Home » Readers Write » Recent Articles:

Readers Write 6/24/09

June 24, 2009 Readers Write 14 Comments

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). I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

What Interesting, Light, and Cheap Technologies Are We Using?
By EncoreDiva

cats

We don’t have a single server of our own.  We use hosted solutions for e-mail and SharePoint. 

We have a Web-based accounting system, timekeeping system, and expense reporting application.

We’re experimenting with Yammer to encourage collaboration within a virtual organization (and to cut down on e-mail), we have a page on Facebook, we utilize the status feature on LinkedIn to update our network on what’s new with the company and we utilize Skype for IM and quick calls. 

We use www.freeconference.com for internal conference calls and www.dimdim.com for internal webcasts. We utilize Administaff for our payroll and benefits and they administer (securely) all employee information. Our recruiting system is Web-based and open source (www.catsone.com) and it’s easily accessible from an iPhone. From a desktop perspective, we’re playing with OneNote and so far I’m LOVING it!

Meaningful Use: A Brief History
By Dr. J

13,000 BC: Prehistoric humans decorate their caves with images of herbal remedies used for their medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, these primitive clinical information systems are not CCHIT certified and reimbursement for shamanism drops dramatically. Neanderthals go extinct.

2600 BC: The Egyptian Imhotep describes the diagnosis and treatment of 200 diseases. ICD-10 soon expands this list by nearly three orders of magnitude.

460 BC: Hippocrates, the “father of modern medicine,” writes the first draft of his famous oath. After an extensive public comment period, Hippocrates tones down his commandment to “first, do no harm by taking an extensive medical history, including prior medications, allergies, and surgeries and accounting for the patient’s renal and hepatic function” out of concern that this tough requirement may hamper widespread adoption.

150 AD: Galen of Pergamum, pioneering Roman surgeon, insists on using only papyrus. He refuses to implement parchment in his practice because he finds it so disruptive to his workflow.

1231: Theodoric, Barber of York, proposes standardized terminology for various forms of bloodletting, primarily so he can “upcode” to get increased reimbursement for using leeches.

1427: As the Black Plague sweeps through Europe, self-flagellation is lauded as a pioneering effort for health information exchange. Whole communities get into the act by burning sufferers alive, using the fiery glow as a novel public health reporting tool.

1601: James Lancaster proves that consumption of citrus fruits prevents scurvy in British sailors in the world’s first controlled clinical trial. Unfortunately, in a world without quality metrics for scurvy prevention, Lancaster fails to achieve his pay-for-performance bonus for the year.

1795: After a mere 194 years (and 1 million scurvy deaths), the British navy mandates lemon and lime juice as standard sailor’s rations. Next up, EHR adoption.

1816: Rene Laennec invents the stethoscope, which is subsequently rated “Best in KLAS” over the objections of the Open Source community.

1845: Surgical anesthesia is pioneered at Massachusetts General Hospital. The Federal government sets up “Regional Anesthesia Extension Centers” to assist in anesthesia implementations nationwide.

1854: Florence Nightingale begins a medication bar-coding initiative during the Crimean War, but then realizes it would be preferable to save lives by cleaning the army hospital’s sewage system.

1884: Robert Koch establishes his famous postulates to identify microorganisms responsible for various diseases. Privacy advocates successfully sue Koch, forcing him to go back and de-identify the pathogens.

1889: Sir William Osler creates the medical residency but completely fails to anticipate the headaches his other creation, the co-signature, will cause in 120 years.

1895: X-rays are discovered by Wilhelm Röngten, without the assistance of a PACS. Nevertheless, for years Röngten would claim that his images conform to DICOM standards.

1928: Alexander Fleming extracts penicillin from mold growing on a tablet PC he had forgotten to plug in for several days. He tries to e-prescribe the antibiotic for a patient, but the antibiotic is not in his “favorites” list, so he handwrites the prescription and gets the dosage wrong.

1967: Christiaan Barnard performs the first human heart transplant. No one ever hears about it because Twitter has not yet been invented.

2003: The human genome is completely sequenced. Instead of the expected ACTGs, the genome is apparently filled with strange acronyms like LOINC, CCD, CCR, and HL7.

2008: CCHIT is involuntarily dissolved for the first time.

2009: David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Healthcare Information Technology, delivers the government’s definition of “meaningful use” to an immense crowd of jubilant healthcare providers from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, after an opening concert by U2. Healthcare in the US is saved! The rest of the industrialized world yawns while besting us on nearly every relevant quality measure for the tenth straight year.

The PACS Designer’s Review of Cloud Acronyms
By The PACS Designer

cloud
Illustration: Youseff, UCSB

The number of acronyms applied to cloud computing is growing, and even TPD is confused about what they really mean when it comes to providing users solutions for expanding the computing universe of an institution.

Even IBM has gotten into the marketing hype by calling their cloud offering Computing as a Service with their introduction of their Blue Cloud.

So let us look at what the Wikipedia has to say about the types of service renderings related to cloud computing solutions.

The most common term heard is Software as a Service (SaaS).  The Wikipedia definition is:

"Software as a Service (SaaS, typically pronounced ‘sass’) is a model of software deployment whereby a provider licenses an application to customers for use as a service on demand. SaaS software vendors may host the application on their own web servers or download the application to the consumer device, disabling it after use or after the on-demand contract expires. The on-demand function may be handled internally to share licenses within a firm or by a third-party application service provider (ASP) sharing licenses between firms."

Another cloud computing term is Platform as a Service (PaaS) which is defined as:

"Platform as a service (PaaS) is the delivery of a computing platform and solution stack as a service. It facilitates deployment of applications without the cost and complexity of buying and managing the underlying hardware and software layers(1), providing all of the facilities required to support the complete life cycle of building and delivering web applications and services entirely available from the Internet(2)—with no software downloads or installation for developers, IT managers or end-users. It’s also known as (cloudware).  PaaS offerings include workflow facilities for application design, application development, testing, deployment and hosting as well as application services such as team collaboration, web service integration and marshalling, database integration, security, scalability, storage, persistence, state management, application versioning, application instrumentation and developer community facilitation. These services are provisioned as an integrated solution over the web."

The next cloud computing term is fairly new, and is Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and is defined as:

"Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is the delivery of computer infrastructure (typically a platform virtualization environment) as a service. These virtual infrastructure stacks(3) are an example of the everything as a service trend and shares many of the common characteristics. Rather than purchasing servers, software, data center space or network equipment, clients instead buy those resources as a fully outsourced service. The service is typically billed on a utility computing basis and amount of resources consumed (and therefore the cost) will typically reflect the level of activity. It is an evolution of web hosting and virtual private server offerings."

Lastly, IBM’s term of Computing as a Service will most likely be used as a marketing tactic only as their already is a CaaS which stands for Communications as a Service!

Hopefully posting all of these terms in this entry will help users understand solution offerings by vendors, and be a guide to everyone contemplating using cloud computing structures as solutions.

(1) Google angles for business users with ‘platform as a service’
(2) Comparing Amazon’s and Google’s Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) Offerings | Enterprise Web 2.0 | ZDNet.com
(3) IT as a Service is a model ripe for adoption
https://spaces.internet2.edu/download/attachments/8817/ComputingAsAService08.pdf?version=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_as_a_service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_as_a_Service

Readers Write 6/8/09

June 8, 2009 Readers Write 12 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity (note: I run only original articles that have not appeared on any Web site or in any publication). I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

The Problem with Publicly Traded Companies
By Mike Quinto

The problem with publicly traded companies is they serve the spreadsheet, not the customer.

In the last year, I have heard:

  • the VP of implementation of an HIS vendor said that she does not have the personnel to devote to our implementation because she needs to hit a certain metric and this would blow her numbers.
  • a sales VP at a major ambulatory EMR vendor tell me that because of their end of year, they needed me to commit to buying six more licenses (to true up a five-year-old old problem THEY created) within 24 hours or they would “turn us off”.
  • the SVP at a major ERP vendor, admitting that the sales team “made a mistake,” said they can’t fix it because they have to hit a certain profit margin (FYI, your company hitting a certain double-digit growth or profit margin is not a large concern of my non-profit health system struggling to break even — know your audience, people).

Whatever happened to partnerships? It is clear that the ‘partnership’ with the shareholder is far greater than the ‘partnership’ with the client.

I have been fortunate enough to work for privately held software vendors and unfortunate enough to work for publicly traded software vendors. I have worked at a privately held software vendor that was purchased by a publicly traded company. I have seen the difference from both sides. I know that the customer is not at the center of decisions in a publicly traded company; spreadsheets are at the center of decisions.

As a client of both publicly traded and privately held vendors, I am experiencing both sides of the equation. Without question, the privately held vendors make better ‘partners’.

I would not imagine the 14K that caused such a barrier to customer service at a major healthcare ERP vendor is worth the damage it has done to this two million dollar ‘partner’. The 20K that created a competitive environment was not worth putting the client at risk. The confidence lost at the executive level was not worth the implementation team hitting a certain metric for the quarter.

We all have to hit certain metrics. We all have our own challenges. Publicly traded software vendors often keep the short term revenue recognition or expense metric in focus when the big picture should be on customer satisfaction and retention. This quarter’s financial statement will not keep you going in the long run. Your ability to attract and retain happy customers that buy from you again will keep you going.

Mike Quinto is CIO of Appalachian Regional Healthcare System of Boone, NC.


Is Data In Your CDR Accurate? Are You Sure?
By Unfrozen Caveman CIO

I’ve always wondered about the accuracy of the process of duplicating data in ancillary systems, such as a laboratory information system (LIS) or radiology information system (RIS) to a clinical data repository (CDR). The most common process consists of parsing HL-7 messages and storing the data in a CDR. Sounds simple and straightforward. What could go wrong?

It turns out it’s not so simple and things do go wrong:

  1. HL-7 is not simple or straightforward to work with. Parsing data can cause random discrepancies.
  2. Changes, such as revising clinical data, e.g. change a lab value, revising a finalized report, etc., can cause discrepancies.
  3. Software updates in the ancillary system can cause discrepancies between data in the ancillary system and CDR.

My organization is moving away from the CDR-centric framework to a web services framework (aka service-oriented architecture). In this framework, clinical data is not reproduced in a CDR unless absolutely necessary and data is retrieved from ancillary systems using web services when needed. However, for reasons related to response time, we needed to duplicated lab data in a lab data repository outside the LIS.

During this process we discovered that a vendor-supplied CDR and a second, smaller CDR, purchased as a package from a vendor to provide mobile access to clinical data, store lab data that does not match data in the LIS.  These systems are no longer used for clinical operations for reasons unrelated to the discrepancies noted.

As part of our effort to build a lab data store, we also built a program that validates lab data by comparing data in the ancillary system with data in the CDR for a specific date. We are experimenting with the best strategy for running this program. For example, run the program every morning for dates equal to yesterday, last week, and last month.

How significant were the discrepancies? That question misses the point. The question should be what do you do about it? Ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist? Or have in place a data validation process that identifies, reports, and fixes discrepancies. Did your CDR come with one? If not, what are you going to do about it?

Forget eHealth Ontario
By Justen Deal

Forget eHealth Ontario! Take a look at the federally-sponsored not-for-profit entity, Canada Health Infoway, which actually appears to be accomplishing even less. Plus, because it is not actually part of the federal government, it gets to be much less transparent to boot! 

So far, since 2001, it has received $2.1 billion in funding, including $500 million for 2009 it just got in January.

Their longstanding goal has been to ensure 50% of Canadians are covered by electronic health records by 2010. According to a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, only 23% of primary care physicians in Canada are using electronic health records (compared to 28% for the United States). Sounds like they’ve got a long way to go in the next seven months, eh?

That might be why they’re now focusing on a new (and improved!) goal of covering 100% of Canadians by 2016. They estimate more funding will be required…  😉

justendeal

Justen Deal is venture director at QuarrierWade of Charleston, WV.

NAHAM Report
By John Holton

This is a belated update on the NAHAM (National Association of Healthcare Access Managers) convention a week ago. The most exciting aspect of the convention was the formation of the Healthcare Access Management Coalition which is comprised of NAHAM, hospitals, other healthcare providers and industry vendors.

Everyone acknowledges administrative waste in our healthcare system and yet access to care and the arcane reimbursement environment created by the insurance companies is missing from the current debate. The new coalition is focusing on educating policymakers on the importance of efficient and quality management processes from a patient’s point of entry through the continuum of care. Hopefully through this education, new policies streamlining the administrative end of healthcare will result in more dollars being spent on the actual delivery of patient care.

The goals of the coalition are:

  • Improve access to care and reduce healthcare costs through dynamic healthcare management
  • Ensure healthcare reform includes entry point and patient management processes
  • Educate policymakers about technologies that improve service delivery models
  • Support technology solutions that make healthcare more affordable and efficient

Anyone interested in these topics can get more information by contacting John Richardson, NAHAM Director of Government Relations at (202) 367-1175 or jrichardson@smithbucklin.com.

 johnholton

John Holton is president and CEO of SCI Solutions of Los Gatos, CA.

Readers Write 6/1/09

June 1, 2009 Readers Write 4 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

The Psychology of Health Information Technology: What’s Missing?
By Mark Hochhauser

I’m a psychologist whose spouse works in a hospital pharmacy implementing an EMR system. My interest is the missing psychological aspect of the current drive towards electronic medicine.

Behavior change theories

Assumptions about the ability of various electronic health systems to change physician and patient behaviors are not based on an understanding of behavior change principles. Information may help change someone’s knowledge, but changing their attitudes and behaviors is much more difficult.

For example, about 20% of US adults still smoke, down from about 50% in 1964 when the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking was published. That represents about a 60% reduction, but it has taken 45 years to get there. Why does anyone assume that information alone will lead to behavior change when that conclusion not supported by the evidence?

One goal is to give physicians and patients information that will lead to behavior changes by both groups (and healthier patient outcomes), but nowhere have I seen any references to the behavior change literature. For example, relevant behavior change theories such as the 1) Health Belief Model, 2) Stages of Change Model, 3) Consumer Information Processing Model, 4) Theory of Planned Behavior and 5) Implementation Intentions Model are absent from the HIT literature. How can behaviors change when HIT programs are not based on any understanding of behavior change theories? What you’re left with are trial-and-error programs.

Limited patient health literacy

Presumably patients will become more active participants if they get more information via electronic patient records. Missing from that assumption are any insights from health literacy research. The 2006 “Health Literacy of America’s Adults” [http://nces.ed.gov] estimated that 14% of adults had “below basic” health literacy, 22% had “basic” health literacy, 53% had “intermediate” health literacy, and 12% had “proficient” health literacy. What level of health literacy is needed to understand health information and complicated health information tasks such as keeping and updating electronic personal health records? Not everyone is as smart as you.

Lack of an evaluation plan

Years ago, when I reviewed prevention proposals for federal agencies, they recommended that 15% of the budget be spent on program evaluation. Although I’ve read extravagant claims for the future benefits of EHRs, I have yet to see a decent program evaluation plan described in the literature. Unless an appropriate plan has been developed with experimental (EHR, CPOE, etc.) and control groups (no EHR, CPOE, etc.) along with relevant definitions and measurements of physician and patient behavior changes before, during, and after implementation, there will be no way to scientifically determine whether these programs work or do not work. Hype is not an evaluation plan.

Conclusion

Getting physicians and patients to change their behaviors is harder than anyone seems to recognize. The absence of key psychological perspectives in the development and implementation of HIT programs means that they will probably not be very effective. Psychologically, current HIT programs represent the triumph of hope over evidence.

Mark Hochhauser, PhD is a readability consultant in Golden Valley, MN.

Quality and Pricing Transparency in Healthcare
By Colin Konschak

Since consumers rely on quality and cost information in many other segments of their lives, I believe it is the consumer who will soon begin to drive improvements in quality and price transparency in healthcare. Further, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will result in the industry’s increased adoption of technologies that are critical to creating the environment of transparency that consumers will demand.

As consumers become more and more involved in their care, they are coming to realize that better information about cost and quality will allow them to make better, more informed choices. Just as they can book hotel rooms anywhere around the world—and find data on cost and quality that is readily available—they will begin to expect the same in healthcare. Providers operating in a competitive environment will be forced to improve the quality and cost of care if they are to compete effectively. In addition, transparency will encourage these consumers to reward high quality/low cost care. Over time, consumers will not tolerate a healthcare system without quality and cost transparency.

Hotels and healthcare

Already, today’s consumers feel that the current state of information is inadequate. They rarely have cost and quality details about healthcare services, and even physicians rarely have comparative information on the quality of their own care or of the care of physicians to whom they refer patients[1].

