Quote Of The Year

Timeless Quotes - Sadly The Late Paul Shetler - "Its not Your Health Record it's a Government Record Of Your Health Information"

or

H. L. Mencken - "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Weekly Overseas Health IT Links - 14 May, 2011.

Here are a few I have come across this week.

Note: Each link is followed by a title and a paragraph or two. For the full article click on the link above title of the article. Note also that full access to some links may require site registration or subscription payment.

-----

http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP20110044.html

The Benefits of Health Information Technology

A Review of the Recent Literature Shows Predominantly Positive Results

Published In: Health Affairs, v. 30, no. 3, Mar. 2011, p. 464-471

An unprecedented federal effort is under way to boost the adoption of electronic health records and spur innovation in health care delivery. We reviewed the recent literature on health information technology to determine its effect on outcomes, including quality, efficiency, and provider satisfaction. We found that 92 percent of the recent articles on health information technology reached conclusions that were positive overall.

-----

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/QUA-265552/Berwick-Announces-CMS-Final-ValueBased-Purchasing-Rules

Berwick Announces CMS Final Value-Based Purchasing Rules

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media , April 29, 2011

Hospitals now have the final set of Value Based Purchasing rules governing how they will be paid based on quality performance, which will weight clinical measures at 70% and patient experience measures at 30%.

In a news briefing on the rules Friday, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Donald Berwick, MD, called the new rules "a historic change. For the first time, hospitals around the country are going be paid for inpatient acute services based on healthcare quality, not on just on the quantity of services they provide. "

Beginning in fiscal year 2013 hospitals will continue to receive payment from Medicare, but will receive an across-the-board cut in reimbursement of 1%. That amount, estimated at about $850 million, will be used to reward improvement and achievement under the program.

-----
http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/ama-phr-guide-health-level-seven-personal-health-record-42415-1.html

Guide Governs Transferring PHRs

HDM Breaking News, May 3, 2011

Standards development organization Health Level Seven International has released an implementation guide for transferring a personal health record between health plans. The transfer is necessary when a member with a health plan-sponsored PHR changes to another insurer.

The transfer is done using HL7's Continuity of Care Document and the ASC X12 275 patient information transaction standard. The exchanged documents are known as Plan to Plan Personal Health Record or P2PPHR documents, and can be transferred individually or in batches if an employer changes health plans.

-----

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/TEC-265636/Large-Patient-Information-Breach-List-Climbs-to-265

Large Patient Information Breach List Climbs to 265

Dom Nicastro, for HealthLeaders Media , May 3, 2011

The number of entities reporting breaches of unsecured PHI affecting at least 500 individuals to the Office for Civil Rights, the enforcer of the HIPAA privacy and security rules, reached 265 as of Friday.

By the middle of March, 249 entities had reported breaches, meaning a spike of 16 in the last 45 days, behind the pace established since OCR began posting the breaches more than a year ago.

OCR, per a provision in the Health Informational Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, began posting the entities and information about their large breaches in February 2010. In 15 months, an average of about 18 reports per month – or a little more than one every other day -- has surfaced on the OCR website.

-----

E-Health Records Produce Some Environmental Benefits

Digitized patient record and medical imaging systems consume more electricity, but reduce paper use, patient travel, reliance on plastics used in traditional X-ray films and other waste, said a Kaiser Permanente report.

By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, InformationWeek

May 04, 2011

URL: http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/EMR/229402711

Enterprise wide use of e-health records has a neutral to slightly positive impact on the environment, according to a new report released by Kaiser Permanente, which recently studied the "environmental footprint" of its own KP HealthConnect electronic patient records and its KP HealthConnect picture archiving and communication systems.

The environmental study of KP HealthConnect, which contains records for 8.7 million patients and is used by thousands of clinicians in 454 KP medical offices and 36 hospitals in nine states and Wash. D.C., found that the digital records eliminated about 1,000 tons of paper records while KP's digital medical imaging saved about 68 tons of X-ray film.

-----

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110504/NEWS/305049987/

AHRQ examines IT's impact on drug management

By Joseph Conn

Posted: May 4, 2011 - 12:00 pm ET

Authors of a report published online by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and based on a review of professional literature from 428 articles have concluded that the role of health information technology in medication management is well-studied and “holds the promise of improved processes,” but “clinical and economics studies and the understanding of sustainability issues are lacking.”

