Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

E-patient Update: Remote Monitoring Leaves Me Out of The Loop

Posted on May 24, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

As some readers may recall, I don’t just write about digital health deployment — I live it. To be specific, my occasional heart arrhythmia (Afib) is being tracked remotely by device implanted in my chest near my heart. My cardiac electrophysiologist implanted the Medtronic device – a “loop recorder” roughly the size of a cigarette lighter though flatter — during a cardiac ablation procedure.

The setup works like this:

  • The implanted device tracks my heart rhythm, recording any events that fit criteria programmed into it. (Side note: It’s made entirely of plastic, which means I need not fear MRIs. Neat, huh?)
  • The center also includes a bedside station which comes with a removable, mouse shaped object that I can place on my chest to record any incidents that concern me. I can also record events in real time, when I’m on the road, using a smaller device that fits on my key ring.
  • Whether I record any perceived episodes or not, the bedside station downloads whatever information is stored in the loop recorder at midnight each night, then transmits it to the cardiac electrophysiologist’s office.
  • The next day, a tech reviews the records. If any unusual events show up, the tech notifies the doctor, who reaches out to me if need be.

Now, don’t get me wrong, this is all very cool. And these devices have benefited me already, just a month into their use. For example, one evening last week I was experiencing some uncomfortable palpitations, and wondered whether I had reason for concern. So I called the cardiac electrophysiologist’s after-hours service and got a call back from the on-call physician.

When she and I spoke, her first response was to send me to my local hospital. But once I informed her that the device was tracking my heart rhythms, she accessed them and determined that I was only experiencing mild tachycardia. That was certainly a relief.

No access for patients

That being said, it bugs me that I have no direct access to this information myself. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that interacting with heart rhythm data is complicated. Certainly, I can’t do as much in response to that information as I could if the device were, say, tracking my blood glucose levels.

That being said, my feeling is that I would benefit from knowing more about how my heart is working, or failing to work appropriately in the grand scheme of things, even if I can’t interpret the raw data of the device produces. For example, it would be great if I could view a chart that showed, say, week by week when events occurred and what time they took place.

Of course, I don’t know whether having this data would have any concrete impact on my life. But that being said, it bothers me that such remote monitoring schemes don’t have their core an assumption that patients don’t need this information. I’d argue that Medtronic and its peers should be thinking of ways to loop patients in any time their data is being collected in an outpatient setting. Don’t we have an app for that, and if not, why?

Unfortunately, no matter how patients scream and yell about this, I doubt we’ll make much progress until doctors raise their voices too. So if you’re a physician reading this, I hope you’re willing to get involved since patients deserve to know what’s going on with their bodies. And if you have the means to help them know, make it happen!

Telemedicine Rollouts Are Becoming More Mature

Posted on May 19, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

For a long time, telemedicine was a big idea whose time had not come. Initially, the biggest obstacles providing video consults was consumer bandwidth. Once we got to the point that most consumers had high-speed Internet connections, proponents struggled to get commercial insurers and federal payers to reimburse providers for telemedicine. We also had to deal with medical licensure which most companies are dealing with by licensing their providers across multiple states (Crazy, but workable). Now, with both categories of payers increasingly paying for such services and patients increasingly willing to pay out of pocket, providers need to figure out which telemedicine business models work.

If I had to guess, I would’ve told you that very few providers have reached the stage where they had developed a fairly mature telemedicine service line. But data gathered by researchers increasingly suggests that I am wrong.

In fact, a new study by KPMG found that about 25% of healthcare providers have implemented telehealth and telemedicine programs which have achieved financial stability and improved efficiency. It should be noted that the study only involved 120 participants who reported they work for providers. Still, I think the results are worth a look.

Despite the success enjoyed by some providers with telemedicine programs, a fair number of providers are at a more tentative stage. Thirty-five percent of respondents said they didn’t have a virtual care program in place, and 40% had said they had just implemented a program. But what stands out to me is that the majority of respondents had telehealth initiatives underway.

Twenty-nine percent of survey respondents said that one of the key reasons they were in favor of telehealth programs is that they felt it would increase patient volumes and loyalty. Other providers have different priorities. Seventeen percent felt that implement the telehealth with help of care coordination for high-risk patients, another 17% said they wanted to reduce costs for access to medical specialists, and 13% said they were interested in telemedicine due to consumer demand.

