Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity (please note: I run only original articles that have not appeared on any Web site or in any publication and I can’t use anything that looks like a commercial pitch). I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!
By Cam O’Flage
Epic is a marvelous marketing machine, from initially establishing themselves as a boutique firm with a certain mystique since they were able to tell clients whether they were the right customer (rather than the customer telling Epic that they were the right vendor). And it continues to be a superlative marketing machine. They tell a good story, present a great vision, and manage customer expectations nonpareil. They’re superb business people.
Epic doesn’t do everything right, but who does?
Epic makes many good decisions, but they make some bad ones.
Epic releases aren’t always so bug free.
Now, I know that I speak from a biased perspective since I currently am involved with provision of implementation consulting (staff augmentation) services. But I’ve been around a long time and seen lots of successes and failures across multiple delivery systems using multiple vendor applications.
Epic’s current implementation methodology, however, is circumspect. While it’s partially in response to ONC’s mandated MU timetable (another source of discussion), Epic does believe that it knows the best way to install its product. But a tight timetable with little time to consider workflow needs or optimizations or deferral of vital function simply to make a deadline is so wrong.
We’re told time after time, plan and engineer correctly in advance to maximize return on investment and minimize production problems. It’s in our business school case studies. It’s in our re-engineering process improvement literature. It’s in our quality theories. Yet, Epic – and ONC – have embraced a slam dunk implementation methodology. Get it in, optimize later.
There are so many choices. So many informatics considerations (one of my biggest fears since so many of Epic’s designers and installers simply don’t have a good basis in understanding clinical informatics needs – or revenue cycle considerations, for that matter). So many process issues. So many opportunities to improve, to ensure that clinical documentation is complete, that patient safety is maximized, that budget is truly aligned with needs and expectations, that appropriate governance has been put into place, that risks are adequately mitigated, that expectations are properly established, that work/life balance is dealt with, etc.
There are too many customers that go apoplectic when there are budget overruns, even if scope has changed. While that’s not an Epic problem per se, the perception that their plan is comprehensive and constitutes the safest way to attain MU is contributory. CIOs and COOs and CFOs and VPs simply need to get real. An EHR implementation is an immensely complex organizational change, fraught with unknowns and potential failure points.
There are too many customers who wish that they had done their implementation differently. There are too many times that customers realize that optimization entails rebuilding the foundation. There are too many customers who find themselves a year later not where they wanted to be. HIStalk pages certainly document such things.
However, all of that said, I can’t say enough good things about Epic. Epic truly focuses on improving the patient experience. Their culture is one of excellence, of passion, of dedication and commitment. Their employees are smart and industrious. And they continue to deliver what they promise. I can’t say that about many IT vendors.
Why Are We Still Struggling with CPOE?
By Daniela Mahoney
I often ask CIOs a simple question: what keeps you awake at night? Over the years I have received many different answers. Lately I have been thinking about my work and my experiences from previous days and could not stop asking myself, “Why, after more than 30 years, are we still struggling with getting CPOE going?” What other industry has tried implementing technologies and three decades later they are still in their infancies with the results?
I was excited about the idea of writing an article each month for HIStalk to share some of my insights about what to do with this entire CPOE business and how to best prepare for its challenges. Then I was wondering about our colleagues in the industry, and who wants to keep reading about CPOE? Mine would be just one more article of something you read somewhere, else because “theoretically,” we know what we need to do and there is already a lot of information about it. And that is the exactly the key — we know the “whats” but we oftentimes miss the “hows”.
But, one would ask, why should anyone listen to Daniela? Well, you don’t have to. I am only going to share what I have learned by doing CPOE for over 20 years. I am going to keep it simple because I find that we can achieve much more when we present information in a way that we can relate to and it makes sense to most of us. It is like baking a molten chocolate cake – it has only six basic ingredients, but the outcome is divine! You can add the raspberries on top if you wish. Simple is good, and we can achieve exceptional results.
Did you know that CPOE has been talked about since the 70s? In June 1971, the National Center for Health Services selected El Camino Hospital, CA, to evaluate and implement the Technicon Medical Information Management System (TDS) to be used by nurses, physicians, and others. The main goal was to expedite the overall patient care processes.
By 1974, 45% of all orders were entered directly by physicians into their CPOE system. Yes, we had it then, and unfortunately at that time in the 70s and 80s, some of the institutions and vendors who attempted had varying degrees of failures, with some limited successes. It was not until the late 80s and early 90s that we experienced a renewed effort and interest in CPOE. I started my journey on this path in 1990, so I can say that we have learned a lot. Or did we?
I am going to begin with the end in mind, assuming that we are not just doing CPOE to meet the political timelines, but also to do the right thing for the patients and give our clinicians a tool they can appreciate and incorporate into their everyday workflow. Based on this assumption, we will work backwards and talk about the right things to do as we prepare for this CPOE journey. Almost three decades later, it is about time that we get it right the first time around! Here is the roadmap we will talk about in the next 12 months:
- Is it only CPOE, or there is more? We have to think about what is ahead of us more holistically because CPOE is no longer a standalone project.
