean, COO at Keona Health
Three weeks ago, a health system CIO told me her patient satisfaction scores dropped after she deployed an AI scheduling tool. She’d expected the opposite.
I wasn’t surprised. I’ve been building patient access systems for 13 years, and I’ve seen this happen often enough that I’ve stopped calling it a paradox. It’s a predictable outcome of a category mistake most health systems are making right now.
The mistake is treating patient access as a collection of channels when it’s actually a single workflow that runs across all of them.
Most health systems today have a scheduling tool, a nurse triage line, a digital front door of some kind, maybe a chatbot, and an intake process. Each was bought separately, implemented separately, and is measured separately. The vendor for your scheduling tool isn’t accountable for what happens when a patient fails to complete the digital journey and calls your triage line instead. Nobody is.
So what happens? The nurse picks up the phone and starts from scratch. She doesn’t know the patient spent 20 minutes on your website last night before giving up. She doesn’t know they were trying to schedule their eight-year-old and couldn’t find a pediatric slot. She asks questions that the patient has already answered online. The patient is irritated before they’ve said more than their date of birth.
Average handle time goes up. Patient satisfaction goes down. Your AI investment looks like it failed. It didn’t fail. It just exposed a gap that was already there.
That gap — the space between your digital front door and your phone workflow — is where patient access actually lives. It’s not a technology problem. It’s an architecture problem, and no single vendor is going to solve it for you unless the system treats all your access channels as one thing.
The organizations I’ve seen get this right share one characteristic: they defined what success looks like at the handoff. Not within a single channel, but between them. What happens when digital fails? What does the phone agent see? What does triage know? If the answers are “nothing” and “whatever the patient tells us,” you have a gap.
At Keona, we built CareDesk to close that gap — phone, text, web, and nurse triage in one AI-assisted workflow, connected directly to the EHR. I’m not saying that to pitch our product. I’m saying it because the architecture decision is the one that actually matters, and most of the market is still selling features when the real question is infrastructure.
EmergeOrtho and Intermountain Healthcare both came to us after investing in access technology that had done exactly what it was supposed to do and still left them with frustrated patients and overwhelmed staff. In both cases, the problem wasn’t any one tool. It was the seams between them. Within 90 days of deploying a unified workflow, both organizations could finally see what was happening across all their access channels in one place. That visibility alone changed how they made decisions.
You can’t fix what you can’t see. And you can’t see your patient access operation clearly when the data lives in four different vendor portals with four different definitions of “completed appointment.”
One question I’d ask before any access technology investment: when a patient falls off this channel, where do they go, and does the next system know they were there? If the vendor hesitates on that question, you’re probably buying another silo.
Your patients will figure that out faster than your dashboard will.
Stephen Dean is COO at Keona Health. He has spent 13 years building patient access systems for health systems ranging from independent practices to large integrated delivery networks.
No comments:
Post a Comment