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!

Innovative Collaboration on Medication Management and Community Resources

Posted on April 23, 2015 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 (http://oreilly.com/) 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.

Although experts agree that the future of health is coordinated care, it is sorely lacking in the US health care system now. This article focuses on the single, relatively simple issue of medication management. Patients are prescribed barrels of pills, but there is little coordination other than looking for contra-indications and drug interactions–and these often suffer from the caretaker’s not knowing the patient’s full complement of drugs.

Sandra Raup, president of Datuit, points out that all kinds of subtleties get lost when patients are simply told how often to take a medication. For instance, if medications are spaced out throughout the day instead of being being taken all at once when we remember to take them (as so many people do), they may be absorbed more effectively and tolerated by the body. Patients–especially those with lower incomes and less education, who are more likely to be on multiple medications in the first place–need all sorts of support.

Here we come to an interesting twist: coordinated care does not have to be initiated by doctors. Given the doctor shortage and the forces keeping clinicians from adopting new models of treatment, other professionals can take on the long-term goals of improving patient health.

In a pilot ramping up in a residence for low-income seniors and the disabled in Maryland, Connected Health Resources is working with Alfa Specialty pharmacy using its Community Health Gateway to help patients straighten out their medications and keep to their schedules. This works because the pharmacy is in a somewhat unusual position: they have supported this community for some time and have built relationships with patients informally. The Gateway pilot has created a service, using Datuit’s SafeIX public API, that can potentially fulfill these needs with less work on the pharmacist’s part. The service is designed for easy navigation by the patients and their family caregivers, making it attractive to the patients and the pharmacists.

Connected Health Resources logo

The SafeIX Platform is designed using modern programming technologies to integrate data from multiple sources (including EHRs and HIEs) into a patient record for both patients and healthcare providers to use, based on their rights to access and share it. In the Gateway implementation, the pharmacist uses the SafeIX Platform to receive CDA documents from the HIE and to auto-assist medical data reconciliation between the various documents.

This information, along with the pharmacist recommendations, are organized into a daily medication calendar using an application from Polyglot Systems Incorporated, a company that offers medication regimen summaries in 18 languages. Low health literacy and the estimated 50 million people who do not speak English at home result in many patients not understanding their medication instructions. The plain language and multilingual, easy-to-use daily calendar can make the difference between understanding and total confusion.

Datuit’s SafeIX Platform uses interoperability standards (including, in test mode, the next-generation FHIR standard) to create a patient record that can show patients everything seen by multiple clinicians and allow a patient’s self-selected care team to view and add to a shared care plan. Datuit is encouraging app developers to build mobile apps for SafeIX that would prompt patients to take medications and record whether they did so, but that’s outside the scope of the pilot. There are plenty of challenges just fulfilling the tasks they have already taken on.

First, Connected Health Resources has to break down the clinical data silos that make it difficult for patients to collect their information. According to co-founder Shannah Koss, Maryland has a relatively advanced Health Information Exchange (HIE) called CRISP. However, it is defined as a provider-to-provider exchange, so it was only after a long-term relationship and negotiation that Connected Health Resources could collect medical data on behalf of the patients. This is the first time CRISP has allowed data to be retrieved for a patient-facing organization that is not a provider.

When enrolling, the patient gives the Gateway permission to get data through CRISP. Family and friends can be invited by patients to be part of their health community and enroll in the Gateway. The invitation includes a unique code that allows the Gateway to securely share records and help with health and social services navigation. If the patient wants help or is incapable of managing the medication list, a caregiver can do so.

CRISP transmits data primarily from hospitals. To round out a more comprehensive listing of medications from clinics and other healthcare providers, CRISP has enabled the ability to query Surescripts, which provides prescription fill data from chain pharmacies and pharmaceutical benefit management companies.

Pilot participants authorize the Gateway and the Alfa pharmacists to access their medication information and maintain, share, and augment the information in the secure SafeIX Platform. The CRISP data gives more complete medication records for the pilot participants. CRISP also provides an event notification system that let’s the pharmacist know whether a patient has been admitted to a hospital or visited the emergency department. These types of transition are precisely when medications get changed, but the clinicians at those crucial junctures often don’t know all of a patient’s current medications.