For example, as many as 174 studies reviewed by researchers addressed the role of e-prescribing in medication management, particularly IT systems for clinical decision support and computerized physician order entry in hospitals and in ambulatory care. They indicate there is substantial evidence that “care processes such as medication errors, time for tasks, workflow and knowledge, skills, and attitudes can be improved” with the use of technology, according to the report.

-----

http://www.fierceemr.com/story/pediatricians-call-ehrs-support-medical-home-model/2011-05-04

Pediatricians call for EHRs to support medical home model

May 4, 2011 — 8:54pm ET | By Janice Simmons

The establishment of family-centered medical homes for children will need to be backed up by timely, secure, and comprehensive electronic health records (EHRs), the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) Council on Clinical IT says in a newly released policy statement.

The medical home "must centralize and support the primary care relationship between the patient/family and healthcare provider through well-designed and well-implemented health information management," AAP said in its statement, which appears both online and in the May issue of the journal Pediatrics. For pediatricians, the core of such systems will be a "lifelong EHR."

-----

http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/personalized-treatment-protocols-can-be-developed-ehr-data/2011-05-03

Personalized treatment protocols can be developed with EHR data

May 3, 2011 — 5:48pm ET | By Ken Terry

Individualized treatment guidelines can help doctors prevent more heart attacks and strokes than they can by using population-based protocols, according to a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers found that doctors can develop these guidelines for their patients by using computerized risk calculators integrated with their electronic health records.

The study compared the effectiveness and the costs of the individualized guidelines vs. the national consensus protocols for treating hypertension. By applying their approach to data from a long-term study of 15,800 U.S. residents--of whom 2,700 were eligible for this study--the researchers estimated that individualized treatment could prevent 43 percent more heart attacks and strokes than the national recommendations at the same cost.

-----

http://www.govhealthit.com/news/panel-weighs-one-year-delay-stage-2-meaningful-use

Panel weighs delaying stage 2 of meaningful use

May 04, 2011 | Mary Mosquera

An advisory panel that is shaping measures for the next stage of meaningful use has suggested delaying stage 2 by one year until 2014 as an option to allow vendors and healthcare providers more time to update and roll out more advanced technology.

It is one of the approaches for dealing with the compressed timeline for establishing stage 2 of meaningful use of certified electronic health records (EHRs), but it would come at the expense of early adopters.

The delay option would primarily affect healthcare providers that have met meaningful use in 2011, according to members of the meaningful use work group, a panel of the Health IT Policy Committee.

“This is a compromise,” said Dr. Paul Tang, the work group chair. It doesn’t delay the overall program.

-----

http://hitechwatch.com/blog/adoption-phrs-may-be-key-ehr-transition

Adoption of PHRs may be key to EHR transition

By Jeff Rowe, Editor

For the sake of discussion, let’s say the feds put the cart before the horse in focusing the HITECH program almost exclusively on the adoption of EHRs.

We’re not saying that’s necessarily the case, but a recent article on the state of Personal Health Records (PHRs) makes us think that somehow, policymakers need to figure out how to get the cart and the horse to, well, run alongside each other.

The fact is, as one analyst puts it, “PHRs are really all over the map.”

There are arguably too many different approaches to PHRs, and more needs to be done to make them more than simply digital data cabinets.

-----

http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_4465aead-5cca-5766-bf65-80f7e96e8273.html

Electronic medical records sharing expected to aid patient care efficiency

DECATUR - With electronic health records systems being implemented and improved at hospitals, clinics and medical offices throughout the nation, improving the flow of information among organizations has become increasingly important.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology indicates that initiatives are under way to develop a nationwide infrastructure that establishes, regulates and protects the use and exchange of electronic health information.

States and regions also are creating and improving health information exchanges, or HIEs, for sharing information.

-----

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/telemedicine-left-out-meaningful-use-experts-say

Telemedicine left out of meaningful use, experts say

May 04, 2011 | Mike Miliard, Managing Editor

TAMPA, FL – "Historically, telehealth hasn't received the attention that it's deserved from the federal government," says Neal Neuberger, executive director of the Institute for e-Health Policy and president of Health Tech Strategies. A case in point is the government's meaningful use program.

