DHIC 28 – Global Strategies in Digital Health

This transcript is AI-generated and human-corrected, and may contain minor errors.

Kate Ebrill: The one standard and constant in all of this, regardless of how rapidly technology’s moving, is we need good quality data, and that data needs to be built on interoperable standards.

Katie Bryski: Hello and welcome to Digital Health in Canada, the Digital Health Canada Podcast. I’m Katie Bryski.

Shelagh Maloney: And I’m Shelagh Maloney.

Katie Bryski: We are live at eHealth, and I am excited to have two guests in the studio, actually not a virtual studio this time. Every health system is shaped by the choices it makes and the ones it avoids.

In this episode, two international leaders reflect on the decisions that transform digital health in their countries, and the insights they’re drawing from Canada’s own journey. And we are thrilled to welcome Päivi Sillanaukee, Special Envoy for Health and Wellbeing from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland; and Kate Everill, Interoperability Lead, National Lead Sparked from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Kate Ebrill: Great to be here.

Katie Bryski: Thanks for being at eHealth as well as the podcast.

Kate Ebrill: Super excited to be here.

Shelagh Maloney: Yeah. We’re, we’re really excited to have you here. So one of the questions we always ask our guests is around their career journey. So Kate, let’s start with you. And tell us about sort of how you got to where you are today.

Kate Ebrill: Yeah, amazing story. I started as a dietician, so I, I did clinical practice, worked clinically, uh, did post-grad in public health, and went and joined the Federal Department of Health, and worked in the national health priority areas. And this is back in, like, ’99. That’s how old I am. Clearly I was a child though when I started.

We were just kicking off our electronic health record journey in Australia. So with my background as a dietician, my work in the National Heart Foundation, and my work around diabetes, I went down to Tasmania and worked on the first ever electronic health record trial in Australia, down in 2002. And I went down to be the clinical engagement lead.

Our tech lead, uh, got sick. I had to pick up the work around HL7 standards, and worked on the first ever 2.3 discharge referral spec implementation in Australia, and probably one of the first in the world, and got completely sucked into the vortex of standards at that point and, and haven’t looked back.

And so from that point, ended up working in our National Digital Health Organization. It was called NDHA at the time. It’s now the Australian Digital Health Agency. And you know, 24 years later, I’m now running, um, the Sparked FHIR Accelerator for Australia.

Päivi Sillanaukee: So, uh, I’m a physician by my training. Before that, also read some humanistics, uh, studies, music, science.

And I do creative work. But, but, uh, when I then, um… And I was specializing to, uh, neurology and rehabilitation, but every time I started to work somewhere, I was thinking about we could do so much better here. Yes. So I have been being, that’s why I went to, uh, also, uh, to municipality, uh, politic- politics for a while then, trying to make things better.

The whole of my career has been change management and, and trying to find out the places where I can have an impact. And so in the beginning of 2000, I, uh, made the first, uh, pilot in our country in integrating primary care to specialized care. And then I was a deputy mayor in one of our biggest cities responsible on social and health services.

And, and since 2008, I have been working for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and Government, two director general positions, permanent secretary also there. During that, we went, uh, through then the preparation for social and health service reform there. But I also then from that position worked on WHO executive board.

I was there three years And then when I was also, after the Ebola outbreak 2014, Canada was also part of then working that, how to, uh, prevent, detect, and, uh, make prevention and one health approach better than towards then the pandemics. And in that way, I also got really good, uh, global network. I, I was the chair of the steering group during first year 2015.

So, uh, I have been working at the global level and, and the European Union level, at the national level, and now in last four years, I have been then, uh, working more on how to then facilitate Finland then to be an environment where public, private, and academic partnership can go, and we could then, uh, facilitate then the, uh, the implementation of new technology.

So that is my change management.

Katie Bryski: Change management. So interesting, Kate, last night you and I had a bit of a chance to chat, uh, and it turned out that there’s a lot of similarities between Canada’s health system and Australia’s. Wondering if we could dive into that a little bit more now that we’re back.

Kate Ebrill: Yeah. So Australia is a federation, so we have the states and territories and the federal health department. The states and territories look after the hospitals and community care. The federal health department funds primary care, so general practice, community pharmacy, pathology, radiology. So it makes for, like, that mix of dealing with states and territories.

