Who doesn’t like an informative infographic? I don’t think we’ve talked enough about the ergonomics of EHR. This is going to become a really big issue for nurses, doctors, front desk staff, etc. It’s good news for the chiropractors though.
Who doesn’t like an informative infographic? I don’t think we’ve talked enough about the ergonomics of EHR. This is going to become a really big issue for nurses, doctors, front desk staff, etc. It’s good news for the chiropractors though.
The health IT community has been abuzz over the past few months about a report released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Although the report mostly confirmed thoughts that reformers in the health IT space have been discussing for some time, seeing it aired in an official government capacity was galvanizing. The Office of the National Coordinator has held several forums about the report, known by the acronym JASON, and seems favorably inclined toward its recommendations.
Even though only four months have passed since its publication, we can already get some inkling of how it will fare at the ONC, which is going through major realignment of its own. And to tell the truth, I don’t see much happening with the JASON recommendations. In this article I’ll look at what I see to be its specific goals, and what I’ve heard regarding their implementation:
I always love to hear doctor’s perspectives on EHR and how they’re impacting their day. You can be certain that they’ll lead with a long list of complaints. Many of the initial complaints are minor things that can be easily resolved with workflow or by a small enhancement by the EHR vendor. Once you get past the initial complaints, then you get to the heart of what they really think about the EHR software. I’ve had this experience hundreds of times and it’s always insightful.
However, this time a doctor shared something even more interesting. This was a doctor visiting another doctor as a patient. Rather than put words in his mouth, I’ll just share with you what he shared with me (EHR vendor name excluded since this could apply to many different EHR vendors):
I was in my ophthalmologist today. He is a really nice, busy doctor. He is in group practice and used to run his wing with one long time nurse with no hassles. He could previously see a patient in 10 min finish refraction, move from room to room and breeze through cases jotting what he needed to write down on one clean ophthalmology SOAP note. Since 2011 they have had EHR Vendor A. (because a consultant sold them on it and promised rewards from CMS)
Today, It took them a total of 1.5 hours to get my refraction, eye exam done. The workflow seemed to be in a complete disarray (remember this is an installed cloud based software since 2011, supposed to the be cream of the crap for Ophthalmology). What shocked me the most was that he now has 4 ladies doing inane things with EMR, trying to help him. I can also see why errors can creep in because he was reading out numbers for the assistant/ Nurse to enter into EHR Vendor A. Distraction fatigue, EMR ennui can cause errors of entry. So the cost of running crappy software far exceeds the physical costs / monthly service costs of the product. It amplifies personnel costs. It took the lady 20 minutes to take totally pointless history and do ROS!
I did not tell her I was a physician and she was clicking away to glory. I counted more than 50 clicks before anything of substance was even gathered. Based on the EMR prompts she made me do finger counting and asking me if I can see her face etc..>! I had clearly indicated to her that I just wanted a retinal exam and prescription for glasses because I wanted to buy new lenses and that I had not required change of prescription for glasses in 10 years!
Then I walk out with mydriatic in my eyes…and saw a hazy illusion of one of my ex-patients, a severe schizophrenic waiting for his turn to be checked in. He was talking about meeting Jesus and asked if I have had a “meeting Jesus moment” in my life.. I assured him I just did…
In those 1 hr and 45 min, the good doctor had seen just 4 patients and 6 more were still waiting impatiently on one arse looking irate, checking their iphones and smart watches …spreading anxiety.
I’m always torn on sharing these type of stories. I know that this doesn’t have to be the case since I know many EHR users who don’t have these issues. However, far too many of them do that it’s worth keeping this perspective in mind. Plus, regardless of how efficiently someone has incorporated the MU requirements, it’s had a huge impact on everyone that’s participating.
I guess it’s fair to say that the above ophthamologist doesn’t agree that meaningful use saves a doctor time.
This is the summer of reformulation for national U.S. health efforts. In June, the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) released its 10-year vision for achieving interoperability. The S&I Framework, a cooperative body set up by ONC, recently announced work on the vision’s goals and set up a comment forum. A phone call by the Health IT Standards Committeem (HITSC) on August 20, 2014 also took up the vision statement.
It’s no news to readers of this blog that interoperability is central to delivering better health care, both for individual patients who move from one facility to another and for institutions trying to accumulate the data that can reduce costs and improve treatment. But the state of data exchange among providers, as reported at these meetings, is pretty abysmal. Despite notable advances such as Blue Button and the Direct Project, only a minority of transitions are accompanied by electronic documents.
One can’t entirely blame the technology, because many providers report having data exchange available but using it on only a fraction of their patients. But an intensive study of representative documents generated by EHRs show that they make an uphill climb into a struggle for Everest. A Congressional request for ideas to improve health care has turned up similar complaints about inadequate databases and data exchange.
