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!

Should Healthcare Institutes Perform “Rip-and-Replace” to Achieve Interoperability? Less Disruption, Please!

Posted on October 7, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Dr. Donald Voltz, MD, Aultman Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Director of the Main Operating Room, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University and Northeast Ohio Medical University.
Dr Voltz
A KLAS Research Report on the EMR buying trends of 277 hospitals with at least 200 beds has identified that almost half will be making a new EMR purchase by 2016.  Of the providers considering a change, 34 percent have already selected a vendor and another 44 percent are strongly leaning toward a specific vendor. Driving factors include concerns over outdated technology and health system consolidation.

But is the technology really outdated and health system consolidation necessary, or is the real issue lack of interoperability?  And if you are a hospital looking for a new EMR, let’s not forget the history of technology before we jump to conclusions that the greatest market share means the best of breed.

When we look at EMR adoption over the past number of years, we need to be careful with the data we use. Implementations, and now rip and replace switching to other venders, has been the only choice offices, clinics, hospitals and health systems had to address the issues with interoperability.

Most of current deployed EMRs are designed as a one-size-fits-all, leading to the situation where today out-of-the-box functionalities fit none of the care providers’ requirements. Besides that, EMR vendors have been designed with proprietary data where patient medical sharing (or exchange) becomes the biggest roadblock for patient care continuum. The reason for the rip-and-replace approach by some hospitals is to reach interoperability between inpatient and outpatient data with a single integrated and consolidated database approach.

A 50 percent turnover of EMRs is an incredibly high numbers of hospitals and clinics who have either replaced or are looking to replace their current EHR’s. Being that the majority of the initial implementations were supported by the HITECH act, one would think the government would raise issue with vendors to address this high turnover of EHR’s. There seems to be a general misperception that if our current systems do not meet the demands and needs of providers, administrators, and financial arms of a healthcare delivery system, ripping out the system and implementing a new one will solve the issues.

What is the True Total Cost of Ownership of an EMR?

Healthcare management must look beyond the actual cost paid to an EHR vendor as the only cost but they must look into the total cost, much beyond the normal Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). TCO only includes the initial license cost, maintenance cost, IT support cost, but in healthcare, there is another cost – it is the disruption of the care providers’ workflow. That disruption is directly correlated to healthcare system revenue and patient care outcomes.

Stop this disruption and let’s look for another solution where we integrate disparate systems since many of them are built upon databases that can address the needs of health. The cost to providers in time to learn a new system, the migration and loss of patient data that has been collected in the current systems, the capital expense of system software, the hardware, trainers, IT personnel, etc. all add to the burden, something that is currently being looked at as a necessary expense.

Interoperability Saves Resources

This need not be the case when platforms exist to connect systems and improve access for providers. Having a consistent display of data allows for more efficient and effective management of patients and when coupled with a robust collaborative platform, we close many of the open loopholes that exist in medicine today, even with EHR’s.

2.0 EMR connectors like Zoeticx and others have taken the medical information bus, middleware platform, to solve the challenges that current EHR’s have not.  This connection of systems and uniform display of information that physicians depend on for the management of patients is crucial if hospitals want their new EMRs to succeed. In addition, a middleware platform allows for patients to access their medical information between EMR’s in a single institution or across institutions, a major issue for Meaningful Use.

Fragmentation Prevents Some EMRs From Connecting With Their Own Software

Large EMR vendors’ lack of healthcare interoperability only reflects on how they compete against each other. Patient medical data and its proprietary structure is the tool for such competition where the outcome would not be necessarily beneficial for the hospital, medical professionals or patients. There are plenty of examples where healthcare facilities with EHRs even from the same vendor fail to interoperate with each other.

Such symptoms have little to do with the EMRs that have the same data structure, but about the fragmentation being put in place over the years of customization. We believe that the reason for this is to address fragmentation of the software product. Fragmentation is a case where deployments from the same software products have gone through significant amounts of customization, leading to its divergence from the product baseline.

To believe that ripping the whole infrastructure – inpatient and outpatient–as the method to reach interoperability would only cause a lot of disruption, yet the outcome would be very questionable down the road. Appreciating the backlash of calling the implementation of EMR’s a beta-release, we have much data to use in looking for the next solution to HIT.