Quite unlike decisions about a hotel stay, the unique characteristics of healthcare decision-making includes a high degree of risk and value–both perceived and real. Healthcare decisions therefore necessitate that consumers maintain a high level of involvement in the decision-making process. Unfortunately today, most consumers overall could spend considerable time and effort to uncover a minimal level of information to make their final purchase decision. Further, even though they have researched the service, sometimes the end-user experience differs greatly from what they expected, since the healthcare delivery processes includes many touch points. This variance in the consistency of services and involvement of diverse processes in the system raises additional issues of cost and quality transparency.

Opportunities and solutions

Cost and quality transparency would help patients to make informed choices about their care, encourage private insurers and public programs to reward quality and efficiency, and compel providers to improve services by benchmarking their performance against others[2]. To develop and implement a national strategy for health care quality measurement and reporting, for example, the National Quality Forum (NQF), a private not-for-profit membership organization, was incorporated in 1999. NQF is also involved in standardizing health care performance measurement and reporting. Some of the selected projects include cancer care quality measures, mammography standards for consumers, cardiac surgery performance measures and nursing care performance measures. Some effective state-driven transparency efforts[3] in the US include various programs such as the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, California health care reform, Florida Compare Care and the Massachusetts Health Care Quality and Cost Council.

The demand for details and quality in the form of report cards and rating systems for hospitals has also provided business opportunities for private companies. Some of these report card providers are:

  • “Consumers’ CHECKBOOK,” which provides “desirability” ratings for hospitals based on surveys of physicians, risk-adjusted mortality figures, and adverse outcome rates for several surgical procedures
  • “Leapfrog Group,” which surveys hospitals on about 30 safety practices and then combines them to provide an overall safety score
  • “HealthGrades,” which rates hospitals by individual procedures and conditions[4].

These report card providers may differ in the methodology of their rating systems, so it’s become important for consumers to have a broad perspective in order simply to evaluate these ratings.

Key conclusions

Going forward, the cost and quality transparency and standardization of services will act as key purchase drivers and contribute to the success of a healthcare system.

Therefore, if stakeholders in the health sector wish to look forward to assured profits from this industry, they have to execute activities such as in-depth planning, deployment, execution, and monitoring of various parameters which can equip them to deal with customer sensitiveness for quality and cost transparency. What might the role of technology play in this arena?

[1] Collins SR and Davis K. Ibid

[2] Collins SR and Davis K. Transparency in Health Care: The Time Has Come, The Commonwealth Fund.2006 Available at:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=361215. Accessed February 6, 2009

[3] Health care price transparency: A strategic perspective for state government Leaders, Ibid

[4] Hospital report cards: Making the grade. The Harvard Medical School Family health guide Available at: https://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/reportcards.shtml . Accessed February 6, 2009.

clip_image002

Colin Konschak is a managing partner at Divurgent.


EMRs are more than Electronic Filing Cabinets with Advanced Health IT – Improving Care and Lowering Costs
By Rich Noffsinger

The act of digitizing patient information won’t lower costs or improve care on its own. Improvements cannot be accomplished without aligning patient, provider and payer interests. Health IT contributes to this alignment by integrating critical patient, clinical and insurance data – enabling stakeholders to leverage multiple sources of information at once to personalize care, improve quality and lower costs.

Similar to how the Internet reformed the investing and travel industries by opening up access to information that was once siloed or guarded, health IT will enable a level of information sharing that simply does not exist today – between doctors and patients, laboratory and other health care providers, health care facilities, insurance companies and providers, etc. It will also allow us to apply computing power throughout the health care supply chain.

Once we unleash these kinds of processing capabilities such as modern analytics, we will see rapid advances in closing gaps in care, revealing wasteful spending, the application of evidence-based treatments, and even broadening medical research. However capitalizing on this data and computing power requires a Herculean level of interoperability and participation.

The value is not simply in digitizing health information; rather, the ROI comes from what you can actually do with the data electronically – through advanced tools and IT strategies like clinical decision support, predictive modeling, comprehensive risk stratification and evidence-based medicine.

By ignoring sophisticated health IT tools and technologies, patients, payers and providers miss opportunities to leverage the volumes of medical guidelines, insurance rules, treatment comparisons and best practices – that can improve health care and lower costs.

richnoffsinger

Rich Noffsinger is CEO of Anvita Health.

Readers Write 5/27/2009

May 27, 2009 Readers Write 16 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

CIOs: Sell Your Board and Executives on the Big Picture
By Ivo Nelson

If you think your IT staff and budget will decline in the next five years, think again. By 2010-2013, hospitals will be in full-scale EMR implementation mode. At the same time, they will be reengineering their revenue cycle processes and systems to accommodate some level of healthcare reform, while preparing for conversion to ICD-10.  

All of this activity will be on the same scale as converting to DRGs (1983) AND converting to Y2K (1999) AND implementing HIPAA (2003) times two (or more). And keep in mind, because these changes are mandated by the government, ALL hospitals and physicians will have to comply at the same time.

If you think your vendor contracts will cover all this, think again. If you think you’re at the top of their priority list, think again. If you think you’re going to get a break when you wind down your EMR implementation, think again.

Why?

I’ve met with over 60 CIOs in the last couple of months,  looking for insights into their strategies, concerns, and challenges.

The ARRA HIT stimulus bill is on everyone’s mind. Most CIOs have done more PowerPoints in the last couple of months than in the last five years due to inquiries from their CEOs and boards who smell money. The focus is the stimulus money and how their hospital is positioned to receive the maximum amount from the government. They allude to an END, when the EMR is implemented and demonstrates “meaningful use”, some minimal level of interoperability all within the boundaries of HIPAA security and privacy regulatory changes.

The ARRA HIT stimulus is just the start. Healthcare reform will change reimbursement to true pay-for-performance, requiring billing systems to be based on outcomes and quality. Additionally, if bundled payment is adopted, it will require unparalleled coordination to bring the hospital, physician charges, and other services into a single rate. Any emphasis on coordination of care requires a level of interoperability that doesn’t exist today. 

On top of all that, the impending ICD-10 coding conversions requires the number of diagnostic codes to swell from 13,500 to 120,000. For inpatient procedures, the number jumps from 4,000 codes to 200,000 codes. The IT implications are huge. The impact on the hospital operations process and analytics will be even greater.

Quality is the new battleground. Once we are required to produce consistent quality reporting as a requirement for incentive payments (and eventually to avoid penalties), the game changes. Quality comparisons among competitors will be posted on the sides of buses, billboards, magazine ads, and on the TV. Quality care will be the first thing patients look for when it comes to the well-being of themselves, their family, and their community.
The usual Press-Ganey patient satisfaction measure will become almost irrelevant. Patients will endure long lines, rude staff, and will sit on the floor if they believe they will receive higher quality of care.

For the CIO, there will be immense pressure to be agile in producing reports to manage and report quality. Many are already coming to the sad reality that, after spending tens of millions of dollars on their EMR, all they have is a transaction system that doesn’t produce information. An entirely new genre of HIT now emerges around healthcare analytics. Remember, reimbursement will likely be tied to this information. Losing revenue because IT can’t produce reports, systems aren’t integrated, or vendors aren’t responsive isn’t going to be a conversation any CIO wants to have with his/her CEO or board.

Interoperability/Community Connectivity? Obama’s view of community connectivity is the sharing of patient information between heathcare organizations regardless of their competitive stance and strategy with each other. Our president greatly underestimates the power of local political will. Connectivity is contemplated, in the short term, only when organizations use it to capture a greater share of referring physicians – damn the community good. Elaborate arguments  will justify the self-serving, digital capture of community (e.g. referring) physicians. There is a good chance ‘connectivity’, in the Obama sense, will eventually be defined in the courts.

Most CIOs are aware of the issues around interoperability. Most are participating on some committee on the state or local level as per their boss’s direction. Most roll their eyes at the naïve, non-healthcare participants who see the healthcare exchanges and interoperability as the holy grail.

Most realize they are being required to respond to some government mandate that doesn’t completely comprehend the data complexities that exist within the walls of most organizations. One organization has  92 different definitions for glucose and another has 16 different ways to define death. And they’re going to talk to each other? It’s a good thing there are some smart people on the ARRA HIT Standards Committee.

Of course, all of this is going on while we’re in a recession and CFOs are ratcheting back on capital and asking CIOs when their staff will downsize post-EMR implementation. It is not just that the CFOs are asking for reductions, it’s that the credit markets have tanked and the money simply isn’t there. It’s one thing for a CFO to say we need to reduce expenses; it’s another thing for a hospital to find out they have no credit because the bond market has tanked.

If I were a CIO, I’d be adding a few slides to my PowerPoint presentation to include ALL of the potential changes coming down the pipe, not just the stimulus incentives. I wouldn’t do a full-scale strategic plan, but I would dig deeper into a staffing analysis and make sure I didn’t prematurely reduce or redeploy staff. I’d create some what-if scenarios on the high and low end of change. I’d also take more advantage of the current access to my board and executives to educate and "sell" them on the bigger picture. Yep, and all this needs to be done while you’re trying to get the printer to format labels for the lab accurately.

The budget cycles are starting now for 2010. Make sure you get all of your cards on the table. I know it’s not all defined yet, legislation isn’t passed, and some changes may be a moving target. Like it or not, this is a government that makes decisions. The stakes are high. Now is not a time to be timid.

In the words of the great Wayne Gretzky, “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.” Let’s keep the puck on the ice. Go Red Wings!

Ivo Nelson is chairman of Encore Health Resources, a healthcare IT consulting organization.


From DVR-Challenged to an EHR?
By Gregg Alexander

Bringing real change to healthcare information integration will never happen until the focus is off of the “technology” and onto the training, education, implementation, and ongoing usage support of such complicated tools. Period.

Of course you can force the horse, but he he’ll die of dehydration if he can’t figure out how to drink. Geeks docs get it, but most clinicians are not geeks and couldn’t care less about technology if it doesn’t:

1. Make their lives easier;

2. Strengthen their profit margins;

3. Help them be better doctors, AND;

4. Come with ongoing, easy-to-access, stupid-simple support.

Number 4 is probably the most important, yet most often shortchanged component of these quadrangular conditions. Both the technology and the issues it is trying to support (healthcare issues) are far too complex for the general masses of providers to wrap their brains around all together. Just being a clinician is hard enough. Giant new learning curves for techno-tools which – let’s face it – don’t really hold much fascination for most normal folks are off-putting, even repulsive.

Here’s what I hear: “With pen and paper, I can be a decent doctor (#3), get by financially (#2), and I already, almost innately, know how to use them (#1). Sure, paper has a ton of associated problems, but until there are sufficient helpmates (#4) to hump me over that technological learning curve mountain, I’ll do what I know and spend my extra time trying to get the hang of my DVR. By the way, speaking of computers, what’s this Twitter thing? Is it … (hushed) … sexual?”



Dr. Gregg Alexander is a grunt-in-the-trenches pediatrician and geek. His personal manifesto home page…er..blog…yeh, that’s it, his blog – and he – can be reached through http://madisonpediatric.com or doc@madisonpediatric.com. He writes regularly for HIStalk Practice, but we decided to put him on HIStalk this time just for fun.

Blade Server Review – Main Features and Values
By The PACS Designer

There has been a lot of press lately about blade server architectures, so TPD thought it would be a good idea to highlight some of the main features of this type of architecture.

A blade is a plug-in device that is installed in a chassis. Its Wikipedia description reads, "The name blade server appeared when a card included the processor, memory, I/O and non-volatile program storage (flash memory or small hard disk(s)). This allowed manufacturers to package a complete server, with its operating system and applications, on a single card / board / blade. These blades could then operate independently within a common chassis, doing the work of multiple separate server boxes more efficiently. In addition to the most obvious benefit of this packaging (less space-consumption), additional efficiency benefits have become clear in power, cooling, management, and networking due to the pooling or sharing of common infrastructure to supports the entire chassis, rather than providing each of these on a per server box basis."

Blade servers and storage systems generally consume 50% less energy than traditional servers. They also occupy much less floor space, so valuable real estate can be put to better use. They also require fewer cables, have smaller power needs, and fit into 19" slots in a chassis.

Blade servers won’t replace mainframes any time soon, but they will be deployed for Web solutions and  cloud computing. An effort to move mainframe software to external users through conversion to SOA and REST solutions would typically be good for installation on blade server/storage systems, provided adequate security methods have been installed.

IBM’s partnership with Sentry Data Systems, which serves pharmacies and hospitals in over 20 states, is an example of a cloud solution that was deployed to reduce power consumption and  meet the growing needs for servers in a smaller operating space with less cabling.

Since the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, for Web 2.0 and cloud computing, we will be seeing more need for blade systems solutions in the years ahead.

Readers Write 4/30/09

April 29, 2009 Readers Write 18 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

Note to the US Healthcare System: Treat Me Like a Dog
By Peter Longo

hamlinI think everyone knows the US healthcare delivery system seems to have more challenges than solutions. From my vantage point, working in healthcare technology,I sometimes wonder if we can ever put all the crazy puzzle pieces together. I never thought that one day, soon after a long overdue physical and a trip to my dog’s vet, I would deem it in so need of repair that I begged to be treated like a dog.

Recently my beloved dog Hamlin’s digestive system grew tired of his “Cowboy Chow” dog food. Without a moment’s notice, my wife quickly went out and purchased him three other kinds to choose from. (I wonder if tonight I complain about dinner, will my wife run out to three different restaurants and find me something I prefer?)

Even the newly purveyed dog food did not settle Hamlin’s stomach. My wife, busy escorting three kids about town, informed me I had to take him to the vet. Since I work for a healthcare technology firm, I assumed going to a doggy doctor would be fun and enlightening; a respite from seeing human hospitals and doctor offices.

Hamlin and I eagerly pranced into the office with me ready for the inevitable “doctor wait”. Interestingly enough, I was greeted at the counter by a smiling receptionist calling out Hamlin’s name. But of course, they were expecting him because he had an appointment! Wow, novel concept here I thought.

Next I had my wallet out, ready to be accosted for money before I could even get a quick question in. Before I could eject my credit card, the side door opened and a smiling “nurse” asked Hamlin to come this way. (I assumed they were smiling because they were going to make a fortune out of me). Guarding my wallet, I followed our escort down the hall. I was still dazed from the fact they were expecting us and recognized Hamlin.

As we entered our exam room, I was perplexed to see a shiny new notebook computer on display. Before I could gasp in shock, the vet walked up behind me, introduced himself to Hamlin (the patient) first, then to me. Casually, he turned toward his shiny new laptop and within two key strokes had Hamlin’s medical record on the screen. My dog’s entire record. Looking like the complete geek that I am, I jumped at the vet asking to see everything on the system.

Eyeing me as though I might be in need of medical help myself, he leaned back to show me Hamlin’s electronic medical record. His life history, his owners, where he was born, any past medications he had, everything. Even his lab results were in there. The polite but guarded vet then showed me three other exam rooms, all equipped with shiny new laptops, all with Hamlin’s record available on them.

After a quick and thorough exam, the vet punched a few more keystrokes. He electronically ordered various lab tests — right then and there! I asked him about the firm that performs the tests and he told me the lab he uses provides great service and is top notch. He said the lab results will be sent back electronically and into Hamlin’s file directly! (In a moment of serendipity, I later discovered it was my company’s software providing the lab with the tools to accomplish this small miracle).

As I left the room and approached the front counter, a nurse had a prescription waiting for me along with three cans of super special dog food. Now I was really confused — is it not the patient’s job to walk the prescription and files to the front counter? Did my paper shuffling job just get outsourced to a computer? Adding to staff’s perception of my total geekiness, I asked how she did that. With a slight chuckle, she showed me the computer screen where the doctor requested it from the exam room. It just angered me to see such efficiency. I know my kids feel Hamlin deserves only the best, but better healthcare service than me? Adding injury to insult, I paid only $55 for the visit.

Hamlin’s enlightening experience really made me think of my own recent medical episode. A few weeks earlier, I went to my annual check-up. I scheduled the appointment and diligently showed up on time. As I checked in to see my doctor, one hand shoved a clipboard in my face, while a second hand went for my wallet. No verbal communication yet. Even though Hamlin theoretically can’t speak, he was treated to verbal communication and a custom greeting. I then proceeded to brush up on pop culture in a six-month-old People Magazine (I did not know Britney had a second baby and broke up with K-Fed?) while waiting 27 minutes for my appointment. If only someone told me how long my wait would be — but hey, that would take the fun out of guessing when I would be home.

