William Heisel

The answers, thus far, from state and federal officials have been unsatisfactory. In part because the radiation threat dates back to the 1940s, the uncertainty around it isn’t entirely the fault of the present day agencies involved.

The two cases involving the University of Kentucky challenge the heart of public records and free speech, and they could help define how courts interpret the still mostly untested federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005.

Amidst the discussion about email and cellphone traffic being collected by U.S. intelligence agencies, free speech enthusiasts may also want to pay attention to the unfolding legal case involving the University of Kentucky.

Electronic health records can give doctors a more well-rounded picture of their patients that has the potential for improved care and outcomes.

We are surrounded by data but aren't always harnessing its storytelling potential as effectively as we could be. A free webinar this week will help attendees learn how to better use data to tell more compelling stories about health.

The University of Kentucky is suing one of its own public radio reporters after the reporter sought records relating to the university's pediatric cardiac surgery program. How did this happen? The university responds with its account of the situation.

To understand the nature of a threat like buried radiation in a park, it helps to pause for a minute and think about the sacred values of the people feeling threatened. Part of the threat is psychological and should not be dismissed.

After getting a scary note from a state representative about radioactive contamination at a local park, I started thinking like a reporter. I’ll do a little research. I’ll jot down a few key questions. I'll attend the upcoming meeting hoping to get some answers.

Call it “Templatish," "Beancounterese," "Complyian," Rushian” or Vulcan, meeting performance measures, earning high quality scores and, yes, lawyer-proofing Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can have benefits for patients.

The story about Medicare removing information about hospital-acquired conditions from its Hospital Compare website appears to be changing. I'm still left wondering who started the wheels in motion for the original story about the data. The reporter had to have gotten this idea somewhere.