Finally, over-the-counter (OTC) medications can play an important role in a patient’s care. This has to be added to the daily calendar. The Alfa Pharmacist is helping round out the complete medication picture by working with the patient and family to identify OTC medications, supplements, and the medications that are actually being taken through the medication therapy management (MTM) program. The Gateway provides the means for everyone to better understand and manage the medicines for the best outcomes.

Further, the Gateway Community Resource Finder has enabled information about important resources such as transportation, meal delivery, social services, and home nursing. The MTM pharmacist knows that patients without food or transportation to their physicians cannot adequately manage their health or medications. The underlying SafeIX Platform also allows the Gateway to offer secure messaging that looks like email and lets the pharmacist, patient, friends, and family exchange messages about the patient’s care.

Traditional EHRs don’t accommodate treatment plans of the specificity designed by the pharmacy for patients in the pilot. This is where Datuit is pushing the EHR to new horizons: its SafeIX Platform helps multiple clinicians (including long term care providers), patients, and family caregivers contribute data. For example, patients can enter their own healthcare problems, such as fear of falling. The patients, families, and clinicians can then add interventions to address them.

Like other new organizations I’ve spoken too in health care, Connected Health Resources has grand plans beyond the current pilot. They are taking it slow, because Koss believes personal health records (PHRs) have tried to do too much at once and have overwhelmed their users with too many possibilities. But she would like Connected Health Resources to grow in response to what patients and families say they need. The Gateway tools already include the ability to generate multi-lingual discharge instruction from Polyglot. The initial pilot purposefully focuses on the more narrow scope of medications along with the health and social services support. The next step will be to engage hospitals to provide the plain language multi-lingual discharge instructions.

Chronic care ultimately goes beyond medications to things supported by a patient-centered medical home (PCMH), community health workers, and the many community-based service providers. The Gateway in partnership with the Datuit SafeIX Platform are poised to allow all participants identified by the patient and families to contribute to and be part of their health community.

Cracking Open the Shell on the Personal Health Record

Posted on November 5, 2014 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 (http://oreilly.com/) 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.

The concept of maintaining your own health data enjoyed a brief flurry of activity a few years ago with Google Health (now defunct) and Microsoft HealthVault (still active but not popular). It has gotten a second chance with Apple HealthKit, Google Fit, and other corporate offerings explicitly tied in with the convenience of mobile devices. Microsoft itself has galvanized HealthVault with a Microsoft Health initiative similar to Apple’s HealthKit. Recently I’ve been talking to health care reformers about the business and political prospects for personal health records (PHRs).

Patient access to data was enshrined as a right back when HIPAA was passed and is still championed by the US government through Meaningful Use (whose Stage 3 may well focus on it) and other initiatives, and has been endorsed by the industry as well. But this requirement won’t be satisfied by the limited patient portals that hospitals and clinics are hanging out on the Web. Their limitations include:

  • Many provide only viewing data, not downloading or transmitting it (all of these are mandated by Meaningful Use).
  • Data maintained by providers can’t easily be combined into a holistic, comprehensive view, which is what providers need to provide good care.
  • Data on portals is usually a thin sliver of all the data in the record: perhaps prescriptions, appointments, and a few other bare facts without the rich notes maintained by clinicians.
  • You can’t correct errors in your own data through a portal.
  • Clinicians rarely accept data that you want to put in the record, whether personal observations or output from fitness devices and other technical enhancements.

All these problems could be solved by flexible and well-designed personal health records. But how does the health care field navigate the wrenching transition to giving people full control over their own data?

Dr. Adrian Gropper has investigated PHRs for years and even considered building a simple device to store and serve individual’s health data. Now he says, “I can’t recall any physician in my medical society that has ever said they wished their patient had a PHR. Nor do I, after many years on the Society for Participatory Medicine list, ever recall a patient praising the role of their PHR in their care. Today’s PHRs are clinically irrelevant.”

