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!

One Example Of An Enterprise Telehealth System

Posted on August 30, 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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.

While there’s a lot of talk about how telehealth visits need to be integrated with EMRs, I’m not aware of any well thought-out model for doing so. In the absence of such standardized models, I thought it worth looking at the approach taken by American Well, one of a growing list of telehealth firms which are not owned by a pre-existing provider organization. (Other examples of such telemedicine companies include MD Live, Teladoc and Doctor on Demand.)

American Well is now working with more than 170 health plans and health systems to streamline and integrate the telehealth process with provider workflows. To support these partners, it has created an enterprise telehealth platform designed to connect with providers’ clinical information systems, according to Craig Bagley, director of sales engineering for the firm.

Bagley, who recently hosted a webinar on EMR/telehealth integration for AW, said its system was designed to let providers offer telehealth consults labeled with their own brand name. Using its system, patients move through as follows, he said:

  • First, new patients sign up and enter their insurance information and demographics, which are entered into AW’s system.
  • Next, they are automatically connected to the provider’s EMR system. At that point, they can review their clinical history, schedule visits and get notifications. They can also contact their doctor(s).
  • At this point, they enter the telehealth system’s virtual “waiting room.” Behind the scenes, doctors can view the patients who are in the waiting room, and if they click on a patient name, they can review patient information collected from the EMR, as well as the reason for the visit.

Now, I’m not presenting this model as perfect. Ultimately, providers will need their EMR vendors to support virtual visits directly, and find ways to characterize and store the video content generated by such visits as well. This is becoming steadily more important as telemedicine deployments hit their stride in provider organizations.

True, it looks like AW’s approach helps providers move in this direction, but only somewhat. While it may do a good job of connecting patients and physicians to existing clinical information, it doesn’t sound as though it actually does “integrate” notes from the telehealth consult in any meaningful way.

Not only that, there are definitely security questions that might arise when considering a rollout of this technology. To be fair, I’m not privy to the details of how AW’s platform is deployed, but there’s always HIPAA concerns that come up when an outside vendor like AW interacts with your EMR. Of course, you may be handing off clinical information to far less healthcare-focused vendors under some business associate contracts, but still, it’s a consideration.

And no matter how elegant AW’s workaround is – if “workaround” is a fair word – it’s still not enough yet. It’s going to be a while before players in this category serve as any kind of a substitute for EMR-based conferencing technology which can document such visits dynamically.

Nonetheless, I was interested to see where AW is headed. It looks like we’re just at the start of the enterprise-level telemedicine system, but it’s still a much-needed step.

Team Training Can Produce Great Results

Posted on July 21, 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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.

A new study suggests that team training of healthcare staffers can cut patient mortality and also reduce medical errors. The study, which was conducted by multiple universities and two federal agencies, also found that such training improved staff members’ learning skills and use of such skills, as well as boosting financial outcomes, clinical performance and patient satisfaction.

Participants in the research program included Rice University, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the University of Central Florida, the U.S. Department of Defense and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center. The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 129 prior studies, which looked at programs designed to improve team-based knowledge, skills, attitudes and problem-solving interactions, as well as developing coordination, cooperation, communication and leadership skills.

To conduct their analysis, researchers looked at the impact of team training programs among 23,018 participants. The studies being analyzed looked at how team training affected quality of care, customer service, patient satisfaction and other relevant variables. Participants in the team trainings included clinicians, allied health staffers, support staffers and healthcare students. The trainings were conducted at facilities ranging from small clinics to large hospitals in the U.S. and abroad.

Researchers found that team training can reduce patient mortality by 15%, and reduce medical errors by 19%. The training program also boosted employees’ learning of new skills by 31% and on-the-job use of such skills by 25%. In addition, the training improved financial outcomes of healthcare organizations by 15%. And team training was associated with a 34% improvement in clinical performance and 15% growth in patient satisfaction, researchers said.

While this study didn’t address health IT teams, it’s easy to see how such cross-disciplinary efforts might help IT staffers succeed.

As Rick Krohn of HealthDataManagement aptly puts it, health IT teams often cope with “a spaghetti bowl of boutique applications, systems and external linkages,” which creates major stresses and leaves little time for outreach. In other words, as things stand, keeping rank and file HIT staffers from burning out is a challenge – and keeping them aware of end user needs is a daunting task.

But if health IT managers have at least sporadic team meetings with outside departments that depend on them – including clinical, financial and operational units – a big uptick in learning, sharing and coordination may be possible. As the study underscores, people have to be taught how to work with their partners in the organization, no matter how professional everyone is. Fostering a cooperative exchange between health IT front-liners and users can make that happen.

Dallas Children’s Health and Sickle Cell Patients: Cobbling Together a Sound Solution

Posted on June 23, 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 EHRSelector.com, 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.

Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a genetic, red blood cell condition, which damages cell walls impeding their passage through capillaries. Episodic, it is often extremely painful. It can damage organs, cause infections, strokes or joint problems. These episodes or SCA crises can be prompted by any number of environmental or personal factors.