- What support we need from our leaders to pave the road for us and why?
- Why should I (physician) use it? What’s in it for me? How do we create a value proposition?
- How much will it cost?
- How do we create the teams (who steers the wheel vs. who shifts the gears)?
- Don’t let perfection get in the way of good. Setting the scope of what CPOE is and what it is not.
- Clinical process transformation. How to manage and not get crushed by the magnitude of change.
- How about the vendor? Where do they fit into this?
- Did we get it right? How do you know? (aka, success factors).
- What is going to make us fail? If 30% of CPOE installs have historically failed, how do we rise above this? (aka, risk factors).
- Large or small hospital, we need to roll out somehow. What are the options and their respective pros and cons?
- No, I did not forget about training and support. I will address this as well.
And if there are any other readers who enjoy cooking as much as I do, here is the link to the molten chocolate cake. 30 minutes to prepare, six minutes to cook, and 10 minutes to savor your work of art. And while you are enjoying this superbly rich chocolate delicacy, please try not to think of CPOE!
Daniela Mahoney RN is president and CEO of Healthcare Innovative Solutions of Seville, OH.
Thoughts on Lazar Greenfield Stepping Down
By Tiffany Carroca
On Sunday April 17, renowned surgeon Lazar Greenfield MD resigned from his position as president-elect of the American College of Surgeons (ACS). The resignation came just over two months after he had written a controversial article that caught the attention of nearly everyone in the healthcare community, including those in medical coding, and has achieved a level of infamy nationwide as the Valentine’s Day editorial. The controversy of the article stems from a statement made in which Dr. Greenfield suggests giving women semen for Valentine’s Day instead of chocolates.
The editorial was originally published in the February 2011 issue of the American College of Surgeons affiliated newspaper, Surgery News. The paper, made available free to the public online, was pulled from the Web site when the controversy erupted soon after the story ran. Interestingly, Dr. Greenfield was also editor-in-chief of the publication, but was subsequently removed from the position due to the content of his article.
Although Dr. Greenfield apologized for the editorial and reaffirmed his belief in the rights of women in health care, these actions did not end the controversy. Besides offending many female surgeons who have had to put up with sexual harassment for decades in this male-dominated field, Dr. Greenfield managed to dig himself in deeper when he sent an e-mail to several media outlets defending his claims. However, Dr. Greenfield did ultimately determine that resigning would be the best way to put an end to the uproar over his article. In a statement given to ABC News, Dr. Greenfield said, “My personal and written apologies were ignored, and my suggestion to use my experience to educate others rejected. Therefore, rather than have this remain a disruptive issue, I resigned.”
The comments made by Dr. Greenfield on Valentine’s Day seemed like a joke to some and the crass opinion of a womanizer to others. However, the statement does have a basis in scientific and medical fact. Dr. Greenfield was referring to a study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2002. The study was performed by psychologist Gordon G. Gallup, PhD at the State University of New York in Albany, and gained widespread attention when it was reported in the article Crying Over Spilled Semen by Tiffany Kary for Psychology Today.
The study was conducted on 293 college women who were sexually active. The results showed that women experienced less depression after having unprotected sex, and the depression slowly returned as the time progressed after their last sexual encounter. Women who used condoms did not experience any reduced or heightened rates of depression.
The conclusion reached by Dr. Gallup was that the hormones contained in semen are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and elevate the mood of the woman after intercourse. Other variables that could have caused the reduced depression, such as birth control and behavior patterns, were also taken into account.
The group most outraged by the editorial was women in the healthcare field, most notably women surgeons. Colleen Brophy MD, a prominent professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and chairwoman of the ACS’s surgical research, explained to Pauline W. Chen MD who reported on the story that she was “aghast” at the editorial. However, when the ACS refused to stand by her response, Brophy resigned from the College in response, claiming, “The editorial was just a symptom of a much larger problem. The way the College is set up right now is for the sake of the leadership instead of the patients.”
Many women in the healthcare field voiced their outrage over Dr. Greenfield’s editorial, but he was not without his supporters. Dr. Greenfield, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, had always been highly regarded and was presented with the Jacobson Innovation Award just last year, according to NPR’s Health blog.
A colleague at the University of Michigan, Diane M. Simeone MD, came out in his defense, saying that she has witnessed several accounts of gender bias among surgeons, but never from Dr. Greenfield. Similarly, Dr. Gallup, who conducted the initial study, also came to the defense of Greenfield, noting that what he said may not have been tasteful, but does have “some basis in available science.”
Undoubtedly, Dr. Greenfield’s remarks caused a public outrage even though they were based on science. However, a lewd and womanizing comment based on science is no less offensive that one based on fiction. If Dr. Greenfield was trying to be humorous or otherwise non-offensive with his comments, he failed miserably, as public opinion has shown. Even an esteemed doctor and scientist can fall from grace when injecting personal opinions into the science. As most scientists will agree, it is best to keep the science pure.