As with much of medicine, we are constantly looking for the best way to take care of our patients. Like it or not, EMR’s have become a medical device and we need to start to evaluate them as we would any device used to manage health and disease. As we move forward, there will be an expansion in the openness of patient data, and in my prediction, a migration away from a single EHR solution to all of the requirements of healthcare, and into a system of interconnected applications and databases.

Once again, we have learned that massively engineered systems do not evolve into complex adaptive systems to respond to changing environmental pressures. Simple, interrelated and interdependent applications are more fluid and readily adaptable to the constantly changing healthcare environment. Currently, the only buffer for the stresses and changes to the healthcare system are the patients and the providers who depend on these systems to manage healthcare.

About Dr. Donald Voltz
By Dr. Donald Voltz, MD, Aultman Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Director of the Main Operating Room, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University and Northeast Ohio Medical University.  A board-certified anesthesiologist, researcher, medical educator, and entrepreneur. With more than 15 years of experience in healthcare, Dr. Voltz has been involved with many facets of medicine. He has performed basic science and clinical research and has experience in the translation of ideas into viable medical systems and devices.

Could Clinicians Create Better HIE Tools?

Posted on August 13, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Andy Oram.His post reminds me of when I asked “Is Full Healthcare Interoperability a Pipe Dream?

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.

Rep. Phil Gingrey Comes After Healthcare Interoperability and Epic in House Subcommittee

Posted on July 30, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

On July 17th, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Communications and Technology and Health (that’s a mouthful) held a hearing which you can see summarized here. Brought into question were the billions of dollars that have been spent on EHR without requiring that the EHR systems be interoperable.

In the meeting Rep. Phil Gingrey offered this comment, “It may be time for this committee to take a closer look at the practices of vendor companies in this space given the possibility that fraud may be perpetrated against the American taxpayer.”

At least Rep. Gingrey is a former physician, but I think he went way too far when he used the word fraud. I don’t think the fact that many EHR vendors don’t want to share their healthcare data is fraud. I imagine Rep. Gingrey would agree if he dug into the situation as well. However, it is worth discussing if the government should be spending billions of dollars on EHR software that can’t or in more cases won’t share data. Epic was called out specifically since their users have been paid such a huge portion of the EHR incentive money and Epic is notorious for not wanting to share data with other EHR even if Judy likes to claim otherwise.

The other discussion I’ve seen coming out related to this is the idea of de-certifying EHR vendors who don’t share data. I’m not sure the legality of this since the EHR certification went through the rule making process. Although, I imagine Congress could pass something to change what’s required with EHR certification. I’ve suggested that making interoperability the focus of EHR certification and the EHR incentive money is exactly what should be done. Although, I don’t have faith that the government could make the EHR Certification meaningful and so I’d rather see it gone. Just attach the money to what you want done.

I have wondered if a third party might be the right way to get vendors on board with EHR data sharing. I’d avoid the term certification, but some sort of tool that reports and promotes those EHR vendors who share data would be really valuable. It’s a tricky tight rope to walk though with a challenging business model until you build your credibility.

Tom Giannulli, CMIO at Kareo, offers an additional insight, “The problem of data isolationism is that it’s practiced by both the vendor and the enterprise. Both need to have clear incentives and disincentives to promote sharing.” It’s a great point. The EHR vendors aren’t the only problem when it comes to not sharing health data. The healthcare organizations themselves have been part of the problem as well. Although, I see that starting to change. If they don’t change, it seems the government’s ready to step in and make them change.

Is Full Healthcare Data Interoperability A Pipe Dream?

Posted on July 11, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

It’s always been very clear to me that healthcare interoperability is incredibly valuable. I still wish most organizations would just bite the bullet and make it a reality. Plus, I hope meaningful use stage 3 is blown up and would just work on interoperability. I think there are just so many potential benefits to healthcare in general for us not to do it.

However, I had a really interesting discussion with an EHR vendor today (Side Note: they questioned if interoperability was that valuable) and I asked him the question of whether full healthcare interoperability is even possible.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. As we discussed it more, it was clear that we could have full interoperability if the data was just exported to files (PDFs, images, etc), but that’s really just a glorified fax machine like we do today. Although it could potentially be a lot faster and better than fax. The problem is that the data is then stuck in these files and can’t be extracted into the receiving EHR vendor.

On the other end of the spectrum is full interoperability of every piece of EHR data being transferred to the receiving EHR. Is this even possible or is the data so complex that it’s never going to happen?