This is not a condemnation of PHRs, but of the environment in which vendors try to deploy them. Many health reformers feel that several aspects of this care environment must evolve for PHRs to be accepted:

  • PHR data must become appealing to doctors. This means that device manufacturers (and perhaps patients themselves) must demonstrate that the data is accurate. Doctors have to recognize value in receiving at least summaries and alerts. Many benefits can also accrue from collecting vital statistics, behavioral data, and other aspects of patients’ daily lives.
  • The doctor’s EHR must seamlessly provide data to the patient, and (we hope) seamlessly accept data from the patient–data that the doctor acts on. Currently, most manufacturers store the data on their own sites and offer access through APIs. Another programming step is required to get the data into the PHR or the doctor’s EHR.
  • Clinicians have to agree on how to mark and collect the provenance of data. “Provenance” deals with assertions such as, “this data was generated by a Fitbit on October 10, 2014” or “this diagnosis was challenged by the patient and changed on August 13, 2010.”
  • Add-on services must make the data interesting and usable to both patients and physicians. For instance, such apps can alert the patient, clinician, or family members when something seems wrong, let them visualize data taken from the PHR and EHR over time, get useful advice by comparing their data to insights from research, and track progress toward the goals they choose.

“A critical force in increasing consumer engagement in digital health is the development of compelling, easy to use tools that make it simple to collect, understand and use health information to reach the goals consumers define for themselves, whether that’s managing a chronic condition, saving money, or fitting into their ‘skinny jeans’,” writes Lygeia Ricciardi, former director of the Office of Consumer e-Health at the ONC. “In an age of ‘one click purchasing,’ it must become incredibly easy for patients to access and share their own health information digitally–if it’s too complex or time consuming, most people probably won’t do it.”

In addition to sheer inertia, a number of disincentives keep PHRs from congealing.

  • Many doctors are afraid of letting patients see clinical notes, either because the patient will ask too many questions or will be upset by the content.
  • Hospitals and clinics want control over records so that patients will return to them for future treatment.
  • Marketing firms live off of rich data lodes on our health data.
  • Other organizations with dubious goals, commercial and governmental, want to track us so they can deny us insurance or control our lives in other ways.

Wait–what about the patients themselves? Why haven’t they risen up over the past several years to demand control over their data? Well, maintaining your health data is intimidating. The data is highly detailed and full of arcane medical concepts and terminology. Most patients don’t care until they really need to–and then they’re too sick and disabled to form an effective movement for patient control.

Still, several leaders in health care believe that a viable business model can be built on PHRs. The spark of hope comes from the success of apps that make people pay for privacy, notably SnapChat and Whatsapp. Although some sloppy privacy practicies render these services imperfect, their widespread use demonstrates that people care about protecting their personal data.

Private storage can be offered both in the cloud and by personal devices, using standardized services such as Direct and Blue Button. These will start out as high-end services for people who are affluent and have particular concerns about storing their own data and choosing how it is shared. It will then become commoditized and come down in price.

What about people who can’t afford even the modest prices for cloud storage? They can turn patient data into a civil rights issue. There’s a potent argument that everyone has the right to determine who can get access to their health data, and a right to have data generated during their daily lives taken into account by doctors.

We don’t need one big central service–that’s insecure and subject to breaches. Multiple services and distributed storage reduce security risks.

We’ll see change when a substantial group of people start to refuse to fill out those convoluted forms handed to them as them enter a clinic, saying instead, “Get it from my web site before you treat me.” Before that protest begins, there’s a lot of work in store for technologists and businesses to offer patients a usable record system open to the wide range of data now available for health.

HealthTap Offerings Track the Evolution of Health Care

Posted on August 15, 2014 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 (http://oreilly.com/) 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.

Health care evolves more quickly in the minds of the most visionary reformers than in real health care practices. But we are definitely entering on a new age:

  • Patients (or consumers, or whatever you want to call them–no good term has yet been developed for all of us regular people who want better lives) will make more of their own decisions and participate in health care.
  • Behavior change will be driven by immediate interventions into everyday life, and health care advice will be available instantly on demand instead of waiting for an annual visit to the doctor. Health care will be an integrated into life activities, not a distinct activity performed by a professional on a passive recipient.
  • Patient information will no longer be fragmented among the various health care providers with whom the patient comes in contact, but will be centralized with the patients themselves, integrated and able to support intelligent decision-making.
  • Mobile devices will be intimately entwined with daily behavior, able to provide instant feedback and nudges toward healthy alternatives.