I finally entered my exam room to be greeted by a nurse,a sheet of blank paper and a $.25 pen. She took my vitals. Later, my doctor sashayed in with that same high tech paper but a more expensive pen (with a drug company’s name on it) to drill me further. As all checked out fine, he indicated he needed some lab work to complete the exam. Amongst some forms floating on a table (uncomfortably near my half-clothed rear end) he found an order sheet. He checked a few things here and a couple things there then gave me the nod to transport the paper across the hall; then my lab orders and I waited some 18 minutes more.

A couple of weeks after my exam, I received my lab results “in the mail.” Next to each test result, the doc was kind enough to scribble an “OK.” Then a nice hand-written note claiming, “All looks OK, see you next year.” I put that report in a sophisticated manila folder and filed it. Why did I have to have this manual, impersonal, medical experience right before my vet visit?

Dazed and confused after leaving the vet, I wandered back to our house. Upon opening the door, my three kids showered Hamlin with love. They rubbed his back, gave him endless kisses and asked him easy softball questions. “Have you been a good boy?” My wife brought over doggie treats and “king” Hamlin relaxed on his back as the kids indulged him full of treats. My life quickly went to the store to find him “the best food money can buy.”

I was left standing at the door waiting to even be recognized. I sure did not get any kisses, let alone a back rub. I put myself on the couch and wondered if anyone was going to fetch me a treat. I would have been happy if one of my three kids just pushed the remote closer. As I stared at a blank TV screen, it dawned on me … I really need to be treated more like a dog.

Readers Write 4/22/09

April 22, 2009 Readers Write Comments Off on Readers Write 4/22/09

Sense of Reality
By Greg Weinstein

I have been working on clinical systems and integration in an academic medical center for 20 years now and I am watching with growing concern the frenzy of the standards writers. Prior to going to HIMSS, I took the time to read some of the HITSP specs – specifically. the C32 document sections related to medications. Everyone has a problem with sharing medication lists and everyone wants to do it right. But while C32 has over 30 data elements for each medication record (down to the lot# and bottle cap style) the only thing required was the text of the drug name. When I asked people how they could build a data sharing system (NHIN, RHIO, HIE) with only that requirement, they answer that, within each exchange, the “details need to be agreed on”. This sounds a lot like the failure of HL7 v2, though with a lot more baggage.

I visited the IHE Connectathon at HIMSS. What I saw was not encouraging, but entirely predictable. The scenario demonstrated a patient moving through a series of care facilities with CCDs used to transfer the patient’s record. Naturally one site included only the medication names (actually they stuffed long strings with the names, routes, frequencies, dose all together into the name field) and embedded this in their CCD. The next site expected to receive the medication name, route, dose, etc. as separate fields and was unable to import the data. The demonstrator began manually re-entering the data by reading the long multi-element strings and using the data entry form of his own system. This might have allowed entry of the data into his system, but almost certainly lost the data “provenance” (that it arrived via a specific signed CCD). 

After a few minutes, the crowd became restless and he gave up, skipping the last four medications. He then generated his CCD and transferred it to the next system in the scenario, which, amazingly, only saw the medications from the last CCD, where four medications had been omitted. In fact, the contents of the multiple CCDs reflected the system limitations of the various systems more than they did the actual patient state being represented in the scenario.

Against this background of non-success, we see CCHIT certification scenarios of ever-increasing complexity and new HITSP requirements to include every data function ever conceived. And then we see published research stating that no one has proven that any of this actually improves outcomes.

Regarding CCHIT, the entire focus of application certification is wrong. We ought to be asking providers to support certain functions. The CCHIT approach of application certification implies that a single system needs to do everything. Why couldn’t a provider choose to use more than one piece of software so long as their practice did what was needed?

I sincerely hope that someone will be able to calm the waters, make rational decisions on what data is most valuable to share (medications, allergies, problems, labs, images, and “documents”), and how to go about it.  Without some focus and reasonable expectations, we may waste an entire generation of software development activity, kill innovation, and crush smaller companies, all without tangible benefit.


MUMPS to Java … Caveat Emptor
By Richie O’Flaherty

I couldn’t let this pass un-commented, having had some direct experience in language translations many years back in which the organization I was a part of translated a number of applications (mostly in-house developed) from Meditech MIIS and MaxiMUMPS. While most of the pain occurred in the MaxiMUMPS translations due to extensive non-ANSI standard extensions in the language implementation, a common theme (pronounced "fly in the ointment") became apparent in the implementation of the resulting application.

This was the shocking performance impact of the translated code. Differences between how language components are coded in the source and destination languages can have crippling effect on the translated application. A primitive operator in the source language may or may not exist in the target language. If it doesn’t exist, an equivalent piece of code must be written and invoked everywhere it occurs in the source application code. That may involve many instructions or even many lines of instructions as well as overhead to invoke and clean up every time it is used. 

The difference in the number of machine cycles to execute these "equivalent" components can (and did) bring the translated application to its knees, requiring rethinking of hardware configurations as well as targeted application redesign in the resulting language to salvage the very life of the system which was the principal IT solution for a major outpatient clinic.

I am not a Java programmer so I cannot offer perspective on speed and efficiencies that Java may bring to the table, only that this is and was the massive piece of the iceberg in our translation efforts involving MUMPS. It should be noted however, that MUMPS (and MaxiMUMPS) cut their teeth supporting an impressive number of simultaneous users on hardware that had but fractional MIPS ratings. That these outmoded dinosaurs are yet running applications anywhere is a sure sign that the possess a level of efficiency that should be at minimum respected, but more advisedly investigated when seeking to translate them to anything. Iron is certainly cheap(er) these days, but I reiterate — caveat emptor.

Do You Know What’s In Your Medical Record?
By Deborah Kohn, Principal, Dak Systems Consulting

One must go back to ePatient Dave’s main point (albeit difficult to find given all the exchanges and text): "Do you know what’s in your medical record? THAT is the question worth answering."

It doesn’t matter if the data are stored on paper, on analog photographic film, or on a digital storage medium. The only way one will be truly responsible for one’s health is to get copies (analog or digital) of one’s complete, episodic medical record, review the record with one’s provider(s) if necessary, and if errors are are found, correct them. Because one deals with people, processes, and technologies, data inaccuracies occur all the time!

However, since the 1970s, patients have been allowed to access the information contained in their medical records, and since HIPAA "I", patients have been allowed to add addenda to their records. Similar to obtaining and correcting the data contained in one’s credit report, one must ask to do this.

As a health information management professional for over thirty years and long-time member of the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) whose banner remains "Quality Information for Quality Healthcare", I never NOT obtain copies of my episodic medical record for review, archive, and information exchange purposes. Hopefully your readership will do same.

For example, as a health information management professional (fortunately or unfortunately) I knew only too well that when I was hospitalized five years ago my clinical records (created and stored in both analog and digital formats) would contain inaccuracies. One operative report contained my correct demographic information in the report header but described me as male (I’m a female) with inoperable colon cancer in the report body. (Either the surgeon or the transcriptionist had mistakenly switched the dictation based on another case that day). Subsequently, these data were coded as such for billing /reimbursement purposes (ICD/CPT) and clinical purposes (SNOMED), making no difference had the data populated a Google or Microsoft or other PHR.

In summary, to answer another question asked in one of the blogs, " Who’s going to validate and correct the data?", the good news is that health information management professionals working in all types of healthcare provider organizations are not only trained but tasked to validate these data. The not-so-good news is that given staffing constraints and other similar issues, it is not and never will be possible to audit 100% of the medical record content in 100% of the cases. Therefore, only YOU, the patient, can and must review and correct the data.

Readers Write 4/1/09

April 1, 2009 Readers Write 12 Comments

Comments on Ricky Roma
By Cliff Dickerson

I’ve spent most of my career on The Dark Side, but I rarely have considered it to be that.  Maybe I’m going to always be naïve, but it’s where I’ve witnessed innovation and achievement.

  • I took pride in seeing the glee on the face of the DP director when transmission of the day’s billing was transferred in less than five minutes after removing the cartridge (yes, cartridge) from the Four Phase HIS and inserting it into the Four Phase front-end of a time shared financial system. It beat a day spent key punching by multiple employees.
  • I was ecstatic when the ER nurse (pre-ED days) most vocally opposed to the new system told me that she loved it.
  • I was pleased to know that in less than six months we had registration and ADT up, something that some major medical centers spent two to three years developing in-house or that the IT staff in the early days in a turnkey operation was a fraction of that where in-house development was occurring.

Trained as a biochemist and working in a hospital clinic lab, I fled early on to an HIT vendor. I knew that my happiness was not to be found being a bench tech. (Retention of medical technologists is a tricky act. The University of Illinois Circle Campus, in fact, eliminated its medical technology program upon realization that its graduates were not going to work for healthcare providers, but rather for biotech and pharma companies.)

The vendor life, while often paying more than on the provider side, has its disadvantages. Living out of a suitcase is not fun. Missing out on activities with friends and families is a real drag. 20+ hours of commuting is not so fun either. (When I first started, I left on Sunday afternoons and got home sometime Friday nights. It’s different now. People just don’t want to do that.) 

Oh, and pay? I’ve seen some delivery organizations pay almost as much for its employees as a vendor does. $10K or $15K just doesn’t make up for long commutes and long days.

Now, I could go down a different road. Healthcare organizations traditionally have not paid IT salaries competitive with other companies. (Nor do they spend the same amount of money on IT traditionally – maybe you do get what you pay for.) And, boy, are they surprised when their clinicians turned informatics specialists say that they won’t work more than 40 hours a week unless they get overtime. But, that’s a whole other discussion about something that’s not necessarily unique to American healthcare delivery systems, but pandemic in our culture. We talk about balance, but don’t play the game.

I don’t discount anyone for wanting to make a profit – even not-for-profit health delivery organizations like to do that – and many of their employees and associates profit very well in doing so. Perhaps I should be more cynical in viewing publicly traded healthcare software vendors, but can I fault them anymore than I could fault Chase or Oracle or Phillips? No, I just can’t. (I do think that the American system has some problems. I do think that our American companies often make decisions that are poor in the long-term. I do think that we need to rethink our executive compensation system.)

Value: if someone is willing to pay $3 for $1 of value, well, I figure that they must be getting $3 of value. Or at least feel that they do. Maybe I’m a bit biased because I spent a lot of time studying pricing while working for vendors.

I’m not sure where the 66% failure rate comes from, but it does point out the need for clearly defined, achievable return on investments before the ink is signed. So many people don’t want to do their homework in advance. Technology in and by itself is no balm. It’s the implementation. How you use it. How you promote it. How you plan to ensure success.

I had a CIO teaching a class at a university ask me for a paper or case study about how poor project management lead to the failure of a project. I couldn’t find one. No one really wants to write about or talk about their failures.

Next Generation Hospital Laboratories Become a Driving Force in the Future of Diagnostic IT
By Richard Atkin, President and CEO, Sunquest Information Systems

RichardAtkin When Sunquest became a private corporation approximately 18 months ago, no one predicted the tumultuous economic conditions and events that would be taking place in the U.S. and worldwide. And we now know how important the healthcare IT industry’s role will be in helping deliver increased access to care, with improved outcomes, at lower overall cost.

Back in October 2007, we saw a great opportunity for best of suite diagnostic IT solutions and publicly stated the strategic goals that we believed would best serve the current and future needs of our customers. We committed our focus and resources towards enhancing the automation capabilities and clinical workflow of Laboratory Information Solutions, improving patient safety, helping hospitals maintain profitability through outreach services, and to becoming a driving force and leader in the exciting area of predictive and personalized medicine. Now, with the dramatic changes over the past year, these same goals are even more relevant and delivering against them remains our top priority.

We must remember at all times that healthcare delivery is largely local and must be very patient centric. The role of the hospital laboratory in the continuum of care and the effectiveness of the Laboratory Information Solutions it uses are playing an increasingly important role in the successful delivery of clinical care inside the hospital and outside in the community. With approximately 70% of clinical decisions based on results generated in the clinical laboratory, the operational efficiency of the laboratory is critical to the effective delivery of safe, timely patient care. Laboratories are becoming information hubs for patient care, business operations, revenue growth, and the successful development of new technologies for predictive and preventative medicine.

The emergence of the hospital laboratory as a strategic, revenue generating service line, central to the goal of cost effective healthcare delivery is a development we are dedicated to supporting.

Automation & Workflow Efficiency
Laboratory services are central to healthcare delivery. Hundreds of care plan and treatment workflows are dependent on decisions that use lab results – admissions, discharges, medication decisions, follow-up testing and dietary orders to name a few. The shorter and more certain the lab result turnaround time, the faster patients and care providers can make diagnostic and care plan decisions, and the more effective those decisions will be.

Laboratory information systems must not only track, route and manage samples, but also interconnect with the overall Health Information Systems and EMRs being used within hospitals and with systems being used by external physicians and laboratories. By doing so, the transition from inpatient care to outpatient and vice versa is eased, vital resources are used more efficiently and the patient experience is enhanced.

Patient Safety
Patient safety is obviously a top priority for healthcare providers. At Sunquest we developed the concept of the Five Rights of Laboratory testing to champion the contributions the lab makes to the safe delivery of care.

Additionally, we have introduced several new products that support our customer’s goals for improving patient safety, including a closed-loop transfusion management solution. Our automated Specimen-Collection Management system integrates with the LIS and blood bank system, and utilizes wireless handheld devices and bar-coding to ensure positive patient ID at the bedside.

Closing the loop on the blood administration process, the Transfusion Manager solution is specifically designed to support patient safety processes at the bedside by automating nursing workflow and reducing preventable errors from occurring during the transfusion process.

These solutions in use at dozens of our customer sites have succeeded in reducing specimen collection errors to virtually zero at every site where deployed.

Expanding the Community Footprint
In challenging economic times, hospitals must leverage their laboratory as a strategic asset to their overall business operation and revenue generation. A single admitting community physician represents an average of $1.5MM in annual revenue to a hospital. An effective outreach program builds physician and patient relationships while enhancing the reputation of the hospital in the community.

The ability to effectively manage these community relationships is an important strategy for hospitals and the reason why we made two strategic acquisitions in Q4 of 2008.

First we acquired Anglia Healthcare in the UK for their complementary product portfolio of web based communications and messaging solutions. As a result, Sunquest now has the market-leading position in the UK with over 60% market share for laboratory orders and resulting solutions and the technologies to address the broader EU market with solutions that meet the region’s protocol standards and language needs.

We also acquired the Outreach Advantage portfolio from PAML, Spokane, WA. These solutions provide a strong complement to our existing offerings, adding courier, logistics, CRM, and business intelligence applications. The Outreach Advantage portfolio, together with our LIS and revenue cycle solution, results in the single most comprehensive outreach business management suite in the industry.

Predictive & Preventative Medicine
Patient diagnosis and treatments through molecular and genomic testing represent an area of explosive growth, great promise, and significant challenges.

Molecular diagnostics is generating more than 30 million tests annually in the U.S., with dozens of new procedures introduced every year. We are strategically committed to providing the solutions that will enable laboratories to be a leading force in the upcoming revolution with predictive and personalized medicine.

Nearly 85% of our customers already perform molecular testing and interface their instruments and systems with our LIS. One leading example of this is Nationwide Children’s Hospital, who has used its expertise in molecular diagnostics testing for infectious diseases to successfully grow its outreach testing services to support an international market.

Emerging technologies in genetic testing, digital analysis and whole slide imaging are creating a new paradigm for diagnostic medicine. Certainly the workflow inside the laboratory will dramatically shift, but even more significant is the impending transformation in healthcare delivery outside of the laboratory. Pathologists and lab professionals must become more active, visible members of the care team. To do so effectively will require collaboration, communication, and results interpretations that comprise actionable information, not just data.

Conclusion
This is both a very challenging and very exciting time to be in the healthcare industry. As vendors, we must develop and implement new solutions, in partnership with care providers, which make the industry more productive while also helping in the transformation of healthcare delivery. Connecting the laboratory to the continuum of care in the community and facilitating the transition to personalized, predictive and preventative medicines have the potential to revolutionalize patient care, improve wellness, reduce the cost of healthcare over lifetimes, and enhance quality of life for all of us. Sunquest understands its role and shared responsibility towards meeting the healthcare industry’s challenges and opportunities. We are dedicated to creating diagnostic information solutions that enable hospitals to fulfill their missions.