When asked what challenges they faced in implementing telehealth, 19% said they had other tech priorities, 18% were unsure they had a sustainable business model, and 18% said their organization wasn’t ready to roll out a new technology.

As I see it, telemedicine is set up to get out of neutral and pull out of the gate. We’re probably past the early adopter stage, and as soon as influential players perfect their strategy for telemedicine rollouts, their industry peers are sure to follow.

What remains to be seen is whether providers see telemedicine as integral to the care they deliver, or primarily as a gateway to their brick-and-mortar services. I’d argue that telemedicine services should be positioned as a supplement to live care, a step towards greater continuity of care and the logical next step in going digital. Those who see it as a sideline, or a loyalty builder with no inherent clinical value, are unlikely to benefit as much from a telemedicine rollout.

Admittedly, integrating virtual care poses a host of new technical and administrative problems. But like it or not, telemedicine is important to the future of healthcare. Hold it is at arms’ length to your peril.

Health Organizations Failing At Digital Health Innovation

Posted on May 3, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Few healthcare providers are prepared to harvest benefits from digital health innovations, a new study suggests. The study, by innovation consultancy Enspektos LLC, concludes that digital health innovation efforts are fairly immature among healthcare organizations, despite the enormous wave of interest in these technologies.

While this should come as no surprise to those of us working in the industry, it’s a little depressing for those of us — including myself — who passionately believe that digital health tools have the potential to transform the delivery of care. But it also reminds providers to invest more time and effort in digital health efforts, at least if they want to get anything done!

The study, which was sponsored by healthcare IT vendor Validic, chose 150 survey participants working at health organizations (hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, payers) or their partners (technology firms, startups and the like) and asked them to rate digital health innovation in the healthcare industry.

The results of this study suggest that despite their high level of interest, many healthcare organizations don’t have the expertise or resources needed to take full advantage of digital health innovations. This tracks well with my own experience, which suggest that digital health efforts by hospitals and clinics are slapdash at best, rolling out apps and doling out devices without thinking strategically about the results they hope to accomplish. (For more data on digital health app failures see this story.)

According to Enspektos, only 5% of health organizations could demonstrate that they were operating at the highest level of proficiency and expertise in digital health innovation. The majority of health organizations worldwide are experimenting with and piloting digital health tools, researchers concluded.

Apparently, digital health is moving slowly even with relatively mature technologies such as mobile platforms. One might think that mobile deployments wouldn’t baffle IT departments, but apparently, many are behind the curve. In fact, health organizations typically don’t have enough technical expertise or large enough budget to scale their digital health efforts effectively, Enspektos researchers found.

Of course, as a digital health technology vendor, Validic is one of many hoping to be the solution to these problems. (It offers a cloud-based technology connecting patient-recorded data from digital health apps, devices and wearables to healthcare organizations.) I’m not familiar with Validic’s products, but their presence in this market does raise a few interesting issues.

Assuming that its measures of digital health maturity are on target, it would seem that health organizations do need help integrating these technologies. The question is whether a vendor such as Validic can be dropped into the technical matrix of a healthcare organization and bring its digital health program to life.

My guess is that no matter how sophisticated an integration platform they deploy, healthcare organizations still have a tremendous amount of work to do in thinking about what they actually want to accomplish. Most of the digital health products I’ve seen from providers, in particular, seem to be solutions in search of a problem, such as apps that have no bearing on the patient’s actual lifestyle and needs.

On the other hand, given how fluid digital health technology is at this point, perhaps vendors will be creating workflow and development models that healthcare organizations can adapt. It remains to be seen who will drive long-term change. Honestly, I’m betting on the vendors, but I hope more healthcare players step up, as I’d like to see them own this thing.

Dumb Question 101: What’s Workflow Doing in an EHR?

Posted on March 29, 2016 I Written By

When Carl Bergman isn't rooting for the Washington Nationals or searching for a Steeler bar, he’s Managing Partner of, a free service for matching users and EHRs. For the last dozen years, he’s concentrated on EHR consulting and writing. He spent the 80s and 90s as an itinerant project manger doing his small part for the dot com bubble. Prior to that, Bergman served a ten year stretch in the District of Columbia government as a policy and fiscal analyst.