This is also a critical turning point for government efforts at health reform. The money appropriated by Congress for Meaningful Use is time-limited, and it’s hard to tell how the ONC and CMS can keep up their reform efforts without that considerable bribe to providers. (On the HITSC call, Beth Israel CIO John Halamka advised the callers to think about moving beyond Meaningful Use.) The ONC also has a new National Coordinator, who has announced a major reorganization and “streamlining” of its offices.
The following is a guest blog post by Dr. Mike Zalis, practicing MGH Radiologist and co-founder of QPID Health.
Remember the “World Wide Web” before search engines? Less than two decades ago, you had to know exactly what you were looking for and where it was located in order to access information. There was no Google—no search engine that would find the needle in the haystack for you. Curated directories of URLs were a start, but very quickly failed to keep up with the explosion in growth of the Web. Now our expectation is that we will be led down the path of discovery by simply entering what’s on our mind into a search box. Ill-formed, half-baked questions quickly crystalize into a line of intelligent inquiry. Technology assists us by bringing the experience of others right to our screens.
Like the Internet, EHRs are a much-needed Web of information whose time has come. For a long time, experts preached the need to migrate from a paper-based documentation systems – aka old school charts—to electronic records. Hats off to the innovators and the federal government who’ve made this migration a reality. We’ve officially arrived: the age of electronic records is here. A recent report in Health Affairs showed that 58.9% of hospital have now adopted either a basic or comprehensive EHR—this is a four-fold increase since 2010 and the number of adoptions is still growing. So, EHRs are here to stay. Now, we’re now left to answer the question of what’s next? How can we make this data usable in a timely, efficient way?
My career as a radiologist spanned a similar, prior infrastructure change and has provided perspective on what many practitioners need—what I need—to make the move to an all-electronic patient record most useful: the ability to quickly get my hands on the patient’s current status and relevant past history at the point-of-care and apply this intelligence to make the best decision possible. In addition to their transactional functions (e.g., order creation), EHRs are terrific repositories of information and they’ve created the means but not the end. But today’s EHRs are just that—repositories. They’re designed for storage, not discovery.
20 years ago, we radiologists went through a similar transition of infrastructure in the move to the PACS systems that now form the core of all modern medical imaging. Initially, these highly engineered systems attempted to replicate the storage, display, and annotation functions that radiologists had until then performed on film. Initially, they were clunky and in many ways, inefficient to use. And it wasn’t until several years after that initial digital transition that technological improvements yielded the value-adding capabilities that have since dramatically improved capability, efficiency, and value of imaging services.
Something similar is happening to clinicians practicing in the age of EHRs. Publications from NEJM through InformationWeek have covered the issues of lack of usability, and increased administrative burden. The next frontier in Digital Health is for systems to find and deliver what you didn’t even know you were looking for. Systems that allow doctors to merge clinical experience with the technology, which is tireless and leaves no stone unturned. Further, technology that lets the less-experienced clinician benefit from the know-how of the more experienced.
To me, Digital Health means making every clinician the smartest in the room. It’s filtering the right information—organized fluidly according to the clinical concepts and complex guidelines that organize best practice—to empower clinicians to best serve our patients. Further, when Digital Health matures, the technology won’t make us think less—it allows us to think more, by thinking alongside us. For the foreseeable future, human experience, intuition and judgment will remain pillars of excellent clinical practice. Digital tools that permit us to exercise those uniquely human capabilities more effectively and efficiently are key to delivering a financially sustainable, high quality care at scale.
At MGH, our team of clinical and software experts took it upon ourselves some 7 years ago to make our EHR more useful in the clinical trench. The first application we launched reduced utilization of radiology studies by making clinicians aware of prior exams. Saving time and money for the system and avoiding unnecessary exposure for patients. Our solution also permitted a novel, powerful search across the entirety of a patient’s electronic health record and this capability “went viral”—starting in MGH, the application moved across departments and divisions of the hospital. Basic EHR search is a commodity, and our system has evolved well beyond its early capabilities to become an intelligent concept service platform, empowering workflow improvements all across a health care enterprise.
Now, when my colleagues move to other hospitals, they speak to how impossible it is to practice medicine without EHR intelligence—like suddenly being forced to navigate the Internet without Google again. Today at QPID Health, we are pushing the envelope to make it easy to find the Little Data about the patient that is essential to good care. Helping clinicians work smarter, not harder.
The reason I chose to become a physician was to help solve problems and deliver quality care—it’s immensely gratifying to contribute to a solution that allows physicians to do just that.