Will $20 billion Solve This Problem?
By Frank Poggio, The Kelzon Group

There was a poignant opinion editorial in the Chicago Tribune this Sunday that got my attention, written by Candy Schulman, entitled “There is a human in that bed”. It caught my eye and got my empathy because I lived that same experience about a year ago. There were however, two major differences. First it happened in a different hospital in a different state. Second, since I have worked in the hospital world as an administrator, systems supplier, and consultant for thirty-five years, I had a better understanding of the issues and therefore was able to force a faster resolution. As I read Candy Shulman’s article I kept asking myself, as I did a year ago, what is really wrong with this ‘system’ and what can be done about it? Also, I kept thinking will $20 billion solve this problem? Let me tell you a little about both stories before I give you my assessment and prognosis.

Candy’s Story – Dumped in the Driveway
Candy tells about her frustration in caring for her elderly mother while an inpatient at a local hospital. Two of her biggest problems came in simply getting her mother discharged at a reasonable time, and the lack of coordination with hospice care. The statement I most reacted to was, “After her month long hospitalization and three weeks in rehab, I tried all day to get her discharged, but ran into a hospital quagmire when I could not get anyone to sign the discharge papers. Finally, at 6 p.m., I left, believing I’d repeat the arduous process the next day”.

“Two hours later the rehab facility sent a bedridden, demented old woman home in an ambulance—alone. I wasn’t called to accompany her home, nor was her devoted live-in aide, Nellie (I was taking her out for a bite to eat after a long, tiring day). My poor confused mother was suddenly dumped into an ambulance. In the driveway of her apartment building, the driver seemed surprised that no one was there to take care of her.”

Candy Schulman’s complete article can be found at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0329humanmar29,0,552996.story

My Story – Who’s on First?
In February of last year, I lived through a similar experience. My 88-year-old mother, after years of struggling with CHF and COPD, was admitted to a Florida hospital. After a few days of hospitalization, we were told there was nothing that could be done and death was only a month or two away. My family decided the best course was to move her home and get the local hospice involved to supplement the efforts of me and my sister. I had spoken at length with her cardiologist, internist, and case worker and agreed this was the best course.

Needing a day to work things out with a local Hospice program, the hospital agreed she would be discharged in two days. I lined up the Hospice services to come to her home to set up the medical equipment, complete their assessment and explain to her their plan and what would transpire. Although my mother was severely physically impaired, she was of sound mind and fully cognizant of her surroundings to the day she died.

On the agreed-to day of discharge, I went to the facility to get her at 9 a.m., thinking that by 10 or 10:30 a.m. we’d be on our way. The day before, I told the Hospice staff we would be at her house by 12 noon and they then could commence their process.

To make a long story short, I did not leave that hospital until 1:30 p.m. that day, and then it was only because having worked in a hospital earlier in my career I knew how disjointed things can get. I personally tracked down the admitting doctor (not her cardiologist or internist) and brought him to the room to write the discharge orders and sign it. That was at 12:30 p.m. and still a number of other nursing and related tasks had to be completed. All the while I was running around the hospital, and in and out of her room, my mother kept asking, "Don’t these people know what they are doing and when can I go home?” I kept answering, “No they don’t, and if we’re not out by 2 p.m., we will leave AMA!”

What Went Wrong?
Everything involved with communication, coordination, and follow-up. No one knew who was on first, who had main responsibility, or what needed to be done next. As best I can tell, everyone involved was waiting for the next person to do his/her task, when in fact many of the tasks could have been done concurrently. Meanwhile this hospital has been using one of the leading HIS packages in the country for more than a decade.

So let’s spend $20 billion on new HIT/EMR systems like Cerner, or Epic, McKesson, GE, Siemens, or Meditech — whatever flavor you like. It won’t matter. Although they may help a little, in my opinion, none of them can solve this problem. Here’s why.

The problem Candy and I described is not a data storage (EMR) or transactional (HIS) problem. It is a communication, coordination, trans-departmental workflow and management problem. Yes, HIT vendor systems can do communication, but they do very little, if anything, for work flow coordination and communication and almost nothing outside of ancillary medical services. These systems are great at ordering an x-ray and making sure radiology does the prep work, then delivering the results to clinicians and placing an image in the EMR. But what if that patient needs a dietary consult and the dietician comes to the room while the patient is still sitting in x-ray, one hour late for a test that was to be done at 1 p.m.? They almost totally ignore non-medical support services such as social work consults, dietary reviews, transportation needs, patient location or education, timely discharge orders, and more. Such tasks typically fall to nursing to ‘manage’. Inevitably one or more falls through the cracks, and when one fails the whole process collapses and the patient suffers.

Unfortunately, this problem is pervasive across health institutions as identified by a recent report issued by the National Academy of Sciences – Institute of Medicine (IOM) entitled Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Direction. The report states: “Health care decisions often require reasoning under high degrees of uncertainty about the patient’s medical state and the effectiveness of past and future treatments for the particular patient. In addition, medical workflows are often complex and non-transparent and are characterized by many interruptions, inadequately defined roles and responsibilities, poorly kept and managed schedules, and little documentation of steps, expectations, and outcomes.”

If you still do not believe it is pervasive, then answer these simple questions. Does your facility have a time of discharge policy? If yes, what percentage of the cases hit that time within 15 or 30 minutes? Of course if you can’t answer either, that’s proof enough.

During my years as a hospital CIO /CFO and as a system’s developer I believed that the ever-expanding HIS tools and developing EMRs would someday address this problem. Today, after many years of hands-on experience at all levels, I am convinced they cannot and will not. In a nutshell, I have come to the conclusion this in not an information technology problem. It is a work flow process problem, a communication problem, and lastly, a management problem. It is not a department problem, but an inter-department or enterprise problem. An HIS /EMR can help solve it, but using those tools alone you are doomed to fail.

What is Needed?
The seemingly simple goal of implementing a set discharge time and meeting it has many challenges such as poor inter-department coordination and poor integrated work flow. Inter-department resource coordination founded on solid work flow documentation and monitoring tools is critical to successful patient flow and meeting discharge targets. Fortunately there are many sophisticated work flow tools developed outside of health care that can be used to help achieve better patient flow and control. Private industry has used tools such as optimization, production coordination, queuing analysis, and sophisticated enterprise scheduling for decades. Some of these are finding their way into health care now, but very slowly.

These tools go beyond electronic bed boards and digitized paper forms, both of which are needed but only address the symptoms. Hospitals need to know real time where they stand for any given patient. In effect, a Gantt chart or patient critical path for all activities is needed to meet a specific goal or target discharge time. Remember, a delayed discharge costs the hospital money and it’s the primary reason for ED diversions, which typically lead to large ED capital expenditures.

Proper coordination of all services (ancillary and non-ancillary) can help hospitals get through these tough times. It’s not easy, but by better utilizing your current resources, (staff, equipment and technology), through better work flow coordination, you can significantly improve patient throughput to drive improved productivity, reduced costs, enhanced revenues, and most importantly, increased patient satisfaction.

While in the hospital my mom, and I would believe Candy’s mom, received excellent medical care from some very dedicated and overworked people. But what we remember most clearly was the bungled discharge process that colored their entire stay. Medicare starts this year to measure patient satisfaction, so bungled discharges will soon become a costly mistake.

Readers Write 2/19/09

February 18, 2009 Readers Write 10 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!


The Real Problem with CCHIT Certification
By Dewey Howell MD, PhD, Founder, CEO
Design Clinicals, Inc.

deweyhowellI have been reading discussions on the HIT provisions in the new stimulus bill that was signed this week by President Obama. One discussion that caught my attention relates to what it means to be a “certified” product. Throughout the bill, it states that funds are to encourage adoption of “certified” products. While it is not yet completely clear what this means, most folks are assuming it will mean certified by CCHIT.

Thus the debate begins. One camp argues that CCHIT is the only way to go, like the quote from the recent interview with Glen Tullman here on HIStalk: “Every physician who buys ought to be buying a CCHIT system.” The other camp counters that CCHIT hinders innovation. Their argument says that new companies doing innovative work and producing focused products that move the industry forward can’t get certification because of the time and resources required.

While I agree with this to a point (heck, I am the CEO of one of these new companies), it doesn’t get to the real problem with CCHIT certification. Even if I am sitting on a pile of money and have time and people to invest in the certification, I can’t get my products certified. This is because of CCHIT’s definitions and how certification is structured.

Our company’s products are used in ambulatory, inpatient, and emergency settings. Which certification do I choose? The real value of our products and those made by other small innovative companies is our focus on solving specific clinician problems. To be certified, though, the product must manage everything — patient demographics, meds, allergies, labs, order sets, decision support, etc.

If you have the best decision support product on the market, even if it easily integrates with any vendor system and adheres to strict integration and security requirements, it can’t be CCHIT certified. Period. Yet customers of the “certified” systems are still calling and looking for solutions to real problems.

This could stir up the old “integrated system” vs. best-of-breed approach. That debate aside, why not certify based on real hospital problems?

Carve out the enormous set of criteria for inpatient or ambulatory certification and create focused, results-driven certification criteria. Medication reconciliation, decision support, anticoagulation therapy, core measures, patient bed tracking, medication barcode administration, security auditing, medication ordering, order sets, etc. could all have their own certifications while keeping an umbrella certification process for systems that aim to do it all.

This would allow organizations with specific challenges to say, “We need to implement physician order sets because this is an area of risk for us. What are my options for certified products for this?” This focused problem would have a focused validated solution, rather than a certified system that does a plethora of things the organization doesn’t need. How could a hospital pick a certified pharmacy system? A certified nursing documentation system? A certified radiology or lab system? A certification process for these products doesn’t even exist.

Another deficiency of the current certification process is the lack of requirement for certification of results or outcomes. How do we certify and validate that the system actually delivers the outcomes that we are trying to achieve? The current process encourages vendors to throw a button or screen into their application that produces a specific action or display. But, there is no accountability to the patient and quality of care delivered with the tool. It encourages technology for technology’s sake, presuming that outcomes will be “better” just because a product is certified, instead of really validating results. Maybe this is a much tougher nut to crack, but it is considerably more important than things like, “The system shall provide the ability to allow users to search for order sets by name.”

Don’t get me wrong. Requiring certification on elements that promote access to data, usability, and clinician efficiency is a great thing because it improves patient safety, but vendors like me also need to be held accountable for delivering measurable results. This is the only way HIT will deliver on the promise of improving the quality of health care in this country.

Developing the Perfect HIT Conference
By Kurt Loincloth

You mentioned that HIStalk should put together an alternative conference (Un-Conference) that would be fun, less commercialized, and more educational and rewarding to attendees. Here is my thought on "The Open Health Care Conference."

  • Make sessions 45 minutes long, featuring a four-person panel discussing the thorniest issues
  • If there’s an exhibit hall, allow only working systems that can actually do something in an interconnected world
  • Make the conference affordable
  • Make it more modern and more relative to the younger generation

The panel sessions would have a five-minute moderator overview of context and problem – no biographies! Two panelists would be well-known thought leaders, but the other two would be more knowledgeable, lesser known, and more controversial. Each speaks for five minutes, then the rest of the time is audience Q&A.

Vendor demonstrations are not allowed to be done by marketing or sales people. No presentations. Only vendors who can interoperate with the rest of the world are allowed — no standalone products, Flash demos, or anything else that’s not working live (like the IHE area of HIMSS, which are the coolest part of the conference). If you have booths, offer only three sizes, draw randomly for location, and the size booth you get is determined by the number of solutions being demonstrated.

Charge enough to just cover costs. Offer free or cheap Webcasts of all sessions. All speaker materials must be made available at least one day before the session – no exceptions! Keep it compact, 2 or 2.5 days, with an optional field trip on the last day. Hold it in a central town that’s easy and cheap to get to (a Southwest hub), which also keeps the hotel and restaurant costs down.

Pick the topics and find the best people to do them instead of trolling for sponsored gigs. Do not pick your topics 15 months in advance — submissions are due back in 90 days and decisions made within 60 days of the conference. Offer live Webcasts. Field trips to get out of the hall! No sterile, boring locations like the Orlando mega-plex.

Small and medium-size vendors who are doing really good things will use the platform and run with it.

Challenge the HIStalk audience to develop the perfect conference with this planted seed and see what happens.

Readers Write 2/17/09

February 16, 2009 Readers Write 3 Comments

Response to EHR Outcomes Studies Cited by Reader "Pragma"
By Frank Fontana

The author (Pragma) commenting on MD Leader 1/27/09 needs to come clean on their own studies cited before criticizing someone else in such a sarcastic manner.

I followed the links to the "studies" cited. All but one either (a) have nothing to do with studying whether EHRs improve quality or not, or (b) were authored by those in the business of promoting EHRs. The one that does make an attempt to measure quality improvements acknowledges that their work may be skewed towards positive results because of the self-selecting clinics that participated.

I imagine the commenter could also readily cite studies showing that cigarettes weren’t damaging to one’s health, conveniently not mentioning the fact they were funded by tobacco companies.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj%3b330/7491/581
This was authored by IT clinical consultants.

http://www.itif.org/files/HealthIT.pdf
This is not a study. The author is an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which is committed to articulating and advancing a pro-technology public policy agenda.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2253693
This is not an EMR study. It is a study of an electronic prescribing application, funded by the very same vendor.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=685103 
The report “examines the experiences of five provider organizations in developing, testing, and implementing quality-of-care indicators, based on data collected from their electronic health record (EHR) systems." It is not a study of whether EHRs improve quality or not.

http://www.cchit.org/about/casestudies/index.asp
This was a study by the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology, which notes that “Case studies bring CCHIT’s work alive.”

http://www.fhin.net/eprescribe/Benefits/AdvantagesToProviders.shtml
Not an EHR study. Another electronic prescribing study, again funded by a provider of electronic prescribing applications.

http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/ehrs-boost-quality-raise-costs-at-community-clinics/2007-01-22
Link is to a “leading source of Healthcare IT news with a special focus on … EMR adoption…” The study itself notes that five of the six clinics lost money on their EHRs, though quality improved. Regarding the improvement of quality, the study also notes “this retrospective, qualitative study obtained data from a small, purposeful sample of six CHCs, with additional information from two network ASPs. Study CHC cases likely were more successful than cases that declined to participate.” One of the two authors is a graduate student in Biological and Medical Informatics.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1479999
Not an EHR study. Not a study at all. Rather its a report by a large group practice of its experience integrating an online communication channel with its already existing EMR.

Point of Diagnostic Service (PODS) – Enterprise Diagnosis Oriented Architecture
By The Alchemist

Parallel processes of manufacturing companies operating disparate systems for producing goods sold in the marketplace correlates to analytic processes driving the medical community exotic and disparate diagnostic testing on human subject typically referred as “patient.”  The extent of the diagnostic testing or physiologic surveillance depends on the complexity of the test entity, POS environment, and the instrumentation employed to product the sub-clinical finding commonly called “tests results” or real-time somatic analytics.

Often more times than necessary, these clinical tests or surveillance systems are performed while the patient takes up temporary residence in a full-service acute care health center with state-of-the-art equipment employing all the modern instrumentation afforded to the hospital in the medical service area. These tests can be diverse as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to the simple blood test for Magnesium (Mg) or measurement of body temperature. 

If one were to count up the total testing menu provided by a typical urban hospital charge master, the resulting number of frequently reimbursed test procedures would be over two thousand, continually increasing as technology proliferates in the diagnostic in vivo market. If each and every testing procedure performed by a healthcare entity were available online and accessible to everyone involved in the medical process, then this paper would not be necessary and no new information would be reported.  This sadly, is not the case.

The purpose of this paper to examine the multitude of diagnostic testing being performed by accredited hospitals on their patients to consider an interoperability gateway called Point of Diagnostic Service (PODS). Simply stated, Diagnosis Oriented Architecture (DOA) is the underlying structure, or more appropriately surrogate architecture, to service oriented architecture (SOA) supporting communications between clinical service diagnostics. In this context, a diagnostic is defined as a unit of work to be performed on behalf of some computing entity, such as clinical diagnostic instrumentation or medical devices.

DOA defines how two computing entities, such as programs, interact in such a way as to enable one entity to perform a unit of work on behalf of another entity. Diagnostic interactions are defined using a description language equivalent to service oriented architecture.  Each diagnostic interaction is self-contained and loosely coupled, so that each interaction is independent of any other interaction. If one diagnostic entity is non-functional, the service structure will maintain functionality*.

