Tag: EHR

The Coming Health Care Singularity

Sep 17, 2012• 7

By Adrian Gropper, MD

According to Wikipedia, the Technological Singularity is the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human superintelligence through technological means. The Healthcare singularity could be the time when patients have access to better information and make better decisions than their physicians. The drive to this near future is fueled by the open and globaIized energy of patients as compared to physicians handicapped by closed and parochial health IT.

Physicians have skills. Institutions have capital. Patients have freedom, and that is what tips the information balance in their favor. When it comes to health IT, physicians and institutions are still busy installing closed, proprietary, single-vendor systems that erect strategic barriers to communications every chance they get. The protection of professional licensure and institutional consolidation gives both parties a sense of security even as the patient and policymaker barbarians are massing on the Web.

The Institute of Medicine just released Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Aside from reaffirming the $765 billion of “Excess Costs”, the study highlights the following:

The committee also believes that opportunities exist for attacking these problems— opportunities that did not exist even a decade ago.

Continue reading…

My Open Source Cure

Sep 12, 2012

By Lia Steakley

[youtube width=”475″ height=”300″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESWiBYdiN0[/youtube]

TED Fellow Salvatore Iaconesi released this video along with his digital medical records – everything from CT and MRI scans to lab notes. He posted the health files to invite the online world to participate in the process of treating his brain cancer. As he wrote on his website:

This is my OPEN SOURCE CURE. This is an open invitation to take part in the CURE. CURE, in different cultures, means different things. There are cures for the body, for spirit, for communication.

Grab the information about my disease, if you want, and give me a CURE: create a video, an artwork, a map, a text, a poem, a game, or try to find a solution for my health problem. Artists, designers, hackers, scientists, doctors, photographers, videomakers, musicians, writers. Anyone can give me a CURE.

Create your CURE using the content which you find in the DATI/DATA section here on this site… All CURES will be displayed here.

Continue reading…

It’s the Patient, Stupid

Sep 10, 2012• 13

By ANIL SETHI

Electronic health records (EHRs) offer many valuable benefits for patient safety, but it becomes apparent that the effective application of healthcare informatics creates problems and unintended consequences. As many turn their attention to solving the seemingly intractable problems of healthcare IT, one element remains particularly challenging–integration–healthcare’s “killer app.” Painfully missing are low-cost, easy to implement, plug-and-play, nonintrusive integration solutions. But why is this?

First, we must stop confusing application integration with information integration. Our goal must be to communicate data (ie, integrate information), not to integrate application functionality via complex and expensive application program interfaces (APIs). Communicating data simply requires a loosely coupled flow of data, as occurs today via email. In contrast, integration is a CIOs nightmare. Integrating applications, when we just wanted a bit of information, is akin to killing a gnat with a brick.

Even worse, like a bad version of Groundhog Day, the healthcare IT industry keeps repeating the same mistakes, and we keep working with these mistakes. Consultants and vendors from whom we request simple data communication solutions offer their sleight of hand, which usually recasts our problem into a profitable application integration project that simply costs us more money. This misdirection takes us down a maze of tightly coupled integrations that are costly, fragile and brittle, and not really based on loosely-coupled data exchanges, a simpler approach that allows the Internet to perform so well.

The key to unlocking the potential of EHRs lies in securely communicating (a.k.a. exchanging) data between EHR silos. If we simply begin by streaming data from EHR systems onto a common backbone, using a common currency like XML (eXtensible Markup Language), we will have solved healthcare integration in a way that works the way much of the Internet works. And this is good. When this happens, we know interoperability will work, robustly.Continue reading…

The EHR “Final Rule” (Finally)

Aug 27, 2012• 4

By Ashish Jha, MD

Six months to the day after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the “preliminary rules” for Meaningful Use, the final rules are in. For clinicians and policymakers who want to see Electronic Health Records (EHRs) play a key role in driving improvements in the healthcare system, there’s a lot to like here.

