Home » Time Capsule » Currently Reading:

Time Capsule: If You Want Testing For Usability, Reliability and Maintainability, Tell CCHIT

June 10, 2011 Time Capsule No Comments

If You Want Testing For Usability, Reliability and Maintainability, Tell CCHIT
By Mr. HIStalk

I wrote weekly editorials for a boutique industry newsletter for several years, anxious for both audience and income. I learned a lot about coming up with ideas for the weekly grind, trying to be simultaneously opinionated and entertaining in a few hundred words, and not sleeping much because I was working all the time. They’re fun to read as a look back at what was important then (and often still important now).

I wrote this piece in April 2006.

I wrote an Inside Healthcare Computing column in January that lauded the work of the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT). I said then that CCHIT has the clout and objectivity to become the EMR industry’s Consumer Reports. The commission only needs to broaden its emphasis beyond interoperability, functionality, and security to include areas such as patient safety and usability.

The American Hospital Association recently made a similar recommendation, asking CCHIT to evaluate basic EMR product architecture components such as usability, reliability, and maintainability. AHA wants CCHIT to worry less about interoperability between organizations and instead measure how well systems within an organization (clinical ancillary applications, for example) exchange information.

Bravo to AHA on several counts. First, AHA recognizes that CCHIT is the right group at the right time.

Second, AHA understands that RHIOs are like railroad tracks. The best way to crisscross the country is to develop standards and then have teams working from both ends, meeting in the middle twice as fast. CCHIT standards that address data management within the four walls will prepare organizations to feed the data demands that RHIOs will create. As I’ve said before, a RHIO without data-ready members is like TV cable with no programs.

Third, AHA must be listening to its member hospitals, who frankly complain a lot about IT without really helping the situation — buying products with known weaknesses, poorly managing their own implementations, and failing to rally the troops around real workflow changes. AHA is wisely (and maybe contritely) asking for help, making IT a showcase issue.

Lastly, AHA’s request comes at exactly the right time, as litanies of unsuccessful implementations cloud the sunny skies of national electronic hand-holding. Uninformed customers (not necessarily the fault of vendors) play a significant part in this nearly universal failure of products and their users to provide the lofty benefits everyone expects.

CCHIT should be proud of its work so far. This rather amazing de facto endorsement of it as the impartial overseer of a marketplace widely recognized as imperfect is good for both vendors and customers. Vendors can take the money and run today, but an environment in which the highest customer-rated product gets a six or seven on a 10-point scale is not sustainable. The market will either get better, smaller, or both.

If you agree with the recommendation that the certification process for inpatient systems should include tests of a product’s usability, reliability, and maintainability, I urge you to write to CCHIT at info@cchit.org. The more people in the industry that the commissioners hear from, the more likely they’ll take our needs seriously.

I can’t recall a time in health care where any group (government or private) has had so much hope dropped into its lap so quickly. The correct response from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and CCHIT is this: thanks for the vote of confidence, we accept that responsibility. Surely it wouldn’t be that expensive and doesn’t have to take away from the government’s interests.

View/Print Text Only View/Print Text Only

HIStalk Featured Sponsors


Subscribe to Updates



Text Ads

Report News and Rumors

No title

Anonymous online form
Rumor line: 801.HIT.NEWS



Founding Sponsors


Platinum Sponsors































































Gold Sponsors















Reader Comments

  • Annon: 100% agree, this is vaporware, they are not doing anything remotely close to interoperability. Not the only ones though,...
  • Brian Too: Wait... I thought that any voids in the brain automatically filled up with cerebro-spinal fluid? Wouldn't an air void c...
  • Ophelia: Where are you seeing the 97% MIPS claim? I'm aware of their claimed 97% attestation rate for MU, but I haven't seen anyt...
  • Sue Powell: Re: "airhead". Maybe Q04.9 Congenital malformation of brain, unspecified or G93.9 Disorder of brain, unspecified? #notac...
  • Not Mr. Bush: It is very interesting that they claim to be able to guarantee something that is so dependent on physician behavior....
  • Debtor: Athena has a long history of supporting MU and PQRS attestation. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have insight into the...
  • Frank Discussion: Cerner--the best Visual Basic 5 application our tax dollars can buy! Then there's CCL (*vomits into nearest trashcan)...
  • Stormy MU: Hi, Does anyone have any feedback on athena's claim of 97% MIPs success rate? How can they publish that when 2017 at...
  • HypocritOath: This post was all over the place, but I can't help but notice some huge inconsistencies in your stance here. In one ...
  • HIT Girl: Holmes swindles people out of millions, pays a fine (with the swindled money?!), and is sent to CEO-timeout for a few ye...

RSS Industry Events

  • An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.

Sponsor Quick Links