Neuberger spoke with Healthcare IT News after participating in a panel discussion at the American Telemedicine Association's annual conference earlier this week. The discussion, titled EHRs and Telemedicine, also included Yael Harris, director of the Office of Health IT and Quality at Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and Christina Thielst, a hospital administrator and independent IT consultant from California.

-----

http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/1056003/Accurate_Measures.html

Accurate Measures?

From: The Hospitalist, May 2011

Despite challenges, CMS focuses quality efforts on processes, outcomes

by Bryn Nelson, PhD

For SHM’s official position on issues like healthcare reform, value-based purchasing, and medical errors, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

Everyone’s talking about quality. Encouraging high-value care is one of the stated objectives of the value-based purchasing program being rolled out by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). It’s also the subject of a new report to Congress from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care” (www.healthcare.gov/center/reports/quality03212011a.html). For its part, SHM is placing added emphasis on a range of mentored quality-improvement (QI) initiatives for hospitalists.

Amid the flurry of activity, researchers are still attempting to address a central question that could determine the success or failure of many such efforts: How do you accurately measure what constitutes high-quality care?

-----

http://govhealthit.com/news/onc-himss-team-help-grads-find-it-jobs

ONC, HIMSS to help grads find IT work

May 05, 2011 | Government Health IT Staff

As health IT work ramps up across the country, the HIMSS Career Services Center aims to make it easier for new graduates of the Office of the National Coordinator's HIT Workforce Development programs to find jobs via HIMSS JobMine with new access from the ONC website and enhanced offerings.

HIMSS will also add a section dedicated to the ONC workforce program, where graduates can post resumes and find health IT positions posted by potential employers.

Educating health IT professionals to help providers implement electronic health records, the ONC HIT Workforce Development programs target mid-career healthcare or information technology professionals who have received specialized health IT training. They include: Community College Consortia; Curriculum Development Centers Program; and the Program of Assistance for University-Based Training.

-----

http://www.govhealthit.com/news/fda-fcc-accelerate-wireless-device-path-market

FCC, FDA pave the way for wireless medical devices

May 02, 2011 | Mary Mosquera

The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission are working together and separately to bring forward innovative wireless technologies and devices for health care faster.

Both agencies aim to engage with innovators earlier and more often to streamline the process of licensing a product or bringing it to market.

One of the goals for both agencies is making sure that the proliferation of wireless devices that will be integrated in hospital work can operate together and with other equipment, such as an infusion pump next to the patient, and not interfere with each other’s activities and data transmissions.

-----

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/top-10-ways-engage-patients-it?page=0,1

Top 10 ways to engage patients with IT

May 03, 2011 | Healthcare IT News Staff

Top ten ways to engage patients with IT

1. Your patients are already getting and using health information online – shouldn't they be getting more from you? The report suggests providing patients with online health tools such as reminders, instructions and educational information about their diagnosis and treatments.

2. Patients are looking to connect with others about healthcare – isn't it time for you to enter this dialogue in a meaningful way? Social media is a key way to do this while building your brand, says the authors of the report. They recommend trying sites such as Facebook, Healthgrades, ICYou, Patientslikeme and Twitter.

-----

http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/EHI/6849/new-body-will-lead-nhs-it

New body will lead NHS IT

5 May 2011 Daloni Carlisle

Structures to support NHS and informatics nationally and regionally are beginning to emerge, with NHS London establishing an IT strategy group and the Department of Health sounding out the NHS IT community on its requirements.

In March, the London Programme for IT established a 2015 Strategy Group to work with London trusts as NHS London winds down.

The DH, meanwhile, has been holding meetings for some months with NHS IT staff in trusts, primary care trusts and health informatics services to gather views about the future support needed.

-----

http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2011/05/kenya-confident-on-e-health-services/

Kenya confident on e-health services

As Kenyan telecom operators attempt to move toward alternative revenue, health services have quickly taken top priority. Safaricom and Telkom Kenya announced they were embedding health services into their product offerings.