This was going to be a five year relook at Practice Fusion. Back then, I’d written a critical review saying I wouldn’t be a PF consultant. Going over PF now, I found it greatly changed. For example, I criticized it not having a shared task list. Now, it does. Starting to trace other functions, a question suddenly hit me. Why did I think an EHR should have a shared task list or any other workflow function for that matter?

It’s a given that an EHR is supposed to record and retrieve a patient’s medical data. Indeed, if you search for the definition of an EHR, you’ll find just that. For example, Wikipedia defines it this way:

An electronic health record (EHR), or electronic medical record (EMR), refers to the systematized collection of patient and population electronically-stored health information in a digital format.[1] These records can be shared across different health care settings. Records are shared through network-connected, enterprise-wide information systems or other information networks and exchanges. EHRs may include a range of data, including demographics, medical history, medication and allergies, immunization status, laboratory test results, radiology images, vital signs, personal statistics like age and weight, and billing information.[2]

Other definitions, such as HIMSS are similar, but add another critical element, workflow:

The EHR automates and streamlines the clinician’s workflow.

Is this a good or even desirable thing? Now, before Chuck Webster shoots out my porch lights, that doesn’t mean I’m anti workflow. However, I do ask what are workflow features doing in an EHR?

In EHRs early days, vendors realized they couldn’t drop one in a practice like a fax machine. EHRs were disruptive and not always in a good way. They often didn’t play well with practice management systems or the hodgepodge of forms, charts and lists they were replacing.

As a result, vendors started doing the workflow archeology and devising new ones as part of their installs. Over time, EHRs vendors started touting how they could reform not just replace an old system.

Hospitals were a little different. Most had IT staff that could shoehorn a new system into their environment. However, as troubled hospital EHR rollouts attest, they rarely anticipated the changes that EHRs would bring about.

Adding workflow functions to an EHR may have caused what my late brother called a “far away” result. That is, the farther away you were from something, the better it looked. With EHR workflow tools, the closer you get to their use, the more problems you may find.

EHRs are designed for end users. Adding workflow tools to these assumes that the users understand workflow dynamics and can use them accordingly. Sometimes this works well, but just as often the functions may not be as versatile as the situation warrants. Just ask the resident who can’t find the option they really need.

I think the answer to EHR workflow functions is this. They can be nice to have, like a car’s backup camera. However, having one doesn’t make you a good driver. Having workflow functions shouldn’t fool you into thinking that’s all workflow requires.

The only way to determine what’s needed is by doing a thorough, requirements analysis, working closely with users and developing the necessary workflow systems.

A better approach would be a workflow system that embeds its features in an EHR. That way, the EHR could fit more seamlessly its environment, rather than the other way around.

No,The Patient Isn’t Disrupting Your Workflow!

Posted on February 26, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Just recently, I had a personal experience which highlighted a serious problem in how hospital staffers handle health IT workflow.

The backstory is as follows. I was dispatched to the emergency department of a local mid-sized community hospital after complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. (Turned out it was an asthma attack, not a cardiovascular complication, but the on-call doc I spoke with wasn’t taking any chances.)

This hospital ED seems efficient and well-run. Moreover, the clinicians and techs are uniformly attentive, thorough and patient. In other words, I feel safe and well-cared-for there.

That being said, I had a few experiences during this ED visit which I suspect are endemic to the industry. No one of these issues seemed serious in and of themselves, but collectively they gave me the sense that my feedback on what I observed wasn’t welcome.

They included the following:

  • When I called attention to the fact that my blood pressure reading was unusually low (80/60) they dismissed the data as a blip and discouraged further discussion.
  • After the expected EKG to rule out cardiac concerns , staff left the leads attached to my skin to allow further testing if needed. Because the adhesive attaching the leads to my skin came loose now and then, you guessed it, alarms went off. When I suggested that the leads be either reattached or removed, the tech’s response translated to: “Honey, you have no business asking these questions.”
  • When I tried to find the results of the tests they were running via the MyChart app on my phone (yes, they’re an Epic shop), none of them were available, even though the doctors already had them.

None of these issues represent a staggering problem. My blood pressure did normalize, we handled the EKG lead stickiness issue without incident, and I did get my test results as soon as the doctor had them. I got a nebulizer treatment and some feedback on my overall health, and went home feeling much better.