So probably a little bit similar to the province relationship with federal here in Canada. We’re also a public/private mix, so we have 30% of our healthcare is funded privately, 70% is funded through public funds. So we’ve got that kind of constant around managing across our state and territory borders, but also our state funding and our private funding and publicly funded borders as well.

So adds for interoperability challenges, it adds for privacy challenges. So probably similar to here, how do we get that balance around making sure that we can deliver a national digital set of solutions and standards, but also acknowledge what needs to be maybe localized or prioritized within each of your provinces or within our states and territories to make sure that we’re really putting the person at the center of care and, and delivering those solutions that the people actually need?

Katie Bryski: When I look at Canada’s health system, kind of a, a fundamental moment that has changed a lot of the way that we’re structured was the introduction of our Medicare Act. Looking back at Finland’s health system, if you could point to one or two key decisions that really shaped how the system runs and is delivered

Päivi Sillanaukee: Actually, I think that the journey became then, uh, 1960s when then after the Second World War, then, uh, the politicians then decided to build up a wellbeing society.

And, and then they put in our constitution the right for everyone to get then the social and health services they need, but also then the education. And, uh, of course, there are taxes we have to pay. And they had to then build registers, and we got also identification number that is linked to the different registers because they wanted us to deliver then and make sure that everyone would get those rights.

And since then, we have gathered data in different registration, and there is legislation also backing then, uh, all those registers we have, and authorities take care of them. And then there were a big change then in 1990s, which then paved the way, uh, where we now are, is that there was, um, a decision that we build a digital infrastructure.

And that was publicly also funded, and that was Nokia time then- … when Nokia came. So that was… And, and people really took mobile phones, and digital services were being de- developed in our public services there. Also then, the first electronic, uh, patient records came, uh, in 1990s, and actually it was from Finland through internet.

It was already the first, uh, images were sent also through internet there Because there are a lot of remote areas that in, in Australia and in Canada also, so we have to then think about how we can then provide with the taxation money then those services to people. So there’s a great incentive then for then public authorities to try to find out way how effectively use the taxation money and then provide the services.

And then for people also, we paying taxes, that they are really efficiently used. But municipalities had responsibility on social and health services, and then we had specialized health services separately there. And, uh, we made a major reform five years ago where we formed autonomous wellbeing districts.

And the name is really important here because the idea is that having then the social and health service integration and also registered care and primary and secondary care under the same organizer, there would be opportunity and possibility with the data to really build then the way from hospital care towards prevention.

So here where we now are, that we actually now steer having then secondary use of the health and social data legislation on, we are leading that in, in EU, EU also. So we are leading the way how the transformation is going through then in, in social and health system with the help of, of, uh, new technology.

So there we are now trying to really get the data into use and make the value-based care what the politicians in every country have been looking for and aiming for, for decades.

Katie Bryski: It’s interesting ’cause I feel like what really comes through in your answer is that sort of citizens’ right. Kate, I’m curious for Australia as a federated system. On the surface, it looks like it could be quite similar to Canada’s, but in practice it plays out quite differently

Kate Ebrill: I think one of the, the key things is when we actually established the My Health Record.

It’s known as the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record when it launched in 2012. And so under that there was actually an act. Yeah. And, um, because of the same, because we’re federated, all of the states have different privacy acts and all the rest of it. So there was an actually an act established, well first around national healthcare identifiers, and so they launched in 2011.

2012 we launched the National Electronic Health Record, known as My Health Record. It’s a summary record, so it’s not the source of truth because there’s the EHRs are the source of truth or the practice records. Yeah. But it created that National Electronic Health Record system, and so that was operating now for 14 years.

A few years ago they changed it from an opt-in system to an opt-out system, and I think there’s only about 7% of the population that have chosen to opt out. But what that also meant is while the consumers had to opt out, the clinicians though still were opt in. So now the biggest change that’s happened is share by default, where it’s now actually by default pathology results, starting with pathology results, have to be made available.

Next, the government has just announced in the budget share by default around medicines information and starting to look at care plans. So they’re really then requiring that the clinicians do upload and make sure that information’s available. So that means every individual through an app or online portal or their clinicians can access that summary key information around their medicines, around their pathology results, discharge summaries, and the rest that go through.

And now what we’re doing is actually modernizing the My Health Record, because it was designed pre-smartphone So things have changed a lot.

Katie Bryski: Nokia time.