Dr. Mike Zalis is Co-founder and Chief Medical Officer of QPID Health, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, and a board certified Radiologist serving part-time at Massachusetts General Hospital in Interventional Radiology. Mike’s deep knowledge of what clinicians need to practice most effectively and his ability to translate those needs into software solutions inform QPID’s development efforts. QPID software uses a scalable cloud-based architecture and leverages advanced concept-based natural language processing to extract patient insights from data stored in EHRs. QPID’s applciations support decision making at the point of care as well as population health and revenue cycle needs.
I have no idea where this picture comes from, but it’s a pretty interesting look into some of the history of medicine. As @notasmedicina points out, it’s pretty disturbing to see them working on someone without gloves. Take a look below to see what I mean.
— Medicine Notes (@NotasMedicina) August 20, 2014
As I saw this, I thought about how far we’ve come with EHR software. I wonder if 20-30 years from now we’ll look at a picture of a paper chart and feel disturbed. I imagine my children will look at it and wonder how a doctor could practice medicine with a paper chart.
Most of the time, hospital M&A is sold as an exercise in saving money by reducing overhead and leveraging shared strengths. But new data from PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that IT integration costs can undercut that goal substantially. (It also makes one wonder how ACOs can afford to merge their health IT infrastructure well enough to share risk, but that’s a story for another day.)
In any event, the cost of integrating the IT systems of hospitals that merge can add up to 2% to the annual operating costs of the facilities during the integration period, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. That figure, which comes to $70,000 to $100,000 per bed over three to five years, is enough to reduce or even completely negate benefits of doing some deals. And it clearly forces merging hospitals to think through their respective IT strategies far more thoroughly than they might anticipated.
As if that stat isn’t bad enough, other experts feel that PwC is understating the case. According to Dwayne Gunter, president of Parallon Technology Solutions — who spoke to Hospitals & Health Networks magazine — IT integration costs can be much higher than those predicted by PwC’s estimate. “I think 2% being very generous,” Gunter told the magazine, “For example, if the purchased hospital’s IT infrastructure is in bad shape, the expense of replacing it will raise costs significantly.”
Of course, hospitals have always struggled to integrate systems when they merge, but as PwC research notes, there’s a lot more integrate these days, including not only core clinical and business operating systems but also EMRs, population health management tools and data analytics. (Given be extremely shaky state of cybersecurity in hospitals these days, merging partners had best feel out each others’ security systems very thoroughly as well, which obviously adds additional expenses.) And what if the merging hospitals use different enterprise EMR systems? Do you rip and replace, integrate and pray, or do some mix of the above?
On top of all that, working hospital systems have to make sure they have enough IT staffers available, or can contract with enough, to do a good job of the integration process. Given that in many hospitals, IT leaders barely have enough staff members to get the minimum done, the merger partners are likely costly consultants if they want to finish the process for the next millennium.
My best guess is that many mergers have failed to take this massive expense into account. The aftermath has got to be pretty ugly.
A tense and flustered discussion took place on Monday, August 11 during a routine meeting of the HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup, a subcommittee set up by the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), which takes responsibility for U.S. government efforts to support new IT initiatives in the health care field. The subject of their uncomfortable phone call was the interoperability of electronic health records (EHRs), the leading issue of health IT. A number of “user experience” reports from the field revealed that the situation is not good.
We have to look at the depth of the problem before hoping to shed light on a solution.
An interoperability showcase literally takes the center of the major health IT conference each year, HIMSS. When I have attended, they physically arranged their sessions around a large pavilion filled with booths and computer screens. But the material on display at the showcase is not the whiz-bang features and glossy displays found at most IT coventions (those appear on the exhibition floor at HIMSS), but just demonstrations of document exchange among EHR vendors.
The hoopla over interoperability at HIMSS suggests its importance to the health care industry. The ability to share coordination of care documents is the focus of current government incentives (Meaningful Use), anchoring Stage 2 and destined to be even more important (if Meaningful Use lasts) in Stage 3.
And for good reason: every time we see a specialist, or our parent moves from a hospital to a rehab facility, or our doctor even moves to another practice (an event that recently threw my wife’s medical records into exasperating limbo), we need record exchange. If we ever expect to track epidemics better or run analytics that can lower health case costs, interoperability will matter even more.
But take a look at extensive testing done by a team for the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, recently summarized in a posting by health IT expert Brian Ahier. When they dug into the documents being exchanged, researchers found that many vendors inserted the wrong codes for diagnoses or drugs, placed results in the wrong fields (leaving them inaccessible to recipients), and failed to include relevant data. You don’t have to be an XML programmer or standards expert to get the gist from a list of sample errors included with the study.
And that list covers only the problems found in the 19 organizations who showed enough politeness and concern for the public interest to submit samples–what about the many who ignored the researchers’ request?