That being said, I still find it unsettling that I was discouraged from taking note of what I saw and heard, and had no access to test results on the spot that would have put many of my concerns to rest.

More broadly, I object strenuously to the “doctor knows best” scenario that played out in this setting, at least where IT workflow was concerned:

  • While I understand completely that nurses and techs are besieged with needless noises and suffer from alarm fatigue, treating my response to those alarms as trivial doesn’t seem appropriate to me.
  • Failing to share data on the spot with me via the portal deprived me of the chance to discuss the data with my ED doctor. Instead, I only got to go over the data very quickly and mechanically with the nurse at discharge.

What bugs me, ultimately, is the intangible sense that I was perceived as a force breaking the IT workflow rather than a participant in it. This incident has convinced me that we need to transform the way HIT systems are designed, in a manner which brings the patient into the process of care. You clinicians need my eyes and ears to be on the case too.

EMR Issues That Generate Med Mal Payouts Sound Familiar

Posted on February 8, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

When any new technology is adopted, new risks arise, and EMR systems are no exception to that rule. In fact, if one medical malpractice insurer’s experience is any indication, EMR-related medical errors may be rising over time — or at least, healthcare organizations are becoming more aware of the role that EMRs are playing in some medical errors. The resulting data seems to suggest that many EMR risks haven’t changed for more than a decade.

In a recent blog item, med mal insurer The Doctors Company notes that EMR-related factors contributed to just under one percent of all claims closed between January 2007 through June 2014. Researchers there found that user factors contributed to 64% of the 97 closed claims, and system factors 42%.

The insurer also got specific as to what kind of system and user factors had a negative impact on care, and how often.

EMR System Factors: 

  • Failure of system design – 10%
  • Electronic systems/technology failure – 9%
  • Lack of EMR alert/alarm/decision support – 7%
  • System failure–electronic data routing – 6%
  • Insufficient scope/area for documentation – 4%
  • Fragmented EMR – 3%

EMR User Factors

  • Incorrect information in the EMR – 16%
  • Hybrid health records/EMR conversion – 15%
  • Prepopulating/copy and paste – 13%
  • EMR training/education – 7%
  • EMR user error (other than data entry) – 7%
  • EMR alert issues/fatigue – 3%
  • EMR/CPOE workarounds -1%

This is hardly a road map to changes needed in EMR user practices and system design, as a 97-case sample size is small. That being said, it’s intriguing — and to my mind a bit scary — to note 16% of claims resulted at least in part due to the EMR containing incorrect information. True, paper records weren’t perfect either, but there’s considerably more vectors for infecting EMR data with false or garbled data.

It’s also worth digging into what was behind the 10% of claims impacted by failure of EMR design. Finding out what went wrong in these cases would be instructive, to be sure, even if some the flaws have probably been found and fixed. (After all, some of these claims were closed more than 15 years ago.)

But I’m leaving what I consider to be the juiciest data for last. Just what problems were created by EMR user and systems failures? Here’s the top candidates:

Top Allegations in EMR Claims

  • Diagnosis-related (failure, delay, wrong) – 27%
  • Medication-related – 19%
    • Ordering wrong medication – 7%
    • Ordering wrong dose – 5%
    • Improper medication management – 7%

As medical director David Troxel, MD notes in his blog piece, most of the benefits of EMRs continue to come with the same old risks. Tradeoffs include:

Improved documentation vs. complexity: EMRs improve documentation and legibility of data, but the complexity created by features like point-and-click lists, autopopulation of data from templates and canned text can make it easier to overlook important clinical information.

Medication accuracy vs. alarm fatigue: While EMRs can make med reconciliation and management easier, and warn of errors, frequent alerts can lead to “alarm fatigue” which cause clinicians to disable them.

Easier data entry vs. creation of errors:  While templates with drop-down menus can make data entry simpler, they can also introduce serious, hard-to-catch errors when linked to other automated features of the EMR.

Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to address these issues, or we wouldn’t still be talking about them many years after they first became identified. My guess is that it will take a next-gen EMR with new data collection, integration and presentation layers to move past these issues. (Expect to see any candidates at #HIMSS16?)