Kate Ebrill: Yeah, exactly, and things have changed a lot in that time. So now we’re actually modernizing My Health Record and basing it around FHIR. So we’re moving from a document repository to now data and really making sure that that data is gonna be much more accessible.

Päivi Sillanaukee: Yeah. There are so much similarities. So it was like 2010 when we had our Kanta archive, which is then the archive through which then our patient information goes. We have modular system. There are, I would say, like three, four different electronic health records we have there. Uh, and we have standardized in our legislation then the interface.

Yeah. And each medical patient, uh, report system has to upload every day the current information, images, laboratory results- That’s true … pathology results, uh, also patient information, certain, uh, uh, not all. So, so there are data lakes that the wellbeing districts have, hospitals have there, but then a certain and most critical data is then coming to the Kanta archive, physical archive now.

And through that it then follows patients, and that is, has been really, really major thing in, in our, our health system. And we have also MyKanta, which is then I have it in my phone. I can go and, uh, check my- That’s it … my, uh, patient r- uh, reports there and also then, uh, laboratory results and so on, and it helps a lot.

Private and public sector, everyone has to put. And now we are also changing then because the technology develops fast- Yes … and we are moving towards more what you are also thinking about in the federated way. The data doesn’t move, but it is there where it is, but then we could have then, uh, national access to that data, researchers, companies and so on, and different legislation and regulation to be able then to also do better the innovations.

I think that we struggle all our countries here that we have so good research results, but we are so bad at commercialization the good results. And then we give the brilliant results to US and China, and they do the, uh, uh, the devices and solutions, and then we have to use them. So why not then there be more, uh, opportunities then for our pa- private sector companies, startups and researchers, uh, with the public sector develop solutions to our challenges? That is where we now are.

Shelagh Maloney: So I just wanna be clear that I’m understanding this correctly. So you’ve got that nationally, and you’re, and I love that you use social and, and, and that they’re so connected- So … and, and it’s just, and you say language matters, so that’s really

But one of the things that we have, patients have access to their information, some- Yeah … some lab reports, but it’s not even, and it’s not everything, and I might have a portal for my family physician, a portal for my hospital, a portal for my specialty hospital. And so it’s very disjointed. So you can log in and get all of your information through one portal in one view?

Kate Ebrill: With the My Health Record, um, the aim is that, yes. But, but it’s that summary record, so it’s not all of the hospital data or all of your GP data. It’s really that summary information that’s shared, and that’s where the share by default legislation’s coming in to make sure that that data is flowing from the hospitals, from the clinicians, from the pathology, from the pharmacy through.

But yes, and there’s one app, um, which then as a consumer you can actually access that data One of the key things is it’s just really that clinical data at the moment. I think a lot of our focus is how do we broaden out and think about health and social care, which is, yeah, where it’s amazing what Finland has achieved around this, and really think about that broader, more holistic view of the person and all of the services.

And I think one of the, the key things that we want to start focusing on now is thinking about that about me. So the NHS has done some work around about me. There’s kind of a, a patient story aspect of the international patient summary. So how can we create that view that is a consumer-generated or, or patient-generated that says, “This is what you should know about me.

These are my goals. These are my abilities. These are things you should know about me”? And so that’s one of the things that we really want to start to focus on over the next 18 months and develop up with our consumer groups within Australia so you do have that combined view that whether you’re a resident in an aged care facility or you’re going to the GP for the first time, you’ve actually got that picture about me as a person.

Päivi Sillanaukee: And that is so important because actually the data, the technology is there, and then- Yes … the research results. Yes. We could already act as we would have then the, the personalized health system- Yeah … or a personalized care system there. We all are like-minded countries. We value- Yes … for our, um, people’s data security and things like that is so important.

That is for Europe- Yes, absolutely … or for, for Canada. But then on the other hand, we also have to see the benefits which there are to actually have a personalized care system that is then what we are aiming at, at the same time that we are aiming to have the value-based care system. That would give then also for providers or, or those organizers more incentives for developing that kind of care that really moves us- Absolutely

to those, uh, targets that we are aimed in our legislation to get. Yeah. Coming to that portal thing, so yes, we have that Kanta portal. That is the same for everyone. But then our wellbeing districts, they have chosen their own ways of, of, uh, electronic patient records and systems they have there. So there might be, I would say, like, uh, some portals then, uh, each, uh, one of them having, so there are not 20, but some of them.