The closest we’ve come to this is probably prescriptions with something like SureScripts. You can pull down a patient’s prescription history and you can upload to it as well. A deeper dive into its challenges might be a great study to help us understand if full healthcare data interoeprability is possible. I’m sure many readers can share some insights.

I’m interested to hear people’s thoughts. Should we trim down our interoperability expectations to something more reasonable and achievable? We’ve started down that path with prescriptions and labs. Should we start with other areas like allergies, family history, diagnosis, etc as opposed to trying to do everything? My fear is that if our goal is full healthcare data interoperability, then we’re going to end up with no interoperability.

Next Week’s Guest Blogger – Julie Maas from EMR Direct

Posted on June 6, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Next week, it’s going to be a little different around here. Next week, I’m going to be spending the week at Zions National Park as part of a family reunion. We did this a couple years back and unless things have changed, I’ll be stuck completely off the grid with no wifi or even cell coverage (Although, I may slip into town one day to check my email). Should be quite the experience.

I’ve actually done this a few times before and you probably didn’t know it. I just schedule the posts to appear and no one even realized I was gone. In fact, when I’ve done it in the past, I’ve had some of my highest traffic days on the blog. Don’t ask me how that works.

Next week, I decided to do something a little bit different. When I first started blogging, I remember a blogger “turning over the keys” to his blog to another blogger for the week. I always thought that was a kind of cool idea. Usually the person who “drives” the blog for the week enjoys it, the readers get another perspective, and the blog keeps humming while I’m wrestling 4 children and 12 cousins in the wilderness.

While I’m away, I’m handing the keys over to my favorite HIMSS 2014 discovery, Julie Maas. Before HIMSS this year, I’d certainly interacted with Julie a number of times on Twitter, but I’d never really gotten to know her and what she did. Needless to say, once I met her in person and heard her story I was utterly impressed with her and what she’s doing in healthcare IT. Side Lesson: Don’t judge a person solely by their Twitter account or Twitter interactions. There’s usually a lot more to them.

As I consider who I trusted with the keys to this blog, I wondered if Julie would be willing to share her knowledge, expertise and perspective. For those who don’t know Julie (shame on you), she’s been living, eating, breathing and sleeping the Direct Project for the company she started EMR Direct.

I’ve heard really promising things about Direct Project, but have never dug into it like I should have done. So, I’m as excited to read Julie’s series of posts next week as any of you. She’s also going to throw in a little Health Datapalooza commentary as well. I’ll be interested to hear what you think of Direct Project after reading Julie’s posts.

I hope you’ll give Julie a warm welcome to the blog next week. If you like this idea, maybe we’ll do it again. If you hate it or Direct Project, then we’ll be back with our usual snark the week after.

Now, what’s the ICD-10 code for internet withdrawal?

Meaningful Use is On the Ropes

Posted on May 9, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

We’re entering a really interesting and challenging time when it comes to meaningful use. We’ve often wrote about the inverse relationship between incentive and requirements that exists with meaningful use. As meaningful use stage 2 is now becoming a reality for many organizations and EHR vendors, the backlash against it is really starting to heat up.

If you don’t think this is the case, this slide from the HIT Policy Committee presentation says it a lot when it comes to organizations’ view of meaningful use stage 2.

Meaningful Use Stage 2 Attesatation - May 2014

For those that can’t believe what they’re reading, you’re reading it right. 4 hospitals have attested to meaningful use stage 2 and 50 providers as of May 1st. Certainly it’s still relatively early for meaningful use stage 2, but these numbers provide a stark contrast when you think about the early rush to get EHR incentive money during meaningful use stage 1.

This article by Healthcare IT News goes into many of the strains that were seen in the HIT Policy Committee. Sounded like the healthcare IT version of Real Housewives. However, the point they’re discussing are really important and people on both sides have some really strong opinions.

My favorite quote is this one in reply to the idea that we don’t need EHR certification at this point: “Deputy national coordinator Jacob Reider, MD, disagreed. Ongoing certification is required to give physicians and hospitals the security they need when purchasing products.”

Looks like he stole that line from CCHIT (see also this one). What security and assurance does EHR Certification provide the end user? The idea is just so terribly flawed. The only assurance and security someone feels buying a certified EHR is that they can get the EHR ID number off the ONC-CHPL when they apply for the EHR incentive money. The EHR certification can’t even certify EHR to a standard so that they can share health data. EHR Certification should go away.