For the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), the agency that oversees the federal health information technology incentive program, the Meaningful Use rules are a balancing act. On one hand, ONC wants to get as many clinicians and hospitals on board with simply adopting EHRs (and thus, the need to set a low bar). On the other hand, they want to ensure that once people start using EHRs, they are using them in a “meaningful” way to drive improvements in care (and thus, the need to set a high bar). I think ONC got that balance just about right.

Let me begin with a little background. In 2009, Congress passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, setting aside about $30 billion for incentives for ambulatory care providers and acute-care hospitals to adopt and “meaningfully use” EHRs. Congress specified that the executive branch would define Meaningful Use (MU) and would do so in three stages. The first stage was finalized in 2010 and its goals were simple – start getting doctors and hospitals on board with the use of EHRs. By most metrics, stage 1 was quite successful. The proportion of doctors and hospitals using EHRs jumped in 2011, and all signs suggested continued progress in 2012. Through July 2012, approximately 117,000 eligible professionals and 3,600 hospitals have received some sort of incentive payment.

Electronic Health Records In the Classroom?

Aug 26, 2012• 1

By Ishani Ganguli, MD

Outside a patient’s room in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), a senior doctor, a nurse, and several residents in various stages of wakefulness cluster for morning rounds. Each resident mans a computer-on-wheels (once called a C.O.W., the acronym was formally abandoned at MGH, legend has it, after a patient thought it was directed at her and took offense).

One of the residents reads off laboratory test results from the patient’s electronic record. Another resident uses her mouse to toggle through the patient’s medications and share them with the group. The nurse reads aloud blood pressures and heart rates from a handwritten hourly log. As scribe for the day, I type these numbers to update a progress note that we’ll later print and place in the patient’s paper chart. Someday, these records will be completely digital, finally matching the wonderland of medical technology that is the CICU.

As the Electronic Health Record (EHR) slowly but inexorably assumes its rightful place in modern health care, obviating the ridiculous cultural norm of physicians with illegible handwriting, reducing medical errors, and making care (usually) more efficient, educators are asking the question: are we teaching this in medical school?

Not consistently, it turns out.

Anywhere from 34 to 57% of doctors’ offices and 19% of hospitals now use an EHR. While they are more often found in academic hospitals and clinics (where training occurs) than in other American health care settings, a recent survey finds that this tool doesn’t always trickle down to medical students. Only 64% of medical schools let their students use the EHR, and only about a third of those let students enter patient orders or write notes within the record, according to the survey of 338 educators nationwide that appeared in last month’s Teaching and Learning in Medicine.
Continue reading…

The Direct Project Has Teeth, but It Needs Pseudonymity

Aug 24, 2012• 1

By Fred Trotter

Yesterday, Meaningful Use Stage 2 was released.

You can read the final rule here and you can read the announcement here.

As we read and parse the 900 or so pages of government-issued goodness, you can expect lots of commentary and discussion. Geek Doctor already has a summary and Motorcycle Guy can be expected to help us all parse the various health IT standards that have been newly blessed. Expect Brian Ahier to also be worth reading over the next couple of days.

I just wanted to highlight one thing about the newly released rules. As suspected, the actual use of the Direct Project will be a requirement. That means certified electronic health record (EHR) systems will have to implement it, and doctors and hospitals will have to exchange data with it. Awesome.

More importantly, this will be the first health IT interoperability standard with teeth. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will be setting up an interoperability test server. It will not be enough to say that you support Direct. People will have to prove it. I love it. This has been the problem with Health Level 7 et al for years. No central standard for testing always means an unreliable and weak standard. Make no mistake, this is a critical and important move from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC).