Enterprise diagnostic process, usually initiated by Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) protocols, can be orchestrated by communications between the Web services and gateway diagnostics talking to other gateway diagnostics executed by the underlying framework that DOA provides as a surrogate function to the Enterprise Service Bus. The patient in this case study is the central focus of all medical activity emanating pathophysiologic signaling functioning as medical broadband for investigation to determine cause and effect of presentational or prodromal symptomatology.

NOTE: The foundation for the “Interoperable Patient” is Point of Diagnostic Service (PODS) unified platform, the first critical inch of HIT considered the ecatheter for diagnosis extraction, transformation, and loading of clinical data into the longitudinal enterprise diagnostic repository or colloquial “The Patient Cloud.”

*Advancing the Adoption of Medical Device “Plug & Play” Interoperability to Improve Patient Safety and Healthcare Efficiency.” Center for Integration of Medicine & Innovative Technology. 2008.  http://mdpnp.org/uploads/MD_PnP_White_Paper_April_2008.pdf

HITECH Problem
By Palo Alto Consumer Advocate

The bulk of the HIT language in the bill is pulled directly out of the HR 6357, which Dingle introduced last summer. I don’t see how  NeHC is going to serve as the Policy Advisory committee since the language requires the Policy Committee to have a dramatically different makeup that will mostly be political appointments. For anyone who has ever run a complex project, there is a huge difference between staying close to your stakeholders and asking them to serve on your board of directors. The NEHC board was the result of a six-month open process and the governance model and board composition was designed to include people with multiple areas of expertise. This bill just destroyed that process.

Membership and Operations

(1) IN GENERAL- The National Coordinator shall provide leadership in the establishment and operations of the HIT Policy Committee.
(2) MEMBERSHIP- The HIT Policy Committee shall be composed of members to be appointed as follows:

(A) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary.
(B) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs who shall represent the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(C) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense who shall represent the Department of Defense.
(D) One member shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
(E) One member shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
(F) One member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(G) One member shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(H) Eleven members shall be appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States, of whom–

(i) three members shall represent patients or consumers;
(ii) one member shall represent health care providers;
(iii) one member shall be from a labor organization representing health care workers;
(iv) one member shall have expertise in privacy and security;
(v) one member shall have expertise in improving the health of vulnerable populations;
(vi) one member shall represent health plans or other third party payers;
(vii) one member shall represent information technology vendors;
(viii) one member shall represent purchasers or employers; and
(ix) one member shall have expertise in health care quality measurement and reporting.


Knowing Your Clinical Client
By HIT Project Manager

This is not a direct response to any article or comment made, but just a moment of serendipity this morning as I conducted a walk-through of one of our endoscopy units.

IT work is crucial to the performance of the unit. They are increasingly going digital with their process as endoscopic imaging merges with the rest of the electronic medical record.

Some observations as I walked around:

Doubling unit volume shows up in the “seams”
Each room in the unit has had to deal with added technology requirement as an afterthought. Its like how our homes look after choosing a builder’s model where one of the four bedrooms can be made a home office since you’re only having two kids. Once you’ve had four children instead, the home office is now a storage room, the wiring is outdated, and you will need to switch out the old DSL modem for broadband wireless solution if you ever get a chance to use the room for an office. Meanwhile, your PC sits on a cardboard box because the IKEA desk is in offsite storage to make more room.

Clinicians do not have time to learn technology 
Clinicians truly appreciate when we don’t insult their intelligence and years of clinical training by talking down to them and instead speak to one another as colleagues/peers. I love working with and for clinicians for this reason. They are some of the most gracious people you meet when you give them the same respect and care they give, like the RN supervisor on this unit. It is a true joy to work with her and serve her technology needs.

Technologists cannot afford to be oblivious to clinical workflow
In contrast to my last thought, I don’t think technologists (at least those like me in a project management/clinical analyst role) can afford not to get into the weeds of how and where clinicians work. If you do not spend enough time in the unit you provide technology support for, you will inevitably be the “home builder” that sells the client on a “home office” when you should have more appropriately advised a wireless solution. Only a visit to the clinical unit will permit you to forecast the growth that the clinician tries to communicate in the 10 minutes they have between cases.

The devil is in the details, they say.  Being an eternal optimist with a healthy dose of reality, I see that the optimal technology solution is the one that is completely transparent to its end users. Such a solution should work effortlessly and invisibly since, in the end, it’s the clinician-patient relationship that really matters. We technologists remove the distractions to help foster that relationship. 

The article in the Sacramento newsletter commenting on Kaiser-based clinicians’ struggle between time with technology vs. time with patient is a bit overstated, in my assessment. I can’t think of any physician or nurse I met that I who would say they are less effective because of the technology improvements that have been implemented. At worst, they consider them neutral to their work, and they have come up with creative workarounds where they are not. At best, they consider technology as having freed them from the mundane aspects of healthcare administration so they can spend more time with patients.

Godspeed to our efforts at making technology the best for them.

Readers Write 2/12/09

February 11, 2009 Readers Write 4 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

Note: the first two articles were added as comments to previous articles, but because of the large number of links they included, they were automatically discarded by the blog spam-catcher, so I never saw them. I do not censor comments except in extreme cases (ones I’ve gotten include claims of past criminal records by named individuals, obvious vendor pitches disguised as a reader comment, and personal attacks – those I will either delete or edit). So, if you left a comment and it hasn’t appeared within a day or two, e-mail it directly to me.

Comments on MD Leader 1/27/09, Ministry Health and CattailsMD
By Pragma

Thank you for including links to back up your statements with peer review evidence. A good effort. It’s something we don’t see here often.

“EHRs Do Not Improve Quality” Your link to a study conducted between 2002 in 2004 (released in 2007) about ambulatory-only EMR systems, peer-reviewed, but disputed by many (even at the time). It is worth noting this is not a study referenced by… well anybody, in two years! And in medicine that wouldn’t hold up very well. Is it really that cut and dry? That clear?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj%3b330/7491/581
http://www.itif.org/files/HealthIT.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2253693
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=685103
http://www.cchit.org/about/casestudies/index.asp
http://www.fhin.net/eprescribe/Benefits/AdvantagesToProviders.shtml
http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/ehrs-boost-quality-raise-costs-at-community-clinics/2007-01-22
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1479999

There are other studies. Often peer reviewed and indexed. I could go on and on and on … and on. But wouldn’t it be worth people doing the research themselves? This is medicine, the last time I checked it was a science. Let’s do the clinicians the service we expect of them.

Your basic statement is a truism, but it’s an obvious truism (or it should be). It’s not the EMR, it’s how it is used. How it is customized, and how the data is normalized and utilized. We must be cognitive of EMRs allowing the customer flexibility. EHRs do enable this. Paper does not. Paper and EHRs are just tools. And humans are pretty good at using them, when they are not given reason to not use them.

I am sure in Egypt there were many who railed against the failures of papyrus. Who advocated for more use of stone. Well they lost, and we as humans adjust. Cows? Not so much. I happen to think clinicians are better than cows. I have seen this. I have actually seen Doctors say they have seen the benefits and enjoy using an EMR! Wow! Kinda goes against everything people are saying here, right? Sometimes reading this site I think clinicians are cows. Who simply must have workflows duplicate their paper world exactly. So isn’t the question what are these people doing wrong? Because it can be right.

Wouldn’t a more constructive argument from the detractors be, “Which is the best EMR for quality, and why?”, not, “They do not work”, “There is no evidence”, “it’s a waste of money”? You wouldn’t know this from reading HIStalk, but there really is far more, recent, peer-reviewed empirical data to show they do. The truth is…. ahem.. out there?

Anyway, it’s an old and fruitless argument. They will be implemented, it’s just a case of how well. The people who care, and do not have an agenda, will ask questions such as “how do we make them better”, “How do we increase quality with available data”, “Isn’t all this data GREAT! What are we going to do with it!”, “Ok we have an EMR, now let’s try doing something for the Doctors, give a little back for the extra time they spend documenting”, “How can we make a logical thing like a computer, mirror illogical real life workflows?”, “How do we stop decision support annoying clinicians, so the continue to use it and not just click OK?”, “How do we take hospitals from hugely political organizations to ones that’s make decision to a truly best practice?”. The others often show their clear lack of objectivity.


Comments on the Interview with Glen Tullman, CEO of Allscripts
By Al Borges, MD

Dear Mr. Tullman:

Thank you for coming on HIStalk for an interview. This site is read on a daily basis for those of us with an interest in HIT, and having you come to visit is wonderful.

Didn’t President Obama pledge not to surround himself with lobbyists? Aren’t you, your company, and your coworkers the ultimate lobbyist group, showering Obama with donations for the past two years alone? From what little I could find on the Google, you personally gave President Obama at least $144,300.00 in donations in the two years prior to his election (1). Your employees gave $20,662 during the same period (2). Your company, Allscripts/Misys, also gave the possible future HHS Secretary Daschle $12,000 speaking fees on 8/2008 for a lecture (3).

Now this activity seems to have put you into the unusual position where you are the personal advisor of the President of the United States of America on how to channel money to your company, ultimately enriching yourself while the American taxpayer, and especially doctors have to foot the bill. President Obama has put the wolf to guard the hen house!

You can’t believe how much I resent the fact that you, a vendor selling a product, is now in a position of power where you can determine how Medicare pays me, a physician. I’m sure that I’m not the only doctor out there that feels this way. Unlike you, I don’t have the lobbying power to get Obama’s ear. You’ll be able to sign up in the short-term those who already have EMRs, but once you get close to 20% uptake of these incentives, you’ll begin to bump up against the less CCHIT-certified-EHR-hard-core, more knowledgeable physicians like myself who don’t want to buy into a multi-thousand dollar EHR to please the likes of the Medicare pinheads in order to be able to get paid adequately for our work.

What this bill will eventually do is to damage Medicare as physicians refuse to see new Medicare patients or dis-enroll altogether. It also will begin the process of destroying the small solo to group office over the next 10 years, offices where 75% of doctors work in currently. These offices won’t be able to survive under the burden of these unfunded, onerous, unneeded mandates that you are trying to promote to satisfy your agenda. Students will think twice before going into medicine if not only do they now have to pay off their loans but also pay for a $30,000.00 CCHIT-certified EHR, and worse yet, use it.

Lastly, you mention that “[CCHIT-certified EHRs are] a benefit to all of us in terms of quality and also in terms of cost reduction” without there being any real data showing such. In fact, there is data showing the opposite(13). Recently we’ve had alerts about data input errors from both the JACHO and the US Pharmacopeia (4,7-12). You have the National Research Council finding that HIT systems used by several major health providers has fallen short of achieving healthcare delivery goals envisioned by the Institute of Medicine (5). Recently, two HIT experts have penned an open letter to President Obama, warning him against investing too many federal dollars in existing electronic health records systems(6). David Kibbe, MD, a technology adviser to the AAFP, and Brian Klepper, PhD, founder of consulting firm Health 2.0 Advisors, stated that existing EHR systems are:

  • too expensive
  • difficult to implement
  • disruptive to practice workflows
  • not proven to improve patient care, and
  • don’t do a good job of sharing information with each other.

So Mr. Tullman, do the right thing and stop the insanity of using taxpayer money to bail out a portion of the economy that doesn’t need the economic help, at least not in this way. If you can do me a favor — show this letter to the honorable President Obama so that he can get an idea of how the other side feels.

Sincerely,

Dr. Borges

Citations:

1) http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/glen-tullman.asp?cycle=08
2) http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=emp&employer=ALLSCRIPTS
3) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×4968435
4) http://www.jointcommission.org/NewsRoom/NewsReleases/nr_12_11_08.htm
5) http://www.modernhealthcare.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090109/REG/301099965/-1/TODAYSNEWS
6) http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/memag/submitBlogEntry.do#blog_confirmation_anchor
7) http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2005/01/24/prsa0124.htm
8) http://www.jamia.org/cgi/reprint/14/3/387.pdf
9) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/technology/09compute.html?ei=5089&en=402b792e748d99a2&ex=1268110800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssyahoo&adxnnlx=1150474153-xVix1BcYkvTKJpuLyHStrQ
10) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/10/1197
11) http://www.jointcommission.org/SentinelEvents/SentinelEventAlert/sea_42.htm
12) http://www.usp.org/products/medMarx/
13) see my 2 slideshows located here (~130 slides full of data)- http://msofficeemrproject.com/Page3.htm

Why Doesn’t Someone Propose a National EMR?
By Winston T. Goode

While I appreciate the commitment to healthcare that "billions a year for x years" represents, I can’t help but think that we’re trying to plug leaky faucets with fistfuls of money. Electronic Health Records are not a goal, Electronic Health Records are a tool, and they will only realize their potential if they are installed in the pursuit of a loftier goal.

The Apollo program was not funded as a $135 billion exercise in building rockets. Knowledge is the most powerful and most capricious tool we can bring to bear on our health. The ethics of healthcare often prevent controlled, double-blind studies, meaning that often useful knowledge can only be attained post hoc and en toto. Sorting through the interactions of multitudinous variables and extracting a modicum of causality to use for the betterment of all is not a challenge that can be met by a single doctor, or often even a single health system.

The barest hints of the potential of EHRs we’ve seen already. How many years did we spend collecting information on tobacco use? How many patients died of Vioxx-related heart failure before we managed to make a
connection? We would have known more, sooner, if we had a nationwide EHR infrastructure.

As the benefits of EHRs are society-wide, so to should be the scale of the tools and projects used to implement them. Providing for the health of a population is not a project that can be funded piecemeal with
earmarks and pork, run through unaccountable cronyism, or bloated bureaucracies. Nor is it a project that can be handled by the private sector, or tax breaks, or ‘small government’ rhetoric. It must be above either party,
and across government agencies. 

We need a national EHR project to realize the benefits of an EHR. Otherwise, EHRs will continue to be yet another false idol of future technology on which we will have squandered our wealth and potential. This should be a grand endeavor, not limited only to healthcare, but spanning industries from agriculture and education, to law enforcement and government. We must exert control on those variables that correlate to our desired outcome,be they chemical,  behavioral or other. This must be a results-focused, not rhetoric-focused enterprise.

Privacy advocates rightfully fear the ways in which this information may be abused. There must be protections and opt-outs put in place, but it should not be a system that people will want to opt out of. No one is forced to use U.S. dollars as a form of currency. No one is forced to open a bank account or use a cell phone despite the obvious privacy risks these present. We should have the healthiest, and longest lived, population in world.  EHR’s can help us with this goal.

I sincerely hope there is someone in Washington with the vision and leadership to harness the vast potential of EHRs to better the health of all. But I’m sure not seeing it at the moment.

Readers Write 2/5/09

February 4, 2009 Readers Write 17 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!


Recession Creates Opportunities for Niche Healthcare IT Vendors
By Alan Portela, COO, CliniComp Intl.

Admittedly, I’m typically a “glass half empty” person, but even I have to acknowledge that the economic recession has produced much-needed changes in the power balance between healthcare IT vendors and healthcare providers. With plummeting healthcare IT budgets, providers can now demand that vendors put some “skin in the game” to ensure that tangible performance goals and promised savings are obtained.

The evidence of scalped healthcare IT budgets is widespread. In a November 2008 survey from The College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, National Alliance for Health Information Technology and AHA Solutions, Inc., results indicated that 57 percent of the CFOs are delaying IT purchases. Even existing initiatives have been impacted, with 52 percent of CFOs deferring or extending those project implementation time frames.

Is there any light at the end of the economic doom and gloom tunnel? Yes, with niche technologies. Even as healthcare networks cancel their plans to replace EMRs, they are maintaining their original time frames for automating niche areas, such as high acuity, due to the immense impact that area has on IT budgets, patient safety, and quality care. The irony of our current situation is that we were at this exact point just prior to the Y2K disaster that set the industry back ten years when companies re-installed core systems that lacked strong clinical modules. It appears that the recession has kept us from making the same mistake all over again.

In reaction to the decreasing sales of EMRs, many large HIT vendors are evaluating partnerships with niche vendors rather than investing the time and financial resources to build the niche applications in-house. Thus, the traditional competition between the Samsons and Goliaths of healthcare IT is starting to morph into a mutually beneficial relationship. But the true winners in this battle are healthcare providers, who are now empowered to improve specific areas or functions within their existing infrastructure without having to replace (once again) their main HIT vendors. In essence, the HIT vendor solutions have become the platform that interoperates with new niche technologies in areas such as intensive care, labor and delivery, ED, etc.

Niche vendors will also have to adapt to these turbulent times by improving their ability to integrate seamlessly with HIT vendors, as well as changing their pricing models to reflect a risk-sharing, transaction-based model. This new model ties payment to performance on metrics such as decreased average length of stay, improved staff efficiency and retention, reduced costs, and other clinical improvements.