I have seen this evolution in action over several years at HealthTap, a fascinating company that ties together more than 10 million patients a month and more than 62,000 doctors. I interviewed the charismatic founder, Ron Gutman, back in 2011 before they had even opened their virtual doors. At that time, I felt intrigued but considered them just a kind of social network tying together doctors and patients.

Gutman’s goals for health care were far greater than this, however, and he has resolutely added ratings, analytics, and other features to his service over the years. Most recently, HealthTap has moved from what I consider a social network to a health maintenance tool with continuous intervention into daily life–a tool that puts public health and patient empowerment at the top of its priorities. And it may go even farther–moving from seeking help on illness to promoting health, which Gutman describes simply and winningly as “feeling good.”

The center of the offering is a personal health record. Plenty of other organizations offer this, most famously Apple’s HealthKit. HealthTap’s personal health record is unique in supporting the service’s search feature, where patients can search for advice and get results tailored specifically to their age, medical conditions, etc.–not just the generic results one gets from a search engine. It also ties into HealthTap’s new services, including real time virtual consults with doctors.

09-TAKE-ACTION-Customized-Checklists-HealthTap
Sample update from HealthTap

Gutman is by no means interested in maintaining a walled garden for his users; he is looking for ways to integrate with other offerings such as HealthKit and with the electronic health records used by health providers. He says, “The only entity that will win the game is the one that adds the most value to the user.”

Other new features tied in to the HealthTap services include:

  • A recommendation system for apps that can improve health and well-being. The apps are rated by the doctors within the HealthTap system, must be in Apple App Store or Google Play, and must be approved by the FDA (unless they are part of the large, new category of apps that the FDA has chosen not to regulate).
  • Off-the-shelf checklists to help patients manage medication, keep track of healthy behaviors, etc. As part of HealthTap Prime, a concierge service ($99 per year for the first person and $10 for each additional family member), the user can get personalized checklists from doctors, as well.
  • With the concierge service, subscribers also have the opportunity to directly contact a doctor any time, 24/7, on all popular mobile platforms, using live video, voice, and text.
  • The “Get Help” module in the HealthTap app provides useful checklists through all mobile devices, and even Android wearables. Patients can get reminders, useful links to relevant content, and other content pushed to their devices, at a pace they choose.

Some of these features–such as the recommended apps and personalized checklists–go beyond advice and constitute a type of treatment that is subject to legal liability. HealthTap has covered all its bases insuring doctors have insurance against mistakes.

The numbers show that HealthTap is a big community; comments received from Gutman about patients who say they’ve saved their lives show that it is an effective one. I think the choices they’ve made are insightful and illustrate the changes all health care institutions will have to make in order to stay relevant in the twenty-first century.

New Year’s Resolution: Take the #BlueButton Pledge

Posted on January 3, 2014 I Written By

As Social Marketing Director at Billian, Jennifer Dennard is responsible for the continuing development and implementation of the company's social media strategies for Billian's HealthDATA and Porter Research. She is a regular contributor to a number of healthcare blogs and currently manages social marketing channels for the Health IT Leadership Summit and Technology Association of Georgia’s Health Society. You can find her on Twitter @JennDennard.

I rarely make New Year’s resolutions, but 2014 finds me ready and willing to finally take the Blue Button pledge. Perhaps my impetus stems from the healthcare I received in 2013 (more than I would have liked), and the fact that I have logged onto to at least two different patient portals (not including my kids’) that of course can’t communicate with one another.

bluebuttonpledge

I’m even more anxious to give Blue Button a go after reading that the ONC has recently announced it is working towards incorporating the following Blue Button features:

  • the Blue Button Connector: a tool that will help patients find out which providers, health plans, and others offer Blue Button
  • OpenNotes, giving patients access to their providers’ notes
  • images such as EKGs
  • lab, medication and patient-generated data
  • vaccination records
  • Explanation of Benefits forms from payers and
  • a tool that will match eligible patients to clinical trials.

bluebuttonthankyou

As a patient, I decided to take the non-data holders’ Blue Button Pledge, whereby I “pledge to engage and empower individuals to be partners in their health through information technology.” I’ll do this by actively trying to bring all of my health data into one digital repository, and blogging about it along the way. Hopefully, I can paint a picture of how having this information at my fingertips benefits my care in some way. I already foresee it helping me to become more engaged.