It is not an altruistic endeavor however, as both companies hope the move will see their profit margins increase, after prices wars have devastated the countries telecom sector in recent months.

This new battle has analysts worried that it could quickly become a heated struggle between companies if efforts are not made to ensure price wars on e-health services do not begin.

-----

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/perspectives/2011/physicianpatient-email-why-arent-we-using-a-lowtech-tool-to-boost-quality.aspx

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Physician-Patient E-Mail: Why Aren't We Using a 'Low-Tech' Tool To Boost Quality?

Like many Americans, I take advantage of the conveniences that the Internet makes possible. This past month, for example, after filing my taxes electronically, I booked an airline ticket online, completed the teaching of an online course, purchased several items online and reserved a table at a local restaurant online. Despite these conveniences, I, like most Americans, do not have the regular option of communicating with my physician online -- which could potentially save me, my health insurer and my physician time and/or money. Incidentally, recent data suggest that I am in the majority of Americans who are interested in being able to e-mail their doctor.

Most physicians do not e-mail with their patients, and this situation is not surprising. Policymakers and health care leaders interested in improving our health care system have focused more attention on using health IT for boosting effectiveness (e.g. evidence-based decision support) and efficiency (e.g. reducing redundant tests, improving use of existing data through health information exchange) rather than for issues pertaining to patient centeredness (i.e. things patients want). We have spent comparatively little time thinking about ways to make physician-patient e-mails a common occurrence in our health care system.

-----

http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/blogs/onc-office-of-the-national-coordinator-mostashari-blog-42386-1.html

An Open Letter to National HIT Coordinator Farzad Mostashari

Joseph Goedert

Health Data Management Blogs, April 29, 2011

Dear Dr. Mostashari: Welcome to your new post! You were a good pick and you'll do a good job. But here's some unsolicited advice on how to do even better.

You and your predecessors are all physicians, very familiar with the industry yet very unfamiliar at the same time. No ONC head has lengthy experience in a standalone community hospital or small practice independent of academia or government. It's a different world and most of the industry lives in this different world. Your advisors on the HIT Policy and Standards Committees also don't live in this different world. It's long past time to shake up the committees and give the vast majority of the industry more representation.

-----

http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/american-medical-association-tutorials-physicians-ama-42416-1.html

AMA Online Tutorials Cover I.T. Adoption

HDM Breaking News, May 3, 2011

The American Medical Association has introduced a series of six online tutorials to help physicians adopting health information technologies.

The tutorials, which can be credited for continuing medical education, last about eight minutes each. They cover adoption strategy, needs assessment, workflow analysis, product selection, training and implementation.

-----

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110503/NEWS/110509996

CMS finalizes new rule on telemedicine

By Jessica Zigmond

Posted: May 3, 2011 - 12:00 pm ET

A final rule (PDF) from the CMS will change the process hospitals use to credential and grant privileges to physicians and other practitioners who provide care through telemedicine.

According to the CMS, the agency's regulations before the final rule had required hospitals—including critical-access hospitals—to grant practice privileges to remote-site physicians and other practitioners who were already credentialed in distant-site facilities after they considered qualifications on a practitioner-by-practitioner basis. As a result, those practitioners could not provide care through telemedicine services unless they had been granted privileges by their home hospital and the remote hospital or critical access hospital where the telemedicine services were delivered.

-----

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/syracuse_hospital_network_will.html

Syracuse hospital network will let health care providers share medical records

Published: Tuesday, May 03, 2011, 5:00 AM
By James T. Mulder / The Post-Standard

Syracuse, NY -- The first stretch of an information highway that lets Syracuse hospitals swap electronic patient records is open for business after more than five years of planning.

HealtheConnections, the group operating the health information exchange, announced Monday that Community General, Crouse, St. Joseph’s and Upstate University hospitals as well as the Laboratory Alliance of Central New York LLC are connected to the new digital network.

The group said the exchange allows authorized participating health care providers to securely access patients’ consolidated medical histories for better care. HealtheConnections said it provides security protections with a sophisticated encrypted system. The group is working to connect 15 other community hospitals across Central and Northern New York.