Aligning stakeholder objectives is a best practice throughout all major industries. It’s about time that healthcare got on the Machiavellian self-interest bandwagon.

Comments on the HIStalk Practice Interview with Garrison Bliss, MD
By RegularDoc

I can understand why Dr. Bliss is pleased with his practice model — he can see less patients and make more money. But please, let’s not sugarcoat this. He is doing a VIP/Concierge model of care that helps him and a few patients, but hurts the healthcare system as a whole.

You are not doing "the right thing." You are doing "the easy thing," and some would say "the greedy thing" — taking advantage of your loyal patients who are being told they can’t see you anymore unless they pay an extra fee. They still need their regular insurance for any test you order, any specialist they see, or if they go to the ER or get admitted. 

With that said, your costs for "easy access to your docs" are a bit less than other VIP services (you charge $600-1500 a year, where the national average is closer often $2000 a year), but it is not cheap for a lot of people. And indeed, part of your plan is to cut the patient volume you have, likely from around 2500 patients to 500 (which would net you almost $500K a year before you even saw a patient!) 

In other words, you will have more time for those 500 patients, but you have screwed those other 2000 patients, who now have to go find another doctor. And guess what — there are not that many around! 

So, in one fell swoop, you have both increased the demand for PCP care and cut the supply. How can you feel good about that? Also, when you start seeing a lot less patients, you will find that your skills are in decline, not exactly what your patients are paying you for.

With that said, I agree there is a reimbursement problem, but we docs have other options. You could have charged just $50 or $100 a year per patient. Even if only half your patients paid that, you still make a nice little profit that can help pay for EMRs and extra services like medical home. You can get an NP or similar to help with patient overload, etc.  But please, figure out a way to take care of ALL your patients, not a way to only take care of the wealthy ones (and don’t pretend that giving discounts to a few makes up for it).

And by the way, the more docs that do this, the more commoditized it will become and the prices will go down. So the VIP docs in your area are likely now nervous that you have already cut the price. The Seattle docs used to charge $2500 to $15,000. You cut price, someone else cuts price, and eventually you are going to be sitting there with 500 patients paying $200 a year and you will be begging your old patients to come back. But, they will have found someone who only charges $50 a year and you will have lost what it means to be a doctor — the trust and respect of your patients.

Sorry to be so tough on you, but I take a macro view of the healthcare system. These VIP practices are simply taking advantage of the system and indeed hurting it at a macro level, so at least be honest about that. No one has shown that they improve care, even for the small number of patients who can afford them. Even if they did, is it worth the cost and failure to the other patients you have abandoned? 

The 10th Anniversary of a Windows PACS
By The PACS Designer

TPD designed a PACS in the mid-90s with input from Hewlett Packard and learned a lot from that experience to move on to designing a next generation PACS. In the late 90s, the need arose for a high speed PACS that could handle 500MB or larger image files, so TPD decided to put some trust in Bill Gates’s Microsoft Windows NT and Michael Dell’s high power workstation offerings to meet this challenge. In 1999, the first Windows-based PACS was introduced to the marketplace.

It was a daunting task to confront the requirement to move 500MB files with minimal to no latency over long distances. First, we had to define the right network topology, and because Ethernet was the predominant network architecture, we decided to stay with that solution since it was deployed everywhere. Also, a major upgrade in the mid-nineties for Ethernet to 100Base-T from 10Base-T was making Ethernet more attractive for high speed communication.

Another widely used standard for external communications is Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) so we wanted to stick with that method of communications.

After reviewing the various storage solutions, we decided to use Fibre Channel. Two conflicting fiber communications methods had  been combined to remove uncertainty and the American National Standards Institute put out one standard called ANSI X3.230-1994. Fibre Channel could meet the need by the institution for one common communications method for high speed transmission of image files, data strings, and any other information from legacy systems. 

Using Fibre Channel with existing Ethernet networks also would present minimal problems provided that an upgrade to 100Base-T was installed prior to a high speed PACS was being deployed in the institution. The communications to outside facilities was left to the phone system’s SONET ring technology to enhance the ability to send image files the a central archive.

Also of concern to TPD was the different DICOM flavors that existed due to each vendor’s adding private attributes to their product offerings. Since it was going to be a PACS design that would be sold around the world, TPD decided to prevent the addition of private attributes to the new design, thus the design was setup to be "native DICOM" (no private attributes).

As of 2008, there are more than 3,000 of these high speed PACS installed around the world, and TPD is not aware of there ever being a system crash!

So today, if you are contemplating upgrading your current PACS, be aware that systems that make use of Fibre Channel and/or Gigabit Ethernet (1000Base-TX) or better will provide your institution with the most reliable PACS communications and also bring maximum efficiency to the care process.

In conclusion, the Windows PACS wouldn’t have been possible without the help of others, so TPD owes a debt of gratitude to a work colleague, Duke University for help with DICOM configurations, the Cleveland Clinic for supplying their expertise on a suitable storage solution, and Washington Hospital Center for their environmental design work for a PACS equipment room configuration without which TPD wouldn’t be commenting ten years later on a successful PACS design.

Comment on 1/23 Posting – Are Physician Portals Obsolete?
By Bud Leight

In response to the portals discussion, I believe many hospitals are overlooking a golden opportunity to improve operations and save labor costs. To date, most portal efforts have focused on access to hospital EMR data.  While this is a good first step, why not move forward and improve workflow and patient satisfaction by implementing more self-service tools found in every other service industry? 

By this, I mean provide a customer-based model that focuses on choice, improved workflow, and cost reduction. For example, physicians (one category of customer, the other obviously being the patient) should be provided convenient access (i.e. using the Internet) to self-schedule appointments, send orders, and take care of their tasks visa vie the revenue cycle for hospital based services. 

In doing so, portals offer the means to reduce labor costs and minimize office disruptions (i.e. make them more productive) on both sides (for the physician office and the hospital). For example, one 570-bed hospital serving the Virginia tidewater area, using centralized scheduling with a portal for physician offices, was able to double scheduling productivity from 5,000 to 10,000 appointments per FTE per year (since 2000). 

A large part of this success comes from the hospital offering their providers (whether owned or not) the choice to either call and schedule or bypass the phone and go online and book the appointment (which also fulfills the order requirements and completes medical necessity checking). This hospital portal provides EMR (data) access, but also a customer-centric approach that has driven 20% of their appointment bookings to come from the Internet. The patient benefits by avoiding telephone tag regarding appointment times, having the ability to review procedure directions (i.e.NPO) and not having any financial surprises if the procedure doesn’t pass medical necessity. 

Improving workflow through self-service is a big win financially for all concerned and goes a long way toward building brand loyalty with physicians and patients.

Readers Write 1/15/09

January 14, 2009 Readers Write 8 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!

Comments on the National Research Council’s Report
By Peter Basch, MD, Medical Director of Ambulatory Clinical Systems
MedStar Health 

Kudos to the National Research Council for their comprehensive and sober analysis of the state of health information technology as it exists today, and for their thoughtful recommendations. These recommendations reflect not just their research and editorial advice, but the current conventional wisdom and implementation approach of nearly all clinical informatics leaders. These recommendations call for continued federal financial support for:

  • Improved care enabled by HIT (and not for HIT adoption per se);
  • Innovation on workflow and process improvement;
  • Development of enhanced and highly functional clinical decision support for providers and patients;
  • Health care institutions and communities that appropriately aggregate data for quality improvement;
  • Continued education and training; and
  • Interdisciplinary research.

However, in spite of this clear support for funding and continued development of HIT, some media headlines have painted this report as harshly critical of the potential of HIT in general and EHRs in particular. This media misinterpretation resulted primarily from two faults inherent to the report : (1) the NRC’s mislabeling of their recommendations as a change from what health IT leaders are advocating for; and (2) the NRC’s inappropriate assignment of blame to EHRs as being the cause of dysfunction rather than their understanding that EHR functionality and implementation deficits are a result of a dysfunctional reimbursement system, which is based on volume of episodic care and verbosity of documentation.

pbasch While it is true many early adopter systems believed (at the time) that merely switching off paper medical records to EHRs would lead to improved and safer care, nobody has believed that, or has advocated that position in years. The current conventional wisdom is that HIT is quality and safety agnostic, and that its role is to serve as enabling infrastructure (toward whatever ends it is pushed to support). And as long as providers are incented primarily for procedures and volume, it is a surprise to no one (including the health systems studied), that their implementations have resulted thus far in only modest care improvements.

That said, there is a much clearer understanding in 2009 of where potential value lies in HIT implementations, and most health systems implement very differently now than even a few years ago — focusing on custom clinical content and targeted decision support — which can lead to further care improvements even within a dysfunctional health care system.

The NRC faults current EHR build as not supporting the cognitive support necessary to optimize care. This deficiency is obvious and abundantly clear to veteran EHR and HIT users – many of whom work on their own or with vendors on new and better functioning clinical decision support. However, let’s be fair as to the root cause of this deficiency. It is neither lack of vendor vision nor limitation of IT technology; it is lack of a market. 

EHR vendors must build applications that will sell, and the advanced clinical decision support that the NRC appropriately calls for does not and will not have a market — until health care is less fragmented, efficiency goals are aligned, and payment policy moves away from procedures and volume to information and quality outcomes. In our current fragmented and dysfunctional system, EHR purchasers are looking for a toolset that helps their practice to function more efficiently (and pay off the HIT investment) — which equals coding and documentation support. This is not the fault of EHRs, but squarely the fault of our healthcare system.

The NRC also makes the point that EHR technology needs to change because many providers find that they spend more of their time on using the EHR to document care rather than spending sufficient time on providing care. While it is certainly true that EHRs could make documentation easier, let’s not forget that providers using paper records voice the same complaints. Documentation changed from a medical art to a burdensome chore, not with the advent of the EHR, but with the Evaluation and Management (E/M) payment system changes of the mid 1990s.

This payment schema effectively eliminated the possibility of concise and relevant documentation, replacing it with a “pay-for-verbosity” system. These payment requirements (along with the very real threat of fines and prosecution for billing fraud) have unfortunately also served as the basis for many EHR sales to physician practices, as there was and still is a clear market for documentation and coding support. Again, the fix is not technologic; it is health system and payment reform.

In spite of these criticisms, the NRC offers good advice on improving HIT and EHRs and sound recommendations for federal support. However, the key to getting it right is combining support for HIT with health system process and payment reform. Without alignment of efficiencies and defragmenting healthcare and healthcare delivery processes, even better HIT will not be consistently and optimally used. And without a concomitant commitment to a sustainable business case for health information management and quality, even universal adoption of optimized HIT will be a disappointment. The time for change coupled with wise investments is now.

Just Watching FnC and Not FnC
By Duuude

Can we have a cat fight? Just what we need to spice up my Wednesdays – watching Fish and Chips and Not Fish and Chips!

In looking at Not FnC’s comments, the first thought I had was the lyrics from These Things by She Wants Revenge:

There is nothing to see here people keep moving on
Slowly their necks turn and then they’re gone
No one cares when the show is done

OK, back to the serious stuff. Fish and Chips is off on how long the Sutter implementation has gone on. Not two years –I believe it’s been going on for five or six years. If a Sutter resource can confirm that timeline, feel free to confirm or correct. 

In defending Sutter, even though there were questions concerning the selection process of their Electronic Health Record (was there a bona fide selection process?), whether Sutter realized what it actually would take to implement across the enterprise as well as the whole standardization processes, to achieve said Electronic Health Record, they figured out their strategy in rolling out to their acute care affiliates. Note, they already have Epic ambulatory up and running at several ambulatory sites. Most notably, PAMF. Just ask Stanford (wasn’t that their primary business reason to ditch Carecast?)

FnC, do you realize how many disparate hospital information systems Sutter had across their enterprise? It literally spans across the vendor community! While they have a physician portal, that’s not the same. Also, supporting these disparate systems in Sac-town is a huge challenge! They needed to change and consolidate systems, standardize workflow, etc.

Now, can you raise a question about their selection process? Absolutely! In fact Mr. H can probably dig up previous discussions. Project planning methodology, cost realization, ROI, whether the Citrix farm will work across Sutter? Heck yeah! But remember, if you stack up Epic, Cerner, McKesson, Siemens, etc. and you’re looking for a good, integrated HIS, who do you think people will pick? The market is saying Epic, and from what I’ve seen, it’s a solid choice.

Now having said that, here’s my beef with what I’ve seen over the past few years. There are a lot of health systems that implemented one costly solution and decided a couple of years later to throw more money around at another solution when really the two different systems are hardly different. In a homogenous environment, if I have Cerner Millennium and I’ve been running it for four years, why would I then go and say, “Well, let me ask the Board to toss out a few hundred million more and get Epic because my competitor has it.”

Is Epic better than Cerner? Yes it is! Is tens or hundreds of millions dollars better? Not by a long shot. It looks like for the past year or so, the bandwagon-hopping system selection methodology has slowed quite a bit, but there are hospitals still looking for solutions and if they’re big or an academic setting, more likely than not, they’re implementing Epic.


Being Ricky Roma,
… Or, Tales From the Dark Side – Episode IV 

As a long-time reader who has enjoyed the high quality of the Mr HIStalk and HERtalk musings, I would like to share some personal thoughts, observations, and recommendations in the area of healthcare IT sales; aka, "the Dark Side". I have lived in both the hospital IT management world and the vendor world and have learned that most of you who work in hospitals ‘don’t know the power of the Dark Side’.

Sales is often called the "Dark Side" of our industry because of the perception of having to forfeit one’s ethics, morals, ruth (as in the opposite of ruthless), and all other goodness remaining in one’s soul in order to be successful. Plus you generally have to wear a suit and fancy shoes all of the time.

In many cases, an attempt to characterize any large group defaults to the actions of a few tainting the image of the many. However, in sales, this is usually not the case. Most sales people in nice suits in fact should be treated like Sith and duly avoided.

Even in this current economic climate, you may have an occasional desire to purchase new, or possibly even better, technology; and sometimes must engage with those who are specifically compensated to separate you from as much as your hard-budgeted money as possible. In this mini-ecosystem, all sales people and sales organizations plot to favorably position their wares. Some, will occasionally misrepresent their goods and/or services. To help you fight the Good fight, here are a few simple tips from the Dark Side

NEVER believe the demo
ANYTHING can be made to work in a PowerPoint/Web/canned environment. Please say this out loud, right now, in your best Senator Stuart Smalley affirmation voice. Anything, even an enterprise EMR that connects rromaseamlessly with any and all other applications, can be shown to work on a laptop. There are plenty of companies that put more resources into building demos than the product itself. The vendor product demonstration is a fair way to baseline what the product or service is supposed to do, but should always be viewed with suspended belief. Don’t believe the demo.

A good plan to ensure reality meets expectations is to write out the functionality you are looking for (some people use categories such as "Must Have" and Like to Have" for this) and then ask at least two vendors to see this functionality working in several actual installed customer sites (Web conference is a good way to do this logistically). Do this at the very start of your process. If the vendor balks at this, you should either run away as fast as possible or be fully cognizant that you will be signing a development deal.

Remember, the demo is an illusion. A lunch demo, doubly so.

Think carefully about the site visit
If it isn’t obvious to you, the site visit is the most one-sided event since the war in the Falklands. In my vendor career, I have only ever lost one deal out of many, many, many where we did a site visit. And that was my own fault for mismanaging cultural personality differences. We on the Dark Side love the site visit since we get to stack the deck and script 99.44% of the event. In my hospital career (pre-Dark Side), I usually felt like I was the mark in a shell game on these visits. How about you?

In the same amount of time that it takes to travel to TX, NY, CA, FL, WI, PA, KS, TN or anywhere else from that Johnny Cash song, you could do at least ten reference calls or Web meetings, while at the same time saving some of that hard-budgeted money. The bottom line is that ALL vendors have their one or two showcase sites in their proverbial back pocket. Getting beyond these "set-ups" and talking to regular customers will mean the difference between purchasing a solution that will bring value to you and your hospital and explaining the failure at next year’s capital budgeting committee meetings or at a job interview.

If you do decide upon doing a site visit, be sure to ask if the organization you are visiting receives any compensation (such as maintenance credits, discounts on past or future purchases, paid-for trips, etc) from the vendor for their hospitality.

Negotiations
The variety of individual and organizational negotiating styles never ceases to amaze me. Zillions of books, ranging from achieving win-wins to subconsciously hypnotizing your opponent, have been written on negotiating, so I won’t belabor this point except to provide two snippets of inside information from the other side of the table.