In the mean time, I found it very interesting to hear how EMRs are contributing to medical errors. Let’s hope that within the next year or two, we’ll at least be talking about a new, improved set of less-lethal threats!

#HIMSS16: Some Questions I Plan To Ask

Posted on February 1, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

As most readers know, health IT’s biggest annual event is just around the corner, and the interwebz are heating up with discussions about what #HIMSS16 will bring. The show, which will take place in Las Vegas from February 29 to March 4, offers a ludicrously rich opportunity to learn about new HIT developments — and to mingle with more than 40,000 of the industry’s best and brightest (You may want to check out the session Healthcare Scene is taking part in and the New Media Meetup).

While you can learn virtually anything healthcare IT related at HIMSS, it helps to have an idea of what you want to take away from the big event. In that spirit, I’d like to offer some questions that I plan to ask, as follows:

  • How do you plan to support the shift to value-based healthcare over the next 12 months? The move to value-based payment is inevitable now, be it via ACOs or Medicare incentive programs under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. But succeeding with value-based payment is no easy task. And one of the biggest challenges is building a health IT infrastructure that supports data use to manage the cost of care. So how do health systems and practices plan to meet this technical challenge, and what vendor solutions are they considering? And how do key vendors — especially those providing widely-used EMRs — expect to help?
  • What factors are you considering when you upgrade your EMR? Signs increasingly suggest that this may be the year of the forklift upgrade for many hospitals and health systems. Those that have already invested in massiveware EMRs like Cerner and Epic may be set, but others are ripping out their existing systems (notably McKesson). While in previous years the obvious blue-chip choice was Epic, it seems that some health systems are going with other big-iron vendors based on factors like usability and lower long-term cost of ownership. So, given these trends, how are health systems’ HIT buying decisions shaping up this year, and why?
  • How much progress can we realistically expect to make with leveraging population health technology over the next 12 months? I’m sure that when I travel the exhibit hall at HIMSS16, vendor banners will be peppered with references to their population health tools. In the past, when I’ve asked concrete questions about how they could actually impact population health management, vendor reps got vague quickly. Health system leaders, for their part, generally admit that PHM is still more a goal than a concrete plan.  My question: Is there likely to be any measurable progress in leveraging population health tech this year? If so, what can be done, and how will it help?
  • How much impact will mobile health have on health organizations this year? Mobile health is at a fascinating moment in its evolution. Most health systems are experimenting with rolling out their own apps, and some are working to integrate those apps with their enterprise infrastructure. But to date, it seems that few (if any) mobile health efforts have made a real impact on key areas like management of chronic conditions, wellness promotion and clinical quality improvement. Will 2016 be the year mobile health begins to deliver large-scale, tangible health results? If so, what do vendors and health leaders see as the most promising mHealth models?

Of course, these questions reflect my interests and prejudices. What are some of the questions that you hope to answer when you go to Vegas?

Is Cerner Edging Up On Epic?

Posted on January 7, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

At Verona, Wisc.-based Epic Systems, growth is a way of life. In fact, the EMR vendor now boasts a workforce of 9,400, which is estimated to be an increase of 1,400 staffers over the past year.

Not only that, Epic is confident enough to build cute. Its Campus 4, dubbed the “Wizards Academy Campus,” is designed to resemble the fictional Hogwarts school of Harry Potter fame — or if you’re academically-minded, England’s Oxford University. When completed this summer, Campus 4 will add 1,508 offices and 2,000 parking spaces to the Epic headquarters.

I could go on with details of the Disneyland Epic is making of its HQ, but you get the picture. Epic leaders are confident that they’re only going to expand their business, and they want to make sure the endless streams of young eggheads they recruit are impressed when they visit. My guess is that the Epic campus is being designed as a, well, campus speaks to the idea of seeing the company as a home. When I was 25, unique surroundings would have worked on me!

In any event, if I was running the place, I’d be pretty confident too. After all, if its own stats are correct, Epic software is either being used by or installed at 360 healthcare organizations in 10 countries. The EMR giant also reports that its platform manages records for 180 million Americans, or about 55 percent of the entire U.S. population. It also reported generating a not-so-shabby $1.8 billion in revenues for 2014.