I’m also a huge fan of the movement in that committee to simplify and strip out the complexity of meaningful use. I wish they’d strip it down to just interoperability. Then, the numbers above would change dramatically. Although, I’ve learned that the legislation won’t let them go that simple. For example, the legislation requires that they include quality measures.

No matter which way they go, I think meaningful use is in a tenuous situation. It’s indeed on the ropes. It hasn’t quite fallen to the mat yet, but it might soon if something dramatic doesn’t happen to simplify it.

McKesson, Meditech Chosen As EHR Test Systems for Meaningful Use

Posted on January 23, 2014 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 @annezieger on Twitter.

Here’s an interesting situation which is just popped up on my radar screen.  CMS and the ONC have chosen the first two vendors to serve as designated test EHR systems, and they’ve gone with McKesson and Meditech.

These test vendors are there to help eligible providers meet the requirements of Meaningful Use Stage 2.  To meet MU Stage 2 requirements, providers must successfully conduct at least one exchange test with a CMS-designated test EMR. (The providers can also meet the requirements by performing one electronic exchange of a summary of care document with a recipient using a different EMR technology.)

What intrigued me about this is that CMS and ONC are starting out with only two vendors for use as test EMR providers.  Given the diversity in the marketplace, you’d think that CMS would want to have fuller stock of vendors lined up before it went forward announcing its plans.

If I were an eligible provider going this route, I’d want to have the choice of a wider range test EMRs. Given how little real interoperability there is between EMRs, I’d like to know that I had a fallback position if my original tests didn’t work out.  After all, nothing I’ve read here suggests that EPs won’t have a chance to try again if the initial testing doesn’t go through, and if I were a provider, it’d be good to know that I could take the shot with other test EMRs. But I could be wrong, and that could have an effect on whether vendors see this as a win.

Let’s see if other substantial EMR vendors take up the ONC’s call to serve as test EMR participants.  It will be interesting to see whether vendors see participation as a credibility-raiser or a chance to get pantsed publicly if interoperating with their systems is a pain.

CommonWell Announces Sites For Interoperability Rollout

Posted on December 13, 2013 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 @annezieger on Twitter.

Nine months after announcing their plan to increase interoperability between health IT data sources, the CommonWell Health Alliance has disclosed the locations where it will first offer interoperability services.

CommonWell, whose members now include health IT vendors Allscripts, athenahealth, Cerner, CPSI, Greenway, McKesson, RelayHealth and Sunquest, launched to some skepticism — and a bit of behind-the-hand smirks because Epic Systems wasn’t included — but certainly had the industry’s attention.  And today, the vendors do seem to have critical mass, as the Alliance’s founding members represent 42 percent of the acute and 23 percent of the ambulatory EMR market, according to research firms SK&A and KLAS.

Now, the rubber meets the road, with the Alliance sharing a list of locations where it will first roll out services. It’s connecting providers in Chicago, Elkin and Henderson, North Carolina and Columbia, South Carolina. Interoperability services will be launched in these markets sometime at the beginning of 2014.

To make interoperability possible, Alliance members, RelayHealth and participating provider sites will be using a patient-centric identity and matching approach.

The initial participating providers include Lake Shore Obstetrics & Gynecology (Chicago, IL), Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital (Elkin, NC), Maria Parham Medical Center (Henderson, NC), Midlands Orthopaedics (Columbia, SC), and Palmetto Health (Columbia, SC).

The participating providers will do the administrative footwork to make sure the data exchange can happen. They will enroll patients into the service and manage patient consents needed to share data. They’ll also identify whether other providers have data for a patient enrolled in the network and transmit data to another provider that has consent to view that patient’s data.

Meanwhile, the Alliance members will be providing key technical services that allow providers to do the collaboration electronically, said Bob Robke, vice president of Cerner Network and a member of the Alliance’s board of directors.  CommonWell offers providers not only identity services, but a patient’s identity is established, the ability to share CCDs with other providers by querying them. (In case anyone wonders about how the service will maintain privacy, Robke notes that all clinical information sharing is peer to peer  — and that the CommonWell services don’t keep any kind of clinical data repository.)

The key to all of this is that providers will be able to share this information without having to be on a common HIE, much less be using the same EMR — though in Columbia, SC, the Alliance will be “enhancing” the capabilities of the existing local HIE by bringing acute care facility Palmetto Health, Midlands Orthopaedics and Capital City OB/GYN ambulatory practices into the mix.