The first is to not agree to terms until you have had at least one "walk-away" from the deal. Even if you are the most soft-ball negotiator in America, you can get more of what you want (lower price, better terms, better support, etc) in this fashion. A week or two of delay in your buying process generally won’t harm a well-planned project, but it is just murder on a sales person who thinks he/she is close to signing a deal with you, especially when their sales manager/VP is breathing down their back to close it before the end of the month/quarter/fiscal year or pink slip.

The second point is to ALWAYS maintain a line of discussion with your back-up vendor, and tell your chosen vendor that you are still also in discussions with their closest competitor. I have often seen some hospitals take this a little too far literally undertake dual contract negotiations. My personal belief is that this is a waste of time. Lawyers, (who mostly live in an even Darker World ) may recommend this, but just keeping a back-up solution in the wings is generally sufficient.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
My final recommendation from the Dark Side is to proactively do your best to work with good sales people. This may sound like the ultimate in oxymoronism to you. But, in my experience in interviewing more than a few sales candidates over the years is that Pareto Principle rules. Almost all sales organizations are made up of roughly 20% standouts (Good); 60% who are OK and can do the job (Bad); and 20% who should cause you to demand a replacement (Fugly). So, before you condemn all sales people back to the used car lot, there are several upsides to working with that top 20% sales person that you should know about:

  • They are a good litmus test for the quality of the company. They won’t stay at bad companies because they cannot earn the type of money they know they can command. Like the Canary in a Coal Mine, they will not be around if the company’s oxygen is depleting.
  • They carry a lot of clout in their organization, much like your hospital’s surgeons. If you need to ask a favor, they can almost always get something done for you.
  • They are almost always well connected in the industry and can make connections for you, for things like back door references on other projects, quality IT personnel you may want to poach from other healthcare organizations, pulled pork recipes, etc.
  • They can actually add value in helping you with your process and end goals. This may sound like heresy to those who think all sales people are predatory scum, but the Good’s history of success generally means that they have observed many best practices which can ultimately help make you more successful.
  • Show your sales person the door if they over-rely upon their number of years in healthcare to try to win credibility; or if they "name drop" more than four or five people in your meeting. If industry longevity is their only way of winning your trust, then you are not dealing with someone who can help you.
  • To test the credibility of your sales person, try asking a ridiculous question. Ask if their product will do something that is technically impossible or that you know cannot be done. Ask if the service can be customized to do something outside the bounds of reality. This may sound a little silly, but some sales people will say just about anything to try to win your business, especially if they are struggling or had their nest egg  invested in Fannie Mae. I guarantee you will be surprised and amused by the variety of responses you get to these character tests.
  • Finally, if do you get stuck with a Fugly, someone who is in that bottom 20% or even in the bottom 80% for that matter, but you think you might like the product or service they are selling; you should e-mail the company’s CEO to let her/him know that you were a underwhelmed by the quality of the sales effort. Tell them that you would like to either work directly with said CEO or be reassigned to the company’s top sales person. Either way, you are going to be guaranteed a high level of service going forward. Also, you are more likely to get a really good deal. If you didn’t already know this, a selling CEO is the bane of any VP Sales’ existence. We all know that the CEO will give away the farm to close the deal. As the top dog, he/she simply cannot allow himself or herself to fail at closing the deal.

I hope this brief peek into the power of the Dark Side was helpful for you. Also, for the sake of my Good peers, I ask that you use any of this information for good, not evil purposes.

END

Readers Write 12/11/08

December 10, 2008 Readers Write 11 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. I’ll use a phony name for you unless you tell me otherwise. Thanks for sharing!


Low Cost IT Hospital Improvement Project
By Downin Katmandu, CIO

mirth 

Our Information Services Department is working with our hospital’s Infection Control (IC) Department to create a system that sends a real-time, proactive notification of patients that present at hospital with chief complaints that might trigger operational or policy processes.

Due to the nature of our data collection process, specific diagnosis codes are rarely available during the admission/registration process. That being the case, we use the chief complaint as our primary data field for attempting to notify the IC department of patients that might benefit from more timely intervention by the IC staff.

The basis of our pilot study is to evaluate appropriate HL7 records and segments for keywords (keyphrases) defined by the IC department. If we find one of these words/phrases we will:

  1. Send the IC department an email containing a message that does not contain patient identifiable information (PHI, re: HIPAA), but it will contain the chief compliant. The IC department can use this field to prioritize their processes.
  2. Send a more descriptive file to a secure folder on the network
  3. The file we send will contain the following fields:

Patient Information

Message Information: A04
Patient MRN                 
Patient Account Number        
Patient Name                
Patient DOB                
Patient Sex                 

Admission Information

Admit Source                
Chief Complaint       
Admit Date Time       
Admitting Doctor      
Attending Doctor      
Current Location            
Patient Class               

A04: Patient Registration
A01: Patient Admission

The file naming convention that we are using to store the detailed reports is Lastname-AccountNumber-ccyymmdd-hhmmss.txt.

This same system is used by the Admitting Department to receive real-time notification of incomplete registrations. Our hospital information system does not require a chief complaint during admission and registration processes, but our hospital policy states that it must be entered. We use this system to help audit compliance.

Software: MIRTH Interface Engine (www.mirthproject.org – Open Source)
Hardware: Low end PC or server
HL7 Feed: Clone from ADT Feed from HIS to Laboratory System

Keyword examples: influenza, tuberculosis, lice, pertussis, diarrhea, chlamydia, strep, pinworms, measles, blood in sputum, bloody sputum.


You Can’t Give It Away
By Catherine Huddle, VP Market Development, Sevocity

While the Big Three automakers extend their tin cups on Capitol Hill, we hear that at least one of the first four communities designated by HHS to receive Electronic Health Record (EHR) funding, Louisiana, submitted only half the applications of the 100 available $58,000 grants. So, you can’t even give EHR away?

I believe that part of the problem is that most physicians didn’t know about or understand the HHS program. Our company saw the first four community initiatives as an opportunity to get in front of physicians at the most opportune time. We sent multiple mailers and made calls to hundreds of physicians in the first four communities. What we learned:

  • Mail that is not payment- or insurance-related may be ignored or lost. Less than 5% of our mail was returned, but over 80% of practice managers said they never received our mailing or couldn’t find it.
  • Nearly all the office managers and physicians we talked to were unaware of the HHS program. Those who had heard about it were confused and didn’t understand the difference between the EHR program and the national HHS ePrescribing initiative.
  • Trying to explain the available funding and the timing was difficult. If you review HHS’s Web site, this problem is clear — the process to obtain the funding is long and convoluted and the dollars to be expected is difficult to predict.
  • Physicians do not believe they will see any material funding from HHS.

So, if physicians had a clear program that helped them fund purchase of an EHR would it make a difference? I think the answer is yes — sometimes.

Just like a tax incentive encourages a would-be home owner to become a home buyer, I believe that clear, timely payments for EHR adoption would incent the physicians interested in EHR to go ahead buy EHR. Funding is such a clear motivator for the group already interested that I think it helps explain why our company is achieving record sales in a very weak economy.

The new customers I talk with tell me they purchased after months or years of looking because our solution is CCHIT-certified/complete, but only requires a small down payment and ongoing monthly payments. Their risk is minimized because their personal investment is minimized.

While there is a segment of physicians that is already motivated to buy EHR and will do so with some clear achievable financial assistance, I believe there is another segment that wouldn’t implement EHR if you gave it to them – right now. This is the segment that is downright terrified of implementing EHR. They have read and heard the horror stories of six-figure EHRs that sit unused. They are concerned the EHR will slow them down, knowing their productivity is the lifeblood of their income.

As EHRs evolve, physicians experience the benefits, and EHR vendors improve, I believe this will gradually change. As vendors, it is up to us to make this happen. We must listen to our potential customers and design affordable and easy-to-use systems.

Low Cost IT Hospital Improvement Project
By Julie

ceoexpress 

Having worked in healthcare for 20+ years in both the hospital and vendor settings, I see many opportunities for low cost IT projects. Many in the hospital setting are not utilizing the power of the Intranet to provide Web-based access to policy and procedure manuals, the automation of manual calculations (e.g. heparin protocols), and the use of paging/text messaging. Many other types of info (links to emedicine, Medline, etc) could be of great help if provided at the clinicians desktop in an easy to use format.

CEO-Express provides a desktop application that I’ve used for years both personally and in business. The generic MD-Express has potential as well, if taken private label and customized. I have no financial ties to the company, but have found it extremely useful.

Access to well-written, searchable policies and procedures is critical, with staff members (both nursing and ancillary) frequently being forced to float due to variations in patient populations and workloads. Also, with the diversity among providers today, communication can be hampered by regional and international accents and dialects. Text-based paging/messaging can be a non-obtrusive method of improving communication.

Having worked for Cerner and seeing real and planned “bleeding edge” technology only to return to a severely challenged community hospital has been extremely frustrating. Financial limitations and the staff’s lack of exposure to or fear of even 20th century technology are disturbing. And to think this organization is not that physically distant from both Partners and BIDMC is amazing! While expert rules firing off text messages to communicate critical values to providers is technology available to some, there have to be workarounds for financially challenged organizations.

Some things to think about: while most people choose a hospital perceived or documented to be the best, most progressive, well-staffed, or well-funded, the reality is that if you or a loved one is involved in an accident or suddenly falls ill, you may not have the choice of where you go for care. The nearest hospital becomes your best or only chance for survival. If that hospital is severely challenged in any way, you or your loved one may not make it. Transport to another hospital depends upon the patient’s stability. For those without the clinical knowledge and understanding to evaluate the limitations of a facility and where the best care would be for a particular condition, you are at the mercy of whoever is providing care.

Readers Write 12/4/08

December 3, 2008 Readers Write 2 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. Use your real or phony name (your choice – we’ll substitute a phony one unless you ask specifically to be named). Submissions are subject to approval and become the property of HIStalk.

Low Cost IT Hospital Improvement Project
By Leonard Kravitz, Informatics Director
bb

We gave Blackberrys to all members our interdisciplinary ICU  team — physicians, nurses, social work, pharmacy, dietician, etc. It was a total of 39 devices. Most staff sign up for a device when they start their shift, although some have their own device (like the ICU director and physicians). These are text-only, no voice.

They provided a huge improvement in communication efficiency. There was no more wasted time trying to find the physician or nursing trying to find pharmacy about a missing med. The bottom line is faster, more efficient care for patients and reduced errors.

The total cost is around $17K. The only reason it is that much is because we are running the devices over a cell network. We will be moving to VoIP over Wi-Fi in the next year and costs should fall to $5K/year.

What is good about this is that it’s technology that works and makes a big difference. Text-only is not disruptive, it has a time-stamped, legible message, it can be sent to many people at once, and the pagers can receive alerts from our clinical system.

The key to success is giving devices to everyone on the team, which increases the value of the network.

Low Cost IT Hospital Improvement Project
By Larry Spannel, Hospital CIO

We discovered a significant opportunity to improve customer service for our nursing and clinical staff. Like everyone else, if a problem occurred with their computer equipment, the nursing staff was expected to call the Help Desk and arrange for service. We found that this rarely happened.

When a nurse or physician had a problem with a workstation, they would leave it and find one that worked. They never had time to call and report the broken device. It was not unusual for a nursing unit to have a large number of its workstations out of service before IT was aware of the problem. In our heavily automated clinical environment, this was a real concern.

We asked our Help Desk and Field Services staff to think of a better way to ensure that all of our nursing unit workstations were available all of the time. They developed an equipment rounding plan where our field services techs visit every nursing station, every weekday. The techs inspect every workstation and printer, and fix any problems they find.

We piloted the rounding program for a couple of weeks to see if it would be effective. We were amazed at the reception we received from the clinical staff. They loved the fact that they did not have to worry about equipment availability anymore, and that they were no longer tied up making calls to the Help Desk. Where once our clinicians had a very low regard for IT support, the techs are now welcomed and appreciated for their work.

The program was so successful that we quickly implemented it for our emergency department and all of our nursing units. The program is cited as an example of excellent customer service throughout the hospital. It was a zero-cost change since we rearranged the work of our existing staff to do the rounding.

The Impact of Technology on Diabetes
By Marc Winchester, President
Digital Healthcare Inc.

retasure 

Diabetes is a pervasive chronic disease that affects the coronary, neurological, renal and vision systems of over 22 million Americans with an additional 50 million termed as "pre-diabetic". If left untreated, it will remain the leading cause of lower limb amputations, end stage kidney failure, and blindness in the working age population. In terms of economic impact, the disease has no equal. Conservative estimates indicate that the annual cost of diabetes is now well over $100 million.

Technology has a critical part to play in the assessment of risk, diagnosis, treatment, and management of the disease. In order to manage the condition, technology needs to be pervasive across the care continuum.  

It may surprise some to learn that diabetes can be prevented and, in the early stages, it can be reversed. This requires lifestyle change and increased awareness among the high risk population group. The role of technology in the first instance is one of supporting public health communications. Patients need to have access to simple risk calculators that can predict early onset; Personal Health records need to be easy to use and easily accessible. However, it is important to realize that those at most risk tend to also be the most technology-averse. Until this issue is addressed, technology won’t have an impact on the care process until after a patient’s initial diagnosis.

When a patient presents to the primary care physician with diabetic symptoms, a series of tests is performed to confirm diagnosis. Most medical record systems are more than capable of storing the information. However medical record systems must identify those at risk through general health, genetic, and lifestyle data. A real advantage would be a system that assesses risk and red flags patients before they have full-blown diabetes.

As the disease progresses, physicians are left with a series of options to arrest its progress through pharmacological intervention, lifestyle advice, and ultimately, referral to secondary specialists, such as endocrinologists or ophthalmologists. Efficient referrals must aim to manage the patient through a defined "care pathway," but patients rarely comply with such instructions. Technology should integrate contact management systems to ensure that patients are "nagged" by whatever means to follow up on their prescribed care plan.

In order for technology to have a real impact on chronic conditions, it must integrate diverse components into a workflow similar to that used in manufacturing processes. At Digital Healthcare, we have found the way to achieve this is to place detection technology in the primary care setting and have an automated pathway send high resolution images and data to a clinical specialist. The specialist systematically assesses the risk and recommends the next treatment option, which is also defined in the pathway. So far, we have saved the sight of thousands of people around the world using this approach.

Until we see the convergence of technology with public health policy, evidence-based medicine, and uniform reimbursement strategies, simple disconnects will continue to contribute to many more deaths and the continuing rise in health insurance premiums.

Clinical Software Review -  Microsoft CUI – Secondary Care
By The PACS Designer

 ecg

The Microsoft Common User Interface has been released for review and user input based on Microsoft’s Silverlight platform.  We will be reviewing Secondary Care for Brian Johnson.

To proceed with this lesson you need to have Microsoft’s Silverlight platform installed on your system.

We are going to launch the Patient Journey Demonstration. Once you are on the Patient Journey Demonstration page, you are going to be navigating to the Secondary Care section, so click the "Launch Button" under "Secondary Care". Follow the steps below to learn the best method for navigating:

  1. Brian Johnson has been sent to the ECG Laboratory for a stress test. Brian is in Exercise Test Room One. While waiting for a message to appear on your screen, click "Molecule triggers allergy attack" in the "Health News box" to view the article, then close it. When the message pops up for viewing his test results, click the "View LIVE ECG" button in the message.
  2. Next, you will see Brian’s ECG images. The message requested that you look at V4, V5, and V6. Click the down arrow to the right of "Select a lead" then click "V4" to view the ECG image.
  3. Next, click the "white box" below "V4" to view "V5". Then click "white box" again below "V5" to view "V6". When done, click "V6" to return to all ECG images.
  4. At the left under "Chest Pain Clinic" click Brian Johnson’s "View Results" to see the data.
  5. Move your pointer over "Stage 4" that is on your extreme left and click the "Red Box" in the upper right corner to expand it. Next, move your pointer up to the numbers " 0 thru S" in the upper right of the screen and click the second "Red 4".  Again, click the small "Red Box" to expand it and when done viewing it click again to return.
  6. Next, click "Known Allergies" to see Brian’s allergies. When you are done, click the "Up Arrow" to the right to close.
  7. Click "Search Care Pathway Library" in the lower right hand corner, then click "Angiogram/Angioplasty" to see other aspects of Brian’s health record.
  8. At the bottom of the screen, click "Review results" in box marked "Angiogram" to see Brian’s angiogram. Click the "Play Button" to run the viewer. Next, on the left side of screen under "Select Run," click the down arrow and then click "LAO 30 Cranial 26" to view the 3D image, then use your pointer to move the 3D to the left and right for slower viewing.
  9. For the last step in this review, click the "Show Guide" in the upper right corner to view all the capabilities of the online viewer. The "Show Guide" can be accessed for each viewing screen for more information by clicking "1. Registrar landing page" through "5. Angiogram" for this Microsoft CUI. Close "Show Guide" when done.