I’ll also make it a point to bring up the Blue Button initiative with all of my providers. I’ll be interested to see who has heard of it, who thinks it’s a good idea, and who is so overworked they don’t have much time for it. Look to future posts for the nitty gritty of what it takes to actually gather disparate health data and put it in one place.

Have you taken the Blue Button pledge? How has it impacted your care, or that of your patients? Let me know in the comments below.

Giving Up on Digital Patient Engagement

Posted on May 10, 2012 I Written By

As Social Marketing Director at Billian, Jennifer Dennard is responsible for the continuing development and implementation of the company's social media strategies for Billian's HealthDATA and Porter Research. She is a regular contributor to a number of healthcare blogs and currently manages social marketing channels for the Health IT Leadership Summit and Technology Association of Georgia’s Health Society. You can find her on Twitter @JennDennard.

I’ve been a big fan of the “engaged patient” for about as long as I’ve known what the term meant, but until earlier this week, I hadn’t given much thought to the burden Meaningful Use requirements potentially place on providers to create these types of folks.

As I’m sure most readers know, comments on proposed Meaningful Use Stage 2 requirements were due to CMS this past Monday. Many organizations not only turned in comments, but released summaries of those comments to various media outlets as well.

Lynn Scheps, Vice President of Government Affairs at SRSsoft, has done a nice job of drawing out a few major themes from comments submitted over the 60-day period. In her most recent Meaningful Use Monday blog, she points out that:

“While increased patient engagement is recognized as an important goal, providers are expressing concern about having their incentives be dependent on actions by patients—actions over which they have no real control. For example, one proposed measure would require that 10% of patients access their information on the physician’s portal, and another that 10% of patients send a secure e-mail message to their physician.”

Now, as I’ve written (or tweeted) about before, I’ve tried to get into using a personal health record, and just found it to be too much trouble, too time consuming. If I, a fairly digitally savvy healthcare consumer (and thankfully a fairly healthy one), can’t keep up with a PHR, how likely is it that patients who don’t even have an email address will immediately jump onto their physician’s portal or send e-mail messages to their physician.

And it should probably be pointed out that those who make up the bulk of healthcare costs in America – the chronically ill and/or obese – most likely consist of patients in underserved communities, people who don’t have consistent access to the Internet. It’s a systemic problem that I could write at length about, but I’ll save that for another blog altogether.

On the flip side, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, in its Stage 2 comments to CMS, called for the criteria around patient engagement to be either maintained or enhanced. Its views on doubling the 10-percent threshold of patients viewing, downloading or transmitting their health information seems fairly indicative of their stance on the criteria as a whole:

“This change would provide an incentive to health professionals to adopt patient-facing platforms that have the potential to increase patient engagement and self-care.”

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see what route CMS takes when it issues a final rule sometime in August. I do hope that it errs on the side of conservative optimism, and keeps its proposed patient engagement criteria, rather than decreasing or banishing them altogether. Hopefully this can help healthcare overcome its bad habit of protracted procrastination and, with the tiniest of baby steps, help physicians get over the hump of getting themselves, and their patients, on the digital bandwagon.

What Should We Make of Google Health’s Failure?

Posted on June 26, 2011 I Written By

Katherine Rourke is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

So, Google Health’s slow collapse — akin to a tire with a slow but obvious leak — has finally come to an end. This week, Google officially ended the project, one of the pioneering efforts in the Personal Health Records space. While GH will stumble along through January 1, 2012, the jig is finally up.

Why did a high-visibility project backed by one of the world’s premier Internet companies fail so miserably? Well, according to former Google employee Adam Bosworth, who first launched GH, the effort failed because “it’s not social,” TechCrunch reports.  Another pundit, more convincingly, argued that unless PHRs are tied to reimbursement somehow, they’ll be “irrelevant” for most providers.

So, why should we care about the failure of a project that, I’d argue, was pretty much pie in the sky from day one? And more importantly, is the failure of GH relevant to people who care about the future of EMRs?