In the US, African Americans are most commonly susceptible to SCA, but other groups can have it as well. SCA presents a variety of management problems in the best of circumstances. As is often the case, management is made even more difficult when the patient is a child. That’s what Children’s Health of Dallas, Texas, one of the nation’s oldest and largest pediatric treatment facilities faced two years ago. Children’s Health, sixty five percent of whose patients are on Medicaid, operates a large, intensive SCA management program as the anchor institution of the NIH funded Southwestern Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center.

Children’s Health problem wasn’t with its inpatient care or with its outpatient clinics. Rather, it was keeping a child’s parents and doctors up to date on developments. Along with the SCA clinical staff, Children’s Chief Information Officer, Pamela Arora, and Information Management and Exchange Director, Katherine Lusk, tackled the problem. They came up with a solution using all off the shelf technology.

Their solution? Provide each child’s caregiver with a free Verizon smartphone. Each night, they extracted the child’s information from EPIC and sent it to Microsoft’s free, vendor-neutral HealthVault PHR. This gave the child’s doctor and parents an easy ability to stay current with the child’s treatment. Notably, Children’s was able to put the solution together quickly with minimal staff and without extensive development.

That was two years ago. Since then, EPIC’s Lucy PHR has supplanted the project. However, Katherine Lusk who described the project to me is still proud of what they did. Even though the project has been replaced, it’s worth noting as an important example. It shows that not all HIE projects must be costly, time-consuming or resource intense to be successful.

Children’s SCA project points out the value of these system development factors:

  • Clear, understood goal
  • Precise understanding of users and their needs
  • Small focused team
  • Searching for off the shelf solutions
  • Staying focused and preventing scope creep

Each of these proved critical to Children’s success. Not every project lends itself to this approach, but Children’s experience is worth keeping in mind as a useful and repeatable model of meeting an immediate need with a simple, direct approach.

Note: I first heard of Children’s project at John’s Atlanta conference. ONC’s Peter Ashkenaz mentioned it as a notable project that had not gained media attention. I owe him a thanks for pointing me to Katherine Lusk.

New Effort Would Focus HIE Data Around Patients

Posted on June 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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.

In theory, doctors should be able to pull up all data available on a patient located within any networks to which they have access. In other words, not only should they be able to see any data on Patient A within the EMR where A’s care is documented, but also retrieve data on A from within any HIEs which connect with the EMR. But the reality is, that’s not always the case (in fact, it’s rarely the case).

To help weave together patient data strung across various HIEs, three exchanges have teamed up to pilot test the idea of a patient-centered data home (PCDH). While many health leaders have looked at the idea of putting patients in charge of their own data, largely by adding to or correcting existing records, getting patients involved in curating such data has been difficult at best.

In this model, Arizona Health-e Connection, western Colorado’s Quality Health Network and the Utah Health Information Network are testing a method of data sharing in which the other HIEs would be notified if the patient undergoes an episode of care within their network.

The alert confirms the availability and specific location of the patient’s clinical data, reports Healthcare Informatics. Providers will then be able to access real-time information on that patient across network lines by initiating a simple query. Unlike in other models of HIE data management, all clinical data in a PCDH will become part of a comprehensive longitudinal patient record, which will be located in the HIE where the patient resides.

The PCDH’s data sharing model works as follows:

  • A group of HIEs set up a PCDH exchange, sharing all the zip codes within the geographic boundaries that their exchanges serve.
  • Once the zip codes are shared, the HIEs set up an automated notification process which detects when there is information on the patient’s home HIE that is available for sharing.
  • If a patient is seen outside of their home territory, say in a hospital emergency department, the event triggers an automated alert which is sent to the hospital’s HIE.
  • The hospital’s HIE queries the patient’s home HIE, which responds that there is information available on that patient.
  • At that point providers from both HIEs and query and pull information back and forth. The patient’s home HIE pulls information on the patient’s out-of-area encounter into their longitudinal record.

The notion of a PCDH is being developed by the Strategic Health Information Exchange Collaborative, a 37-member HIE trade group to which the Utah, Arizona and Colorado exchanges belong.

Developing a PCDH model is part of a 10-year roadmap for interoperability and a “learning health system” which will offer centralized consent management and health records for patients, as well as providing national enterprises with data access. The trade group expects to see several more of its members test out PCDHs, including participants in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.

According to the Collaborative, other attempts at building patient records across networks have failed because they are built around individual organizations, geographies such as state boundaries, single EHR vendors or single payers. The PCDH model, for its part, can bring information on individual patients together seamlessly without disrupting local data governance or business models, demanding new technical infrastructure or violating the rights of local stakeholders, the group says.

Like other relatively lightweight data sharing models (such as the Direct Project) the PCDH offers an initial take on what is likely to be a far more complex problem. But it seems like a good idea nonetheless.

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 FierceHealthcare.com 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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 EHRSelector.com, 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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 FierceHealthcare.com 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!