But a little-noticed report issued by analyst firm KLAS last year raises questions as to whether the Epic steamroller can maintain its momentum. According to the report, which admittedly came out about a year ago, “the competition between Epic and Cerner is closer than it has been in years past as customers determine their future purchasing plans,” analysts wrote.

According to KLAS researchers, potential EMR buyers are largely legacy customers deciding how to upgrade. These potential customers are giving both Cerner and Epic a serous look, with the remainder split between Meditech and McKesson upgrades.

The KLAS summary doesn’t spell out exactly why researchers believe hospital leaders are beginning to take Cerner as seriously as Epic, but some common sense possibilities occur to me:

The price:  I’m not suggesting that Cerner comes cheap, but it’s become clear over the years that even very solvent institutions are struggling to pay for Epic technology. For example, when traditionally flush-with-cash Brigham and Women’s Hospital undershoots its expected surplus by $53 million due (at least in part) to its Epic install, it’s gotta mean something.

Budget overruns: More often than not, it seems that Epic rollouts end up costing a great deal more than expected. For example, when New York City-based Health and Hospital Corp. signed up to implement Epic in 2013, the deal weighed in at $302 million. Since then, the budget has climbed to $764 million, and overall costs could hit $1.4 billion. If I were still on the fence I’d find numbers like those more than a little concerning. And they’re far from unique.

Scarce specialists:  By the company’s own design, Epic specialists are hard to find. (Getting Epic certified seems to take an act of Congress.) It must be quite nerve-wracking to cut a deal with Epic knowing that Epic itself calls the shots on getting qualified help. No doubt this contributes to the high cost of Epic as well.

Despite its control of the U.S. market, Epic seems pretty sure that it has nowhere to go but up. But that’s what Microsoft thought before Google took hold. If that comparison bears any weight, the company that will lap up Epic’s business and reverse its hold on the U.S. market probably already exists. It may not be Cerner, but Epic will face meaningful competition sometime soon.

Uncovering Hidden Hospital Resources: Hospital IQ Shows that the First Resource is Data

Posted on January 4, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site ( and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

We’ve become accustomed to the results that data mining have produced in fields ranging from retail to archeology to climate change. According to Rich Krueger, CEO of HospitalIQ, the health care industry is also ripe with data that could be doing a lot more for strategic operations and care.

Many companies (perhaps even too many) already offer analytics for grouping patients into risk pools and predicting the most unwanted events, such as readmissions within 30 days of a hospital discharge. According to Krueger, Hospital IQ is the first company offering analytics to improve operations. From a policy standpoint, the service has three benefits:

  • Improving operations can significantly lower the cost of providing health care, and the savings can be passed on to payers and consumers.
  • Better operational efficiency means better outcomes. For instance, if the ER is staffed properly and the hospital has enough staff resources to meet each patient’s needs, they will get the right treatment faster. This means patients will recover sooner and spend less time in the hospital.
  • Hospital IQ’s service is an intriguing example of the creative use of clinical data, inspiring further exploration of data analysis in health care.

One of the essential problems addressed by Hospital IQ is unexpected peaks in demand, which strains emergency rooms, ICUs and inpatient units, and ultimately can contribute to poor patient outcomes. The mirror images of this problem are unexpected troughs in usage, where staff is underutilized and costing the healthcare system.

“There’s no reason for surprise,” says Krueger. While it is difficult to predict demand for any given day, it is possible to forecast upper and lower boundaries for demand in a given week. Hospital staff often have an intuitive sense of this. Krueger says with his software, they can mine clinical data to make these forecasts based on actual live data.

There are firms who make sensors that can tell you when a bed is occupied, when someone has come to clean the room or visit a patient, and so forth. The interesting thing about Hospital IQ is that it does its work without needing to install any special equipment or IT builds. Its inputs are the everyday bits of data that every hospital already collects and stores in their electronic record systems: when someone enters the ED, when they are seen, where they are transferred, when surgery started and ended. The more at-risk patients in telemetry beds generate information that is also used for analytics.

Hospital IQ uses mature business analytics tools such as queuing theory that have been popularized for decades since the age of W. Edwards Deming. Even though EHRs differ, Krueger has discovered that it’s not hard to retrieve the necessary data from them. “You tell us where the data is and we’ll get it.”