A slightly different list of complaints came up at the HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup meeting, although along similar lines. The participants in the call were concerned with errors, but also pointed out the woeful inadequacy of the EHR implementations in representing the complexities and variety of patient care. Some called for changes I find of questionable ethics (such as the ability to exclude certain information from the data exchange while leaving it in the doctor’s records) and complained that the documents exchanged were not easy for patients to read, a goal that was not part of the original requirements.
However, it’s worth pointing out that documents exchange would fall far short of true coordinated care, even if everything worked as the standards called for. Continuity of care documents, the most common format in current health information exchange, have only a superficial sliver of diagnoses, treatments, and other immediate concerns, but do not have space for patient histories. Data that patients can now collect, either through fitness devices or self-reporting, has no place to be recorded. This is why many health reformers call for adopting an entire new standard, FHIR, a suggestion recognized by the ONC as valid but postponed indefinitely because it’s such a big change. The failure to adopt current formats seems to become the justification for keeping on the same path.
Let’s take a step back. After all those standards, all those certifications, all those interoperability showcases, why does document exchange still fail?
The JAMIA article indicated that failure can be widely spread around. There are rarely villains in health care, only people pursuing business as usual when that is insufficient. Thus:
The Consolidated CDA standard itself could have been more precisely defined, indicating what to do for instance when values are missing from the record.
Certification tests can look deeper into documents, testing for instance that codes are recorded correctly. Although I don’t know why the interoperability showcase results don’t translate into real-world success, I would find it quite believable that vendors might focus on superficial goals (such as using the Direct protocols to exchange data) without determining whether that data is actually usable.
Meaningful Use requirements (already hundreds of pages long) could specify more details. One caller in the HIT Standards Committee session mentioned medication reconciliation as one such area.
The HIT Standards Committee agonized over whether to pursue broad goals, necessarily at a slow pace, or to seek a few achievable improvements in the process right away. In either case, what we have to look forward to is more meetings of committees, longer and more mind-numbing documents, heavier and heavier tests–infrastructure galore.
Meanwhile, the structure facilitating all this bureaucracy is crumbling. Many criticisms of Meaningful Use Stage 2 have been publicly aired–some during the HIT Standards Committee call–and Stage 3 now looks like a faint hope. Some journalists predict a doctor’s revolt. Instead of continuing on a path hated by everybody, including the people laying it out, maybe we need a new approach.
Software developers over the past couple decades have adopted a range of ways to involve the users of software in its design. Sometimes called agile or lean methodologies, these strategies roll out prototypes and even production systems for realistic testing. The strategies call for a whole retooling of the software development process, a change that would not come easily to slow-moving proprietary companies such as those dominating the EHR industry. But how would agile programming look in health care?
Instead of bringing a doctor in from time to time to explain what a clinical workflow looks like or to approve the screens put up by a product, clinicians would be actively designing the screens and the transitions between them as they work. They would discover what needs to be in front of a resident’s eyes as she enters the intensive care ward and what needs to be conveyed to the nurses’ station when an alarm goes off sixty feet away.
Clinicians can ensure that the information transferred is complete and holds value. They would not tolerate, as the products tested by the JAMIA team do, a document that reports a medication without including its dose, timing, and route of administration.
Not being software experts (for the most part), doctors can’t be expected to anticipate all problems, such as changes of data versions. They still need to work closely with standards experts and programmers.
It also should be mentioned that agile methods include rigorous testing, sometimes to the extent that programmers write tests before writing the code they are testing. So the process is by no means lax about programming errors and patient safety.
Finally, modern software teams maintain databases–often open to the users and even the general public–of reported errors. The health care field needs this kind of transparency. Clinicians need to be warned of possible problems with a software module.
What we’re talking about here is a design that creates a product intimately congruent with each site’s needs and workflow. The software is not imported into a clinical environment–much less imposed on one–but grows organically from it, as early developers of the VistA software at the Veterans Administration claimed to have done. Problems with document exchange would be caught immediately during such a process, and the programmers would work out a common format cooperatively–because that’s what the clinicians want them to do.
I keep forgetting how good of a resource Quora is. For those not familiar with Quora, it’s a Q&A platform. If you have a question, you can get answers from the community of users. While asking questions is interesting, it’s also fun to just browse other people’s questions and answers. In some ways it’s an active and opinionated Wikipedia.
Here’s a good example. Someone asked about Healthcare IT companies or digital health companies that are publicly traded and here’s the list they generated:
Pretty interesting to look through the list. Of course, it doesn’t include publicly traded companies that have a big footprint in healthcare, but do a lot of other things as well (GE, Siemens, Dell, CDW, Canon, etc etc etc).
When I saw the list of publicly traded health IT companies I wondered if something cool could be done to track these companies. I’ve noticed that HIStalk has been following the publicly traded companies a lot closer lately. A lot can be learned about the healthcare IT market by following these companies.
How many of you use Quora on a regular basis? Do you just consume content or do you ask and answer questions too?