But we are also aiming to have one national because you can have it. There can be modular system behind, but you can have then that one. And what happened then during the past two years with those wellbeing districts have built digital clinics. So the interface, first interface when I access to service and, uh, take care, it’s always digital.

Of course, if you need personal care there, you will get it. But that has been really major jump also that I can so much, uh, solve my, my problems, uh, digitally, have virtual meetings, and it helps a lot everyday life.

Katie Bryski: So i- in this kind of more, much more personalized view where the health system knows things about me as a person, can you talk about the role of, of trust because some people have been hurt by the health system?

Yeah. And just ways to encourage people to feel safe in a space where they might not be sharing deeply personal things.

Kate Ebrill: Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s super important, and I think that’s also been what’s been really interesting around the journey of the My Health Record in Australia. So starting originally as an opt-in and then moving to an opt-out, it really started to kind of build that trust within the system.

And, you know, when I started working in 2002, the whole idea of this electronic health record system was really quite concerning for people to understand what it meant. But that journey has changed so much over the last 24 years, where now consumers are recording their own consults to do their own transcriptions, to run it through ChatGPT to get their own information.

So I think as a society, we’ve become more aware, but with that more awareness, then we also want greater control. And so I think that’s what’s, you know, good to have an opt-out system, but it also means you can choose to opt out of sending any particular information up at any point in time. So it’s not I’m in and then everything goes.

So there’s always that consumer right around it. Yeah. I think really importantly, I think you call it patient, patient here, we say consumer, but really important around co-design of the systems to start with, making sure that consumers and, you know, as broader range of consumers are actually involved in design development of the systems in terms of communication, in terms of governance all the way through.

And I think one of the kind of really key things that I would like to start to see is actually even more patient rights to their own data. Yeah. So true kind of patient rights, consumer data rights, and I think one level of trust comes in if we can even look at consumer annotation. In the world of AI, um, in the world of hallucinations, they’re never gonna go, but there’s still a lot of opportunity with adopting AI.

How do you, if something’s actually wrong in the record, how can you update it? The clinician absolutely has that need to make sure and, and double-check the information, but you know, mistakes still happen. So the harm actually comes to the individual, and the individual is the one who’s gonna actually care most about changing and updating it.

So, you know, if we can get to a point where there’s also consumer ability not to delete, not to change, but to annotate- Yeah … then we can also start to build trust within the record as well.

Päivi Sillanaukee: So trust is really important, and that has been really a core thing in, in Finland’s legislation preparation also.

And we want to keep that trust because data is so important. It’s a key thing. It’s a fuel for this new technology, and we need comprehensive good quality data. So you have to then also not only think about the privacy of people, we have taken that very carefully, I will explain soon later, but there have to be incentive also for health and social professionals when they put the data there.

They have to get also benefit from what they are putting there. Otherwise, it’s rubbish, the data there- Yeah … if they don’t get c- can’t get it back. Also, uh, for those, uh, professionals, we want more use that data for knowledge management purposes, steering purposes, and also being able to make person-centered care there.

In our legislation, there is only, like, those health and social professionals are able to see my information who are part of the care and, and we are following that. So there is log information into our system who has been going to see my data. Yeah. And now and then some nurses, some policemen and say are accused because they have gone to see data.

Katie Bryski: And you’ve got the audit trail.

Päivi Sillanaukee: Yeah, we are auditing. Yeah. And I can go and see and ask who has been seeing my data. So that is really important thing because technology can give you that opportunity to have that log information there. But also I think that it’s, it will be really helpful for Com- Canada because you are coming behind us then too.

So, so, uh, that we can showcase your politicians and your people that it is really possible to use the data in secure way and what kind of benefits you can get. We have been able to avoid hereditary breast cancer deaths for people. Actually, it’s ethically problematic if we don’t use the data if it’s there.

If people comes to me and physicians were like, “Give us the data because we want to, don’t want to be there,” that pa- patients come to say us that you had the data, you knew it, but you didn’t tell it to me. And we are already there. We can have it. And that I think that people need to understand and, and then you go back that, hey- To be able to do that, you, we need to have the data and we have tho- um, thought that we, we handle it in that, that way.

And you can see some examples how it can be done in a safe way.

Katie Bryski: One of the things we appreciate about eHealth is the opportunity to learn from what others have done, but also to build a future together. If you’re thinking about the next three to five years in digital health, like what would one of your hopes be?