The service also provides dashboards designed for different types of staff, and tools for data analysis. For instance, a manager can quickly see how often patients are sent to the ICU not because they need ICU care but because all other beds are full. While this doesn’t compromise patient safety, it’s an unnecessary cost and also reduces patient satisfaction because ICUs generally have a more restricted visiting policy. This situation becomes more problematic when a patient arrives through the ED with a real need for an ICU bed and the unit is full (Figure 1). Hospitals can look at trends over time to optimize staffing and even out the load by scheduling elective interventions at non-peak times. There’s a potentially tremendous impact on patient safety, length of stay, and mortality.

Figure 1: Chart showing placements into the ICU. “Misplaced here” are patients that don’t belong in the ICU, whereas “Misplaced elsewhere” are patients that should have gone to the ICU but were sent somewhere else such as the PACU.

Taken to another level of sophistication, analytics can be used for long-term planning. For instance, if you are increasing access to a service, hospitals can forecast the additional number of beds, operating rooms, and staff the service will need based on historic demand and projected growth.. Hospitals can set a policy such as a maximum wait of three hours for a bed and see the resources necessary to meet that goal. Figure 2 shows an example of a graph being tweaked to look at different possible futures.

Figure 2: Simulation using historical demand data showing the relationship between bed counts and average wait time for a patient to get a bed.

Hospital IQ is a fairly young company whose customers cover a wide range of hospitals: from safety net hospitals to academic institutions, large and small. It also works across large systems with multiple institutions, aiding in such tasks as consolidating multiple hospitals’ services into one hospital.

My hope for Hospital IQ is that it will open up its system with an API that allows hospitals and third parties to design new services. It seems to offer new insights that were hidden before, and we can only guess where other contributors can take it as well.

Time For A Health Tracking Car?

Posted on December 30, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Several years ago, I attended a conference on advanced health technologies in DC. One of the speakers was Dr. Jay Sanders, president and CEO of The Global Telemedicine Group. And he had some intriguing things to say — especially given that no one had heard of a healthcare app yet and connected health was barely a vision.

One of Dr. Sanders’ recommendations was that automobile seat belts should integrate sensors that tracked your heart rhythm. After all, he noted, many of us spend hours a day behind the wheel, often under stressful conditions — so why not see how your heart is doing along the way? After all, some dangerous arrhythmias don’t show up at the moment you’re getting a checkup.

Flash forward to late 2015, and it seems Dr. Sanders’ ideas are finally being taken seriously. In fact, Ford Motor Co. and the Henry Ford Health System are co-sponsoring a contest offering $10,000 in prize money to employees creating smartphone apps linking healthcare with vehicles. While this doesn’t (necessarily) call for sensors to be embedded in seat belts, who knows what employees will propose?

To inspire potential entrants, the Connected Health Challenge sponsors have suggested a few ideas for possible designs, including in-vehicle monitoring and warnings and records access from the road. Other suggestions included appointment check-ins and technology allowing health data to be transmitted to providers. The contest kicks off on January 20th.

In some ways, this isn’t a huge surprise. After all, connected vehicles are already a very hot sector in the automotive business. According to research firm Parks Associates, there will be 41 million active Internet connections in U.S. vehicles by the end of this year.

At present, according to Parks, the connect car applications consumers are most interested in include mapping/navigation, information about vehicle performance, Bluetooth technology and remote control of vehicles using mobile phones. But that could change quickly if someone finds a way to interest the well-off users of wearables in car-based health tracking. (A possible direction for Fitbit, perhaps?)

Ordinarily, I’d have some doubts about Henry Ford Health System employees’ ability to grasp this market. But as I’ve reported elsewhere on Healthcare Scene, Henry Ford takes employee innovation very seriously.

For example, last year HFHS awarded a total of $10,000 in prizes to employees who submitted the best ideas for clinical applications of wearable technology. Not only that, the health system offers employees a 50% share of future revenues generated by their product ideas which reach the marketplace.

Now, it’s probably worth bearing in mind that the wearables industry is far more mature than the market for connected health apps in automobiles. (In fact, as far as I can tell, it’s still effectively zero.) Employees who participate in the challenge will be swinging at a far less-defined target, with less chance of seeing their ideas be adopted by the automotive industry.

Still, it’s interesting to see Ford Motor Co. and HFHS team up on this effort. I think something intriguing will come of it.