To be able to review the trending topics at the next follow-up group is such an excellent idea. We would need a tool to collect the tweets over at least a few days time, which I am currently unable to find. Setting up a Tweetdeck column could work, since the maximum # of tweets in a column can be adjusted, and at the bottom there is an option to show “what is popular in this column”. I'll definitely post about it if I find something.

1. All the patients in the group ideally already have a 'medical' Twitter account, set to Protected
2. Doctor becomes a follower of all the patients. Patients authorize the doctor's account to view their tweets.
3. Doctor creates a Protected Twitter list for the group e.g., @DoctorX/diabetes and adds the members
4. Doctor logs into Tweetdeck, creates a column for the list — the column is what will get projected on the wall
5. Done! And this sort of solves the 'Twitterfall does not currently spit out trends in your results' problem, since Tweetdeck generates a tag cloud for each column.

If the same group meets quite often, it might be worth it.

But you're right – a solution developed in-house especially for this purpose would avoid ickiness. At the end of the day, Twitter succeeds because it broadcasts to strangers. At least that's why I like it way more than Facebook right now. There are actually thriving communities of patients on Twitter (hashtags like #diabetes and #fibromyalgia are quite popular) who have no qualms about posting about their glucometer readings and hospital visits. However, those people are looking to broaden their network/support group. When you've already got one, as in the Group Medical Visit, the approach must be adapted.

Bringing together remote communities is a bit more interesting. In that case, the costs of setting up a shared resource for discussion are probably not as reasonable (depends on the interests of the doctor, I suppose). You'd want something simple and easy to set up. But the question of privacy might still come up from the patients. I've never been in a group discussion about a medical condition, so I guess I just don't know the exact response to the idea.

And I would agree that video conference wouldn't work out as well. It's roughly the same, maybe worse, than just having the group in person. I sometimes find it's easier to get my point across in traditional IM, but if there's a few fast typists, they might tend to overwhelm the rest of the group. And without the trending, other important views could get lost there.

Perhaps the use of the idea for bringing together remote communities is more palatable? I just don't see a traditional IM chat or video conference (the way we use them now) doing the job.

Thanks for your comment!