Kate Ebrill: Next three to five years in digital health? You can’t even talk about that now with how things-

Katie Bryski: I know, it feels like three to 500 years away.

Shelagh Maloney: We had originally said the next five to 10 years. We said, “No, that’s really- No, what about the realm of reality? Yeah. Three to five years.

Kate Ebrill: Uh, I think it’s crazy, I mean, with how fast things are moving due to AI.

But I think the one standard and constant in all of this, regardless of how rapidly technology’s moving, is we need good quality data, and that data needs to be built on interoperable standards. So the thing I’d like to see in the next three years is what we do have across Australia, and I hope for Canada as well, and I know Finland is also on this journey, is that we do have ubiquitous use of those standards.

We’ve actually got good quality data that is made available that actually underpins both our primary kind of care, but also that secondary use learning healthcare system. I think it’s really imperative that for us as countries, that we actually have that data foundation to build AI on, that is actually based on data of our population that is really ethical, that we need to actually think about that to make sure that we are representative of our populations, that we can then build and take advantage of AI based on data that is representative and not, you know, representative of other countries.

And I think that’s what I would like to see within the next three years, that we’ve actually hit that point and we’ve got that capability in all of our countries.

Päivi Sillanaukee: My hopes would be that countries, uh, and regions like Europe and Canada and Australia would be much stronger at the global level than in regards of the regulation on how AI is used in healthcare.

And when we are acting together, we are stronger there. We also have to think more about our sovereignty, and then the way that, uh, that like-minded countries could then develop the cloud services and so on. That is a big thing. I respect then also the way how, uh, US have made it possible and, or, or also some other countries made it b- like they innovate first and regulate then.

But now when we have AI, I think that there is need, especially in our kind of societies, that we think more carefully on the future, and then also the privacy things there. But at the same time, make sure that we have an enabling environment where we can then develop the solutions and technology ourselves.

Otherwise, it will happen so that, what happens already, that people are taking, uh, critical, uh, aspects towards then the data used in our countries. But then they are sending their data to the social media platforms already there, and it goes, like, wherever, and-

Katie Bryski: And it’s used for much less beneficial things.

Päivi Sillanaukee: Yeah. Yeah. So, so that’s, that’s why I think that the regulation part is one, so we have to go together. We have to then form more collaboration. As our president, your prime minister, our health ministries have already agreed on that we will have more deeper collaboration between Finland and, and Canada then to, to also develop an environment en- enabling d- uh, environments for getting benefit from the new technology.

So it will mean then public, private, and academy partnerships, and then pilots together, and so and so. I think that that will be then one, uh, one thing. And then I think that we will be in three years in a place where we already can set like targets to our health systems that, okay, we want, for example, the chronic disease, cardiovascular disease, have other care levels 30% towards the ideal level, and go.

We will have a yearly based milestones to follow up that they are going to a di- a right direction. But in that way, we can get more outcome based steering of our health system, and that will need big changes here In Canada can see, but because we have already made some mistakes and success, you can learn a lot from us, and we can already begin together then from the level where we now are.

Shelagh Maloney: I think that’s one of the things that, um, we are not especially good at, is learning from others. We, we have a tendency to reinvent the wheel, and we’re different, and we’re unique. We have to do it differently. Because you are so big. You are. Well, and we’re big, but you know, we were just talking, the three of us, all of us have indigenous populations- Yeah, yeah

in our countries. You know, obviously Australia and Canada are very large countries land mass-wise. So being part of the European Union in Finland, and I’m curious about how that works, ’cause you’ve got, you know, the European Health Data Space, and, and you’ve passed legislation, like, across 27 countries.

Like, that is mind-boggling to me. How does it practically work on the ground for Finland being part of a large EU, and is it working as well as-

Päivi Sillanaukee: So actually, European Health Data Space is based on our legislation. So we had our, uh, secondary use of social and health data in action 2019, and then European Union then, uh, thought that, okay, let’s take that, and we coordinate it in preparation for European Health Data Space, all those 27 countries.

And now those other countries chose then Finland to coordinate then the implementation of the, of the, uh, the secondary, uh, the, the European Health Data Space. And that is one lesson learned. With the GDPR, which is then the general data privacy act then, and, uh, we made a mistake that the interpretation of GDPR is totally different in different countries.