10 Ways to Make the EMR Meaningful and Useful

Aug 20, 2012• 27

By Rob Lamberts, MD

I am an EMR geek who isn’t so thrilled with the direction of EMR. So what, I have been asked, would make EMR something that is really meaningful? What would be the things that would truly help, and not just make more hoops for me to jump through? A lot of this is not in the hands of the gods of MU, but in the realm of the demons of reimbursement, but I will give it a try anyhow. Here’s my list:

Require all visits to have a simple summary.
One of the biggest problems I have with EMR is the “data diarrhea” it creates, throwing piles of words into notes that is not useful for anything but assuring compliance with billing codes. I waste a huge amount of time trying to figure out what specialists, colleagues, and even my own assessment and plan was for any given visit. Each note should have an easily accessible visit summary (but not at the bottom of 5 pages of droll historical data I already know because I sent them the patient in the first place!).
Allow coding gibberish to be hidden.
Related to #1 would be the ability to hide as much “fluff” in notes as possible. I only care about the review of systems and a repetition of past histories 1 out of 100 times. Most of the time I am only interested in the history of the present illness, pertinent physical findings, and the plan generated from any given encounter. The rest of the note (which is about 75% of the words used) should be hidden, accessed only if needed. It is only input into the note for billing purposes.

Continue reading…

Who Owns Patient Data?

Aug 20, 2012• 34

By Fred Trotter

Who owns a patient’s health information?

·The patient to whom it refers?
·The health provider that created it?
·The IT specialist who has the greatest control over it?

The notion of ownership is inadequate for health information. For instance, no one has an absolute right to destroy health information. But we all understand what it means to own an automobile: You can drive the car you own into a tree or into the ocean if you want to. No one has the legal right to do things like that to a “master copy” of health information.

All of the groups above have a complex series of rights and responsibilities relating to health information that should never be trivialized into ownership.

Raising the question of ownership at all is a hash argument. What is a hash argument? Here’s how Julian Sanchez describes it:

Why the Electronic Medical Record Needs to be Viewed as a Medical Device

Aug 20, 2012• 20

By WESTBY FISHER, MD

In our rush to establish a national electronic medical record (EMR) system as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, powerful silos of independent EMR systems have sprung up nationwide.

While most systems are being developed responsibly, like the Wild, Wild West, many have been developed without an objective eye toward quality and the potential harm they may be causing our patients.

As most readers of this blog are aware, since 2005 the medical device industry in which I work has had widely publicized instances of patient deaths splashed all over the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets from defibrillator malfunctions that resulted in a just a few patient deaths.

The backlash in response to these deaths was significant: device registries were developed, software improvements to devices created, and billions of dollars in legal fees and damages paid to patients and their families on the path to improvement. In addition, we also learned about the limits of corporate responsibility for these deaths thanks to legal precedent established by the Reigel vs. Medtronic case.

My Doctor Is a Computer!

Aug 16, 2012• 67

By James Salwitz, MD

There was no mistake, but a bad thing has happened. Despite the best efforts of the doctors, Bob’s wife is very sick. Due to a rare side effect of treatment, her liver is failing. Bob believes this could have been prevented. He is very mad.

“When we go to see the doctor, he stares at the computer,” says Bob. “He does not look at us. Most of the time, the doctor is not even listening to us. He just sits there typing at the keyboard, gaping at the screen. If he had been listening when my wife talked about the pain, then he would have stopped the drug. Then her liver would be fine. She would be OK. All you doctors have become nothing but computers.”

Now here it gets interesting. After I listened carefully to Bob and sat with him at his wife’s bedside, I decided to check “the computer.” There in the doctor’s records I saw a long discussion and analysis of the problem with her liver. Quite opposite of ignoring her, her doctor had listened, had changed therapy and was watching her liver carefully. Sadly, despite the change, her liver had gotten worse. The problem therefore, was not that the doctor was not listening. He definitely was. The problem was that the computer had stopped him from communicating.

It is strange to think that a system of information and data exchange, which allows you to communicate with anyone around the entire world, interferers with connecting to the person right in front of you. We see it constantly as cell phones, Ipads, computers and even that “old” obstructer the television, get between us. At the time we need to communicate most desperately, electronics can block that most human connection of all, the physician – patient relationship.