It will certainly be interesting to see how well the CommonWell approach works, particularly when it’s an overlay to HIEs. Let’s see if the Alliance actually adds something different and helpful to the mix.

Interoperability vs. Coordinated Care

Posted on August 19, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Andy Oram asked me the following question, “Is the exchange of continuity of care documents really interoperability or coordinated care?

As it stands now, it seems like CCDs (continuity of care documents) are going to be the backbone of what healthcare information we exchange. We’ll see if something like Common Well changes this, but for now much of the interoperability of healthcare data is in CCDs (lab and radiology data are separate). The question I think Andy is asking is what can we really accomplish with CCDs?

Transferring a CCD from one doctor to the next is definitely a form of healthcare interoperability. Regardless of the form of the CCD, it would be a huge step in the right direction for all of the healthcare endpoints to by on a system that can share documents. Whether they share CCDs or start sharing other data doesn’t really matter. That will certainly evolve over time. Just having everyone so they can share will be of tremendous value.

It’s kind of like the fax machine or email. Just getting people on the system and able to communicate was the first step. What people actually send through those channels will continue to improve over time. However, until everyone was on email, it had limited value. This is the first key step to interoperable patient records.

The second step is what information is shared. In the forseeable future I don’t seeing us ever reaching a full standard for all healthcare data. Sure, we can do a pretty good job putting together a standard for Lab results, Radiology, RXs, Allergies, Past Medical History, Diagnosis, etc. I’m not sure we’ll ever get a standard for the narrative sections of the chart. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t make that information interoperable. We can, are, and will share that data between systems. It just won’t be in real granular way that many would love to see happen.

The idea of coordinated care is a much harder one. I honestly haven’t seen any systems out there that have really nailed what a coordinated care system would look like. I’ve seen very specific coordinated care elements. Maybe if we dug into Kaiser’s system we’d find some coordinated care. However, the goal of most software systems haven’t been to coordinate care and so we don’t see much on the market today that achieves this goal.

The first step in coordinating care is opening the lines of communication between care providers. Technology can really make an impact in this area. Secure text message company like docBeat (which I advise), are making good head way in opening up these lines of communications. It’s amazing the impact that a simple secure text message can have on the care a patient receives. Secure messaging will likely be the basis of all sorts of coordinated care.

The challenge is that secure messaging is just the start of care coordination. Healthcare is so far behind that secure messaging can make a big impact, but I’m certain we can create more sophisticated care coordination systems that will revolutionize healthcare. The biggest thing holding us back is that we’re missing the foundation to build out these more sophisticated models.

Let me use a simple example. My wife has been seeing a specialist recently. She’s got an appointment with her primary care doctor next week. I’ll be interested to see how much information my wife’s primary care doctor has gotten from the specialist. Have they communicated at all? Will my wife’s visit to her primary care doctor be basically my wife informing her primary care doctor about what the specialist found?

I think the answers to these questions are going to be disappointing. What’s even more disappointing is that what I described is incredibly basic care coordination. However, until the basic care coordination starts to happen we’ll never reach a more advanced level of care coordination.

Going back to Andy’s question about CCDs and care coordination. No doubt a CCD from my wife’s specialist to her primary care doctor would meet the basic care coordination I described. Although, does it provide an advanced level of care coordination? It does not. However, it does lay the foundation for advanced care coordination. What if some really powerful workflow was applied to the incoming CCD that made processing incoming CCDs easier for doctors? What if the CCD also was passed to any other doctors that might be seeing that patient based upon the results that were shared in the CCD? You can start to see how the granular data of a CCD can facilitate care coordination.

I feel like we’re on the precipice where everyone knows that we have to start sharing data. CCD is the start of that sharing, but is far from the end of how sophisticated will get at truly coordinated care.

New Nursing Journey, Healthcare Interoperability, and EMR Productivity

Posted on June 23, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

This is a great post by a nurse heading back into nursing. My suggestions for Jen is to dive in head first and learn the product in and out. Every EMR has issues, but you want to get to know those issues and the workarounds for those issues as soon as you can. Once you do, then at least they’re issues you know about and know how to deal with.


Depends on the vendor. More importantly, many institutions don’t want interoperability either. A number of times just this week people have told me that healthcare organizations don’t want to share with “their competitor.” Many are going to be taken kicking and screaming into interoperability.


This is the fear for many. I hope they just calculate in how fast paper charting was.