Well, for one thing, Google Health does offer some pretty interesting insights into what doesn’t work in the world of patient-centered clinical data. As I see it, they include the following:

*  Clinical data projects that aren’t interoperable are eventually going to wither away.

I think it’s telling that Google is, at the last possible moment, rolling out the ability for patients to transfer health data to other services supporting the Direct Project protocol.  Also notable is that Google is offering patients the option of downloading data that meets the Continuity of Care Record format. (That’s ASTM E2369 – 05e1 to any standards geeks out there.)

Does that imply that EMRs that don’t share data are going to be outmoded or a waste of time?  Certainly not, as EMRs can potentially solve many in-house problems that providers face, and serve a far more expansive purpose. That being said, the failure of siloed PHRs should be a warning.

* Without a live, fluid source of data, PHRs don’t matter.

In this cynic’s mind, the idea that patients would suddenly begin to post data to PHRs on their own was, to put it simply, pretty dumb.  Why would they?  Consumers seldom think about their health data unless they’re at a doctor’s office, if at all, and they don’t exactly know what do do with the data once they’ve compiled it.

Since day one of the PHR craze, I’ve been wondering who thought they’d change patient behavior en masse by dangling a technology carrot. What were they thinking? I’m not just slamming Google, I’m targeting pretty much any PHR that isn’t linked to an EMR or other clinical data source directly. (I’m talking about you, HealthVault, and probably Dossia too.)

* PHRs must be run by a trusted intermediary, and marketed vigorously to patients, before patients will take heed.

I think it’s no coincidence that while Google’s PHR, and possibly Microsoft’s, haven’t won over many consumers, patients are beginning to pay a bit more attention to PHRs provided by providers and health insurers.  (OK, I don’t have hard data on this, just a strong gut feeling — can any of you provide stats that support or contradict this assumption?)

A case in point: While they’ve arguably spent way, way too much to get there, Kaiser Permanente has built what may be the largest PHR user-base in the world — 3 million users as of spring 2010 — linked to KP’s big Epic installation.  True, Kaiser had to spend millions in advertising and other forms of outreach to get patients on board, but what’s telling is that patients seem to have stayed once they arrived.

So, I’m just wondering when the managers behind HealthVault will throw in the towel. Hey, MS, just turn out the light when you leave, OK?

EHR Question and Answer Video: EMR Data Sharing

Posted on May 26, 2011 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 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.

Yesterday I started testing out a new idea where I’d film some original EMR and EHR videos where I answer questions about healthcare IT and EMR that people have sent to me. I’ll post the first video here and possibly another one this weekend. Then, I’ll probably start posting the videos on my new EMR and EHR video website. Although, I may do some updates with links to the latest videos that are posted.

It’s a low budget production as you can imagine. I also was streaming it live on the internet, so you’ll see me look down a number of times to check how many were viewing it live. Those things aside, hopefully you’ll find the content of the video interesting and useful.

This first video tries to answer the question:
Does the EMR allow data sharing with the patient’s PHR and/or Social Net account(s)?

As always, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the subject as well. Was there anything I missed? Was I wrong about anything? What else is important about EMR data sharing? Should we be able to share our EMR data with social networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc?

Also, if you have other questions you’d like me to answer in a future video, be sure to leave a comment or let me know on the contact us page.

EHR or EMR? And Does It Matter?

Posted on April 16, 2011 I Written By

Katherine Rourke is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.


The Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters in any care delivery setting. Included in this information are patient demographics, progress notes, problems, medications, vital signs, past medical history, immunizations, laboratory data and radiology reports. The EHR automates and streamlines the clinician’s workflow. The EHR has the ability to generate a complete record of a clinical patient encounter – as well as supporting other care-related activities directly or indirectly via interface – including evidence-based decision support, quality management, and outcomes reporting.


An electronic medical record (EMR) is a computerized medical record created in an organization that delivers care, such as a hospital and doctor’s surgery. Electronic medical records tend to be a part of a local stand-alone health information system that allows storage, retrieval and modification of records.

So, there you have ’em — the two major terms that compete for attention in our business.  The top definition comes from HIMSS and the second, from Wikipedia.

In the circles where I travel, “EMR” and “EHR” are used interchangeably, but not everyone agrees they should be.  In my mind, for example, the two terms shouldn’t exist — only EMR does the trick.