This completes the third and last review of the Microsoft Common User Interface (previous lessons are here and here). Please let us know your feelings about this new concept from Microsoft.

Readers Write 11/19/08

November 19, 2008 Readers Write 2 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. Use your real or phony name (your choice). Submissions are subject to approval and become the property of HIStalk.

IT Projects Resulting in Savings (for $25,000 or Less)
By Southeast CIO

These are based on my personal (15 years) experience in hospital IT. Some of these may be a little dated.

Medicaid Eligibility Double Check Before Aged Receivables Go to Bad Debt Agency
Annual Savings: $50,000

Hospital sometimes help patients apply for Medicaid, usually after the patient receives treatment. The patient is usually placed into some type of Medicaid-applied status. When the application is approved or denied, the status is changed. Sometimes all that works and sometimes it does not. We created a batch process that identified any self pay/indigent patient/guarantor ready for bad debt and applied that information against the Medicaid Eligibility source/TPA. Even in these HIPAA-friendly days, a second check will find an organization money.

Resigned/Terminated Employee Automatic Dis-enrollment from Benefit Plans
Annual Savings: $20,000

The base HR package didn’t automatically term benefits. HR had to dis-enroll employees manually from programs. Sometimes that would not happen in a timely manner or a step was missed. The option is to either buy an expense add-on module or script the series of key strokes. Scripting can resolve this problem, eliminating part of an FTE and saving benefit dollars.

Intranet Application That Assigns Registrars To Patients/Rooms, Reduces Overtime
Annual Savings: $15,000

Some hospitals provide bedside registration, especially for maternity wards. Registrars were constantly on the phone or going back to the main office for their next assignment. We created a basic application for the Intranet that could be updated showing next assignment. Registrars could access that from their mobile laptops on carts and indicate when done. Overtime went down, registration productivity went up. We also used instant messaging for these employees (policy was no IM at that organization).

Fax Server to Retain Surgical Case Documents Faxed To/From Physician Offices
Annual Savings: $50,000

Faxing with MDs office always has its challenges. On occasion, surgical cases are delayed, increasing overtime and frustrating many involved. A fax server that retains inbound and outbound faxes eliminates a lot of headaches.

Microsoft License Discounts for Educational Organizations – Teaching Hospitals
Annual Savings: $12,000

Microsoft provides discounts for educational organizations. A 400-bed hospital usually provides some type of education to residents, etc. Even if it is on a small scale, it will sometimes help qualify.

Reduction in Hospital Bill (claim) Hold from 5 to 4 days
Annual Savings: $35,000

Most HIS systems are set to hold charges for X days after patient discharge. The point is to enable all charges to be entered, scrubbed, then dropped on a claim. When most HIS systems go in, to be careful, bill holds are sometimes set high. With good charging processes and focus, you can reduce these days. Interest earned on one day of charges billed and paid one day earlier adds up.

Small Revenue-Enhancing Projects: The Rule of the Year for 2009-2010
By AgedObserver

You’ve preached for a long time that our industry, in many cases, has adopted technology for the sake of technology, without examining the fundamental reasons of “why” and “what benefit” (CPOE is the best example). There have been countless multi-million dollar projects in the last 10 years where the end result has been average technology, combined with poor execution, resulting in lousy adoption and no demonstrable ROI. 

Instead of accelerating the entity, the attempted technology has slowed the organization’s progress, and in the hindsight of today’s economic environment, has placed provider organizations at risk because hundreds of millions of dollars poorly invested has escaped from their bank accounts.

Jim Collins identified some key aspects of how leading organizations use technology as an accelerator, thereby “avoiding fads and bandwagons yet becoming pioneers in the application of carefully selected technologies.”  Clayton Christensen talks about innovation needs, not for the sake of innovation, but to move the business forward in a steady, directed fashion.

In today’s environment, where capital for large technology projects is very scarce, it’s important that every project be aimed at providing additional revenue to the organization for work already being done, i.e., if you’re leaving money on the table because you don’t have the right technology (square peg/round hole or one-size-fits-all) and you can get a vendor to guarantee financial improvement, you have a winning solution. Large projects don’t work today because the manpower and up-front costs lead to extended (if any) return on investment for the purchaser.  

Small, focused, revenue-enhancing projects should be (my prediction is they will be) the rule-of-the-year for 2009/2010. The tie between the clinical activities and revenue is obvious, but so many technologies put a 10-foot wall between the two, or try to solve only one part of the two sided-puzzle, and hence don’t resolve true issues and put more money into provider’s hands.

The Future of Primary Care
By TornMD

The NEJM just had a roundtable on saving primary care, with big names in the field talking about the usual things: medical home, changing reimbursement, etc. Personally, I don’t see how anything but a drastic increase in salary will attract people to the field. I’m also not sure those are the people you want as your doctor.

Even though most EMR systems are targeted to internists, more technology is not going to change the everyday workings of a primary care provider. I did an informatics fellowship, so I’ve never practiced more than three sessions per week, always in an academic setting (with two sessions of supervising residents). Though I’ve found my patient care sessions very rewarding, there’s no way I could have managed a full week of it. Primary care is just not that intellectually satisfying.

As our department chair told us when I was finishing residency (2001), there’s no future in primary care. PAs and NPs can handle 95% of the cases we see (as evidenced by the excellent PAs I work with in our walk-in clinic). I often feel that dealing with lower back pain, URIs, and diabetes management is a waste of an MD.

The reward I get from primary care is probably what most people in private practice find the most frustrating. Being in an academic setting without productivity constraints, I have (a lot of ) time to spend with patients. The whole medical home concept — case management, explaining lab results, dealing with specialists — is a lot of what I do (especially since I speak Spanish and may be one of the only providers who can talk to patients without a translator). It’s also a lot of what patients appreciate. I often feel much more like a psychologist than a doctor; however, I don’t need an MD to do what the patients appreciate most –  listen.

There will always (I hope) be people who go into medicine because of the rewards of patient interaction, but the current system makes that less and less viable. Because of the lack of intellectual challenge in primary care, I believe the only way to attract the “best” is to couple it with research or teaching and to work where patients really need you. I was miserable during my private practice sessions when I saw well-insured patients for yearly checkups, STDs, or blackberry thumb. When I see Medicaid, non-English speaking patients for diabetes control or atypical chest pain, however, I feel that I’m actually contributing and fulfilling my role as a physician. Unfortunately, a Medicaid-focused private practice is not really financially sustainable.

Readers Write 11/13/08

November 12, 2008 Readers Write 5 Comments

Submit your article of up to 500 words in length, subject to editing for clarity and brevity. Use your real or phony name (your choice). Submissions are subject to approval and become the property of HIStalk.


Report from AMIA 2008
By Grant Ritter
 

amia

As a (now part-time) academic, I love coming to AMIA to see what kind of blue-sky thinking is going on in all those NLM-funded labs. As I’ve attended more conferences, however, I find that I enjoy the panels more than the paper sessions.

Dr. David Eddy of Archimedes gave a great keynote about the development of his system. I then went to the public policy session where Dr. David Blumenthal, an Obama advisor, gave his opinion of what will go on in the new administration. Unfortunately, because of his position, he couldn’t give much detail, but there is hope that the $50 billion promised for HIT will somehow survive.

I had another meeting on Monday, so I was sorry I missed “Movie Magic in the Clinic — Computer-Generated Characters for Automated Health Counseling” from Northeastern, along with other sessions on virtual worlds-virtual patients. There was a lot going on during the session about promoting informatics as a recognized profession, with board certification, etc.

Also, several panels on the AHIC successor, whose business model I still don’t understand (in whose interest is it to pay dues?)

The AMIA exhibit hall is little league compared to HIMSS, certainly tailored to the mainly academic audience — NLM, ISO press, Elsevier, training programs … In other words, no booth babes or free cappuccinos.

There were several Web 2.0-themed sessions, from decision support to PatientsLikeMe to one of the top student papers, “A Scientific Collaboration Tool Built on the Facebook Platform”.

Dan Masys’s year in review was probably, as always, the best-attended session (his slides are available on the Vanderbilt Web site). Afterward was a great session on informatics and entrepreneurship.

My favorite speaker of the conference was Craig Feied, founder of Azyxxi (now Amalga) and 13 other companies. The panel also had Michael Kaufman, formerly of Eclipsys. Great for academics to hear from real business people, especially when Mr. Kaufman started talking about EBIDTA. The panel also included some businesses that failed, so great lessons on both sides.A good panel on medical homes Wednesday morning as well.

Above all, the best part about AMIA is being able to go up to people like David Bates and hear what they have to say about your (or their own) ideas. I’m not sure how much interest there would be for someone actually running a clinical information system, but hopefully it provided some glimpses of the future of HIT.

Report from World of Health IT
By Maurice Ganier

wohit 
I spoke at the World of Health IT last week. It was a real treat being at an HIT conference with only 2,000 attendees (“only” when compared with HIMSS 28,000) and where the focus was truly on the education sessions, most of which were very good. It was also enlightening to see how far behind we are here in the US compared to other countries with socialized medicine. Even just referring to what we call patients, as “citizens” brings home the point that they have a vested interest in caring for their populations.

Aside from the fact that Panasonic debuted their new mobile clinical assistant device to go head-to-head with the Motion C5 – and directly across the aisle from Motion’s booth, no less – the absolutely coolest thing in the hall was a booth run by the Danish government showing off their IT Experimentarium. It is a “dummy” hospital, complete with nursing unit and patient rooms equipped with all types of equipment, in which all health IT applications are designed, put through their paces to ensure that they address workflow adequately and optimally, and then used for training.

Better than the popular “conference room pilots” that we are accustomed to using, the “patients” (either real people being instructed by a doc behind the curtains through an earpiece, or a dummy with a built-in speaker through which the doc speaks) are able to convey real-life scenarios to the clinicians providing care either through a script or by incorporating “curve balls” to truly test the limits. There is a good video available all about it at www.regionh.dk/itx (scroll down to access the English-language version).

Clinical Software Review – Microsoft CUI
By The PACS Designer

image 

The Microsoft Common User Interface has been released for review and user input based on Microsoft’s Silverlight platform. We did a review of the "Microsoft CUI Introduction" previously, so now we are going to follow the path for finding a patient.

To proceed with this lesson, you need to have Microsoft’s Silverlight platform installed on your system. Get the download here.

After logging off and relaunching your system, you can go to the Microsoft CUI by clicking this link.

We are going to launch the "Patient Journey Demonstration". Once you are on the Patient Journey Demonstration page, you are going to be navigating to the Primary Care section first, so click the "Launch Button" under "Primary Care".  Follow the steps below to learn the best method for navigating:

We want to find a patient in the Microsoft CUI named Brian Johnson so we can see the details on his condition for his next appointment.

  1. The first step is to look for Brian Johnson’s name in Dr. Oliver Cox’s schedule on the "GP landing page".
  2. Dr. Cox has an 8:50 appointment with Brian and wants to review his medical history. To view it, double click Brian’s name on the appointment schedule for Dr. Cox and you’ll see the many aspects of his medical record.
  3. Under "Most Recent Activities," click the clear box in the upper right hand corner to expand the record. Since Brian’s hypertension is now accompanied by chest pain, you want to next click the box for Dr. Christina Lee in the lower right hand corner. You will see that Dr. Paul Dunton, a cardiologist, is covering for Dr. Lee since there is a Green Bullet before his name. Click the Green Bullet for contact options and click desired method to launch Outlet Express 6 if you wanted to communicate with him. Click box in upper right hand corner to return to previous screen.
  4. Next, click the clear box in "Patient Charts" to expand Bryan’s charts for hypertension. Click the different chart descriptions to see their data points. When finished, move the mouse pointer to 2. Patient Record under Scenes at top of screen to return to previous screen.
  5. For the balance of this exercise, navigate to the other aspects of this record to view their details.

 

This completes this view session for Silverlight and the Microsoft CUI.  TPD will be doing Secondary Care next.

Readers Write 10/29/08

October 29, 2008 Readers Write 1 Comment

CCS HIT Fall Report
By Pedro Borbon

The Fall CCS HIT summit had its ups and downs. I was surprised at how small it was. Apparently last year there were four times more people, but this year there were probably <50 attendees.

The first day’s content was average, but there were two very impressive speakers. John Geade, the CIO at El Centro Regional Medical Center who has done a great job integrating various HIT systems in his hospital and also installing an EMR in his ER, and Gay Madden, CIO of Florida Hospice of the Suncoast, which appears to have a much more advanced HIT system than many academic centers. Mark Probst of Intermountain Healthcare gave a good keynote, but pretty generic.

I think the problem with these types of presentations for us who are so steeped in the HIT world is that it’s hard to find anything really "new".

The small size made networking easier, especially on the second day, when there was a superior panel on PHRs: Missy Krasner (Google), Philip Marshall (WebMD), and Sanjay Gupta (Dossia).

Naomi Fried, VP of Innovation and Advanced Technology at Kaiser Permanente, has what seems to be a dream job (and who also seems like she would be a great HIStalk interview), and spoke about KP’s telehealth projects. There was also a good payer panel, with Charles Kennedy (Wellpoint), Julie Klapstein (Availity), and David Lanksy (Pacific Business Group on Health).

Dr. Lansky told us that he offered free trips to the Health 2.0 conference to every employer who makes up his group and not one of them took him up on the offer …

I don’t think I’ll be back, but maybe the spring summit will be better attended. Can’t tell if it was the content or the economy. Sofitel LA is a great hotel!


The Cloud Computing Phenomenon
By The PACS Designer

Cloud computing is the phenomenon that is sweeping through the vendor community lately. Some commentators are saying it is a fad that will pass, while others are forecasting a much wider cloud computing community.

TPD has been using clouds to describe design work for several decades, so the concept is far from being new. What is new is the movement of the cloud description from the development side to the public side. In the design workspace, clouds are used to describe future development features, and also the type of outside services that may be employed in the design.

Amazon thought that bringing cloud computing to its customers would expand its product offerings and also help retain existing customers for many years to come. So far, it appears to be working as planned even though there have been some service outages, but with any new service offering there are bound to be some bumps in the road that come up unexpectedly.

Hyperic, the company that designed the "CloudStatus" web site, fully understands the cloud computing concept and has formed their business plans around the aspects of IT services described as clouds. The concept does have some compelling ideas, which include lowering the costs of software support, using proven concepts others are using, and creating the opportunity to simplify the interfaces by eliminating custom interfaces and the costs associated with their design.

Hyperic had this to say about cloud computing: "Cloud computing is a system of technologies and services that have commoditized (sic) IT to make it more readily consumable, scalable, and cost-effective for everyone. It has leveraged the innovation and expertise of Internet giants like Amazon and Google, and is making it accessible to anyone with the next big idea. It removes the investment in physical and human resources to scale up a business. It affords more folks to try their ideas and vet its worth in the market. It also affords these same businesses to scale out as quickly as their business demands. Cloud computing, same as open source, is a way to package products and services to ease adoption so everyone benefits."

In summary, you can expect cloud computing, as a term used to describe outside services, to be around for many decades to come. It will provide a more robust platform for future designs as we move forward toward a more connected world environment.

Response to "Hallway Medicine"
By The Alchemist

Who would have ever “thunk” that Hallway Medicine is safe and good for the economy by simply moving patients to corridors while waiting for a room as a way to unclutter ERs? Just peruse this screen shot for the top 20 countries from the WHO Report Annex Table 1: Health System Attainment and Performance Ranked by Eight Measures (click to enlarge).

Anyone would agree that the U.S. is the leading country for health expenditures and proudly number one for the Responsiveness Level for Attainment of Goals. I knew that Management by Objectives would prove successful:

image

The reader can formulate their selective opinions on what are important metrics to define the U.S. Health System. Hint: The Middle East is not too impressed with U.S. ranking in Health Systems around the world but they will buy our products.

Text Ads


RECENT COMMENTS

  1. Give ophthalmology a break. There aren’t many specialties that can do most of their diagnosis with physical examination in the…

Founding Sponsors


 

Platinum Sponsors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gold Sponsors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS Webinars

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