Now we try with the European Health Data Space by coordinating the interpretation before it is in action to make sure that we have harmonized interpretation. And that is, I think, really important that already during when you do the preparation legislation, you already get and gather then, for example, your provinces or, or actors then, and agree on the interpretation.

In that way, then the legislation could be more enabling. The technology’s developing so fast, we can’t have detailed legislation, but we have to have a dialogue between then those who are interpretat- ating then the legislation that they agree on, and that could be then the way towards more harmonized way of, of actually acting.

Katie Bryski: Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you. Thank you for joining us at eHealth, and it’s always such a privilege to learn from countries that have been a little bit further down the road.

Kate Ebrill: Yeah, no, my pleasure.

Päivi Sillanaukee: Thank you. Thank you. I’m really thrilled to be here and, and you know, it’s not only that you can learn from us.

I think that there is lot we can learn from each other. Yes. Thank you.

Katie Bryski: For sure.

We’re back. You know, with eHealth conference schedules, lots of things going on, we thought we’d take some time to reflect and come back a little bit after that episode was recorded.

Shelagh Maloney: Oh, and I was re-listening to the conversation this morning, and it’s only been a few weeks since eHealth, but it was lovely to reflect back, and hearing the buzz in the background, and listening to Kate and Päivi again.

Katie Bryski: Yeah, and I think speaks to the importance of bringing people together for these conversations, right? I mean, there’s the intellectual learnings, like we learned a lot in that episode about how foundational choices, uh, shape systems. But there’s also something about being with like-minded people, like Pavi said throughout, that is…

It, it’s really inspiring, and it’s really motivating.

Shelagh Maloney: And, you know, the eHealth conference, we had I think one of the biggest international delegates at the conference, and it reinforces, and, and Kate and Pavi both said it a number of times, of how similar we are, and the challenges are the same. And Kate did a lovely summary of Australia, and substitute the word state for province, and they’re very, very similar.

And, and I think the issues and the challenges and, and the lessons learned, and the exchange of knowledge is, is so important and critical.

Katie Bryski: Yeah, and I was thinking about that, because yes, she gave a lovely summary. They both did. And also, talking about what they had been doing during, as Päivi called it, Nokia time, right?

Like, the early aughts, early 2000s. I was thinking, wow, like, we didn’t even really start widespread EMR adoption until later than that, and they’ve already got, you know, like, electronic health records up and running. And I think it’s easy to feel discouraged, but I also really appreciated the comment around we’re in a great position to leapfrog.

It’s like, okay, yes, for, for many reasons, you know, our systems didn’t look the same in 2008, 2009. But because w- we are so similar, because we have these great partnerships and collaborations, we’re in a great opportunity to learn from them. Hopefully, we can be in a more similar place in decades to come. Y- years to come, actually.

I’m not gonna hold us to decades. We can move faster than that.

Shelagh Maloney: Yeah. I agree. And, and y- you know, a couple of things that really resonated with me in terms of lessons learned, and one of them was around legislation and regulation. And I think we- were hesitant about doing that, and they have both, both Australia and the European Union, have been more proactive, I think, in passing legislation around healthcare.

And that’s why I’m so excited about Bill S5. I think we really need to do that. And then the talking about agreeing on a common interpretation of the legislation. And you know, we have PIPEDA, national privacy legislation, and every jurisdiction has their health information privacy, and it’s same-same, but different.

So I love that idea, and maybe that’s a lesson learned we can take forward as we do implement this Bill S5, and that’s a real lesson, practical thing that we can do, is make sure that we’re interpreting across the country this Bill S5 or any legislation the same way.

Katie Bryski: That’s a great setup for our next episode that we recorded at eHealth, uh, that we’ll be releasing next month.

Yeah, no, uh, legislation, policy, all very important pieces of the puzzle, and no spoilers, but looking forward to diving into them a little bit more deeply.

Shelagh Maloney: Oh, I can’t wait till the next episode.

Katie Bryski: Right? Well, you can… You know, if you’re trying to fill the time, you can download all of our past episodes on the Digital Health Canada website, and enjoy a plethora of resources.

So you can check all of that out at digitalhealthcanada.com, and we will see you next month on Digital Health in Canada, the Digital Health Canada Podcast. Thank you for listening to today’s episode. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get new episodes as soon as they’re available, and tell a friend if you like the show.

We’ll see you next month. Stay connected, get inspired, and be empowered.