Why?  To my knowledge, the term “medical record” has a widely-accepted definition, but the term “health record” has no formal place in medical care. And there’s no reason to toss an imprecisely-defined term into the mix when we’re struggling to define so much about digital healthcare. (For what it’s worth, Wikipedia defines the EHR as an “evolving concept.”)

Good Lord, toss in the even more poorly defined term “PHR” and you’ve officially created a conceptual traffic loop which could create traffic crashes for years to come.

But  I know not everyone cares about terminology the way a slightly-obsessed editor does.  What do you folks think?  Do you care which acronym the industry uses?  Does it matter?

Australia Moving Ahead With Massive PHR Project

Posted on April 2, 2011 I Written By

Katherine Rourke is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Recently, I wrote a piece for this blog arguing that the PHR model was at a turning point — and didn’t hide my doubts that this approach had much of a future.

In response, one of our readers was kind enough to tip us off to a massive PHR project which had never shown up on my radar. Apparently, the Australian government is well into building the infrastructure to support a nationally-available PCEHR (personally controlled electronic health record).

The $467 million project, which is undergoing its second wave of testing and development, will make PCEHRs available to consumers by July 1, 2012.  Nine sites are running related projects, including:

*   A system making prescribing and dispensing data available to 2 million citizens and their providers

*   A project targeting data sharing among palliative care patients and clinicians

*   A site focused on improved health for a population of about 9,000 mothers and newborns

*   A consumer-oriented portal, serving chronically-ill patients, integrating patient-entered medical data into a “Health Book”

The PCEHR project comes as Australian health officials undertake a package of national health reforms, including efforts to increase access to primary care and a $20 billion investment in improving public hospitals.

While I still doubt that the current US approach to personal health records makes sense — who decided consumers would bother with a sort of “extra” set of records designed to make key data available in a poorly-defined emergency situation? — rolling out PHRs aggressively as a key component of a primary care-oriented national health reform makes a great deal of sense.

I’m eager to see how Aussie citizens respond next year when the PCEHR goes live.  If consumers are convinced that the personal record is the key to better health, I’m sure they’ll jump on board.

 

PHR Model At Turning Point

Posted on March 26, 2011 I Written By

Katherine Rourke is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

So,  Google is going through some internal upheaval as co-founder Larry Page prepares to take over the reigns as CEO.  According to an piece appearing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Page is aggressively reviewing existing projects and is likely to take an axe to those that don’t seem to be working. Does it surprise any of you that one of the programs facing cutbacks may be Google Health and its faltering PHR?

As HIT expert Shahid Shah notes, Google has created some decent PHR technology — but despite having a vast reach and rich resources, hasn’t figured out how to grow its user community.  Even with its massive bank account, I’m not surprised to see that it hasn’t turned healthcare into a major income source. Google just isn’t that great at going outside of its box.

Then, consider that Microsoft doesn’t seem to be pushing Health Vault very hard these days, and you’ve got to wonder whether the whole “massive tech company builds PHR” thing can possibly work.   Yes, I realize I might get flamed by Microsoft execs saying this, but let’s get real here.  Microsoft isn’t great at connecting to markets it doesn’t monopolize either.

Oh the other hand, evidence is mounting that PHRs may be popular when driven by a provider and its own EMR.  Perhaps the highest-profile example of this may be Kaiser Permanente’s EMR/PHR ecosystem.  Its “My Health Manager” PHR system is closely integrated with its Epic EMR installation and now has millions of users.

Why is Kaiser succeeding at generating PHR interest where Google has failed? It’s largely because rather than offering a mixed bag of apps and options, as tech vendors have been doing, My Health Manager allows patients to securely exchange messages with physicians, refill prescriptions, review test results and schedule medical appointments.  Patients aren’t being asked to become updater and curator of their medical information, but rather, to use it. This just makes sense.

As I see it, the whole notion of a PHR as a freestanding app is basically circling the drain.  Realistically, patients have little incentive to interact with their health data unless it has some immediate impact on their lives.  An EMR/PHR combination, on the other hand, has tremendous potential, as it connects patients to both their providers and their health data effectively.  If I were Microsoft or Google, I’d just throw in the towel at this point.