-----

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110503/NEWS/305039989

Supreme Court hearings stir NEJM reaction

By Joseph Conn

Posted: May 3, 2011 - 12:00 pm ET

Three top editors of the New England Journal of Medicine have weighed-in on the controversial prescription drug data-mining debate in an April 27 online editorial, coming out foursquare in support of laws in three states seeking to control the use of physician-identified prescription data used in marketing drugs to those physicians.

On April 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sorrell vs. IMS Health, et al, pitting the attorney general and the Vermont Legislature against the pharmaceutical data-gathering and data analysis industry. The fate of the Vermont statute and similar laws on the books in Maine and New Hampshire likely hang in the balance of what is shaping up to be a landmark decision by the high court in a case pitting states' rights to regulate the commercial use of patient information and what the data-mining industry purports to be the constitutionally protected free speech rights of corporations.

-----

http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/onc-seeks-vendor-develop-test-electronic-consent/2011-04-29

ONC seeks vendor to develop, test electronic consent

April 29, 2011 — 4:27pm ET | By Ken Terry

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) is seeking a vendor to develop and test methods of obtaining electronic patient consent for the use of personal data in health information exchanges (HIE).

The vendor who wins the contract will have to find a way to involve patients in the development, use and evaluation of the "e-consent" system. The winner also must develop a method to inform patients of their privacy choices in clinical settings. To pilot its approach, the vendor would partner with providers engaged in health information exchange.

-----

http://www.fierceemr.com/story/patients-show-positive-response-ehrs/2011-04-28

Patients show positive response to EHRs

April 28, 2011 — 10:15am ET | By Janice Simmons

Patients felt even more comfortable than physicians when it came to using an electronic health record (EHR) system--and also felt that the information contained in the record was more accurate when they physically saw it being entered electronically, according to a survey by Tampa-based Sage Healthcare Division.

Overall, the study found that more than 81 percent of patients and 62 percent of physicians had a positive perception of electronic documentation. About 45 percent of patients interviewed said they had a "very positive" perception of their physician or clinician documenting patient care with a computer or other electronic device.

-----

http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/new-public-private-community-aims-help-build-nhin/2011-05-02

New Public-Private community aims to help build NHIN

May 2, 2011 — 9:11am ET | By Ken Terry

Two years after the Office of the National Coordinator of Health IT (ONC) released an open-source version of its CONNECT software for linking to the National Health Information Network (NHIN), a new nonprofit organization--the Alembic Foundation--is assembling a private-public community to start building a critical mass of CONNECT users. This week, Alembic's Aurion Project will release the latest version of the CONNECT application, Aurion 4.0, and participants in the Aurion community will finalize a charter and a governance structure.

In the long run, this project may have a considerable impact on the development of the NHIN. And, if it does, it will be in large measure because of its emphasis on collaboration between the public and private sectors.

Fifteen private-sector organizations and a consortium representing 26 federal agencies helped create CONNECT in 2007 and 2008. David Riley, chair of the Alembic Foundation, was one of the outside consultants who worked on this project; Vanessa Manchester, Alembic's chief operating officer, was another.

-----

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110502/NEWS/305029988/

Researchers analyze social media as a disease-monitoring tool

By Melanie Evans

Posted: May 2, 2011 - 11:45 am ET

A project coordinated by Children's Hospital Boston researchers found that social-networking tools, in conjunction with the use of personal health records, could be valuable in the monitoring of a chronic disease.

Dr. Kenneth Mandl, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Children's Hospital Informatics Program's Intelligent Health Laboratory, and Elissa Weitzman, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and of adolescent medicine at the hospital, were co-principal investigators for the project.

-----

http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/health-information-exchange-hie-specifications-hl7-ihe-health-story-42380-1.html

Balloting Open on HIE Standards

HDM Breaking News, April 29, 2011

Industry stakeholders are invited to vote between now and May 9 on proposed health information exchange specifications.

The specifications result from the HL7/IHE Health Story Implementation Guide Consolidation Project. The Office of the National Coordinated in January launched the initiative to consolidate and harmonize required health information exchange specifications that support meaningful use of electronic health record systems.

-----

http://healthcare.tmcnet.com/topics/healthcare/articles/168131-mhealth-pushing-patients-toward-perfecting-own-practice-healthcare.htm

April 26, 2011

Mhealth is Pushing Patients Toward Perfecting Own Practice of Healthcare

By Deborah Hirsch, TMCnet Contributor

Mobile healthcare technologies are helping consumers manage their own wellness, chronic diseases and possibly even saving their lives.

At a time when 17 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare and healthcare itself is actually growing 2 percent faster than the GDP, mobile healthcare companies believe they have the answers for making it more affordable and convenient to stay and get well

Coupled with an aging population and soaring levels of chronic diseases, mobile healthcare now provides potential for managing healthcare costs, as well as allowing the patient himself to keep track of blood sugar, heart rate and other vital signs critical to staying well.

-----

http://govhealthit.com/news/va-dod-will-incorporate-open-source-joint-ehr

VA, DOD to use open source in EHR

April 28, 2011 | Mary Mosquera

The secretaries of the Veterans Affairs and Defense Departments will meet May 2 to determine their next steps toward developing a single electronic health record for the two agencies, according a senior VA official.

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and DOD Secretary Robert Gates agreed in March on a common technical architecture, data and services and exchange standards for the joint system.

But the two departments will move incrementally to a joint electronic health record (EHR) system to avoid disrupting clinicians treating patients at their medical centers, said Roger Baker, VA CIO.

A single electronic health record system has been advocated for years, but its development is finally gaining traction.

-----

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/features/2011/stakeholders-calculate-the-possibility-of-a-health-care-digital-divide.aspx

Monday, May 02, 2011

Stakeholders Calculate the Possibility of a Health Care Digital Divide

by Michael Pogachar, iHealthBeat Associate Editor

In the March issue of Health Affairs, researchers from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT presented results of a health IT meta-analysis. Their research looked at previous studies on health IT's effect on access to care, patient satisfaction and other factors.

The researchers reported that 92% of the 154 studies they reviewed reached overall positive conclusions on the effect of health IT.

One of the outlier studies looked at health IT implementation at a rural hospital. According to the study, "The hospital was hindered by a lack of clinical leadership, staff skepticism, turnover in the executive team, an overly aggressive schedule and a vendor whose products were not ready on time."

-----

Enjoy!

David.

New and Much Updated Version of PCEHR Submission. Again Comments Welcome!

Submission to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing.

Topic: The NEHTA developed Personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) Draft Concept of Operations (ConOps for Short)

Date May, 2011

Submissions Due May, 31, 2011

Address for submissions:

E-mail

ehealth@health.gov.au

Postal Mail

PCEHR Feedback
MDP 1005
GPO Box 9848
Canberra ACT 2606

Submission Author:

Dr David G More BSc, MB, BS, PhD, FANZCA, FCICM, FACHI.

Author’s Background. The author of this submission is an experienced specialist clinician who has been working in the field of e-Health for over 20 years. I have undertaken major consulting and advisory work for many private and public sector organisations including both DoHA and NEHTA.

Previous Submission

I previously provided a Submission on the PCEHR proposal to NHHRC in May, 2009 and the views expressed in that submission remain my position despite the work undertaken by DoHA and NEHTA since.

This submission is available here:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/309-interim/$FILE/309%20-%20Submission%20-%20Dr%20David%20More.pdf

Executive Summary of Submission.

The ConOps proposal provided by NEHTA is challenging document which presents a highly academic view of an Electronic Health Record and Information Sharing system which has a significant degree of Patient Control. This ambitious document contains significant flaws, misconceptions, and ill-advised positions that have taken NEHTA’s very strong earlier Shared or Individual EHR proposals and seen the ideas contained within distorted to create a proposal which at once does not achieve the possible benefits of the earlier proposals while being essentially useless at a clinical level.

I believe that in the presently proposed form the PCEHR is unlikely to be adopted or used by either consumers or clinicians and will become a very expensive failure to add to an existing perception of eHealth non-delivery in Australia.

A number of key issues force me to the negative view of the PCEHR proposal. In summary:

  • High Quality Data: The PCEHR relies on there being quality, reliable, current and trustworthy information available to be fed into the proposed PCEHR System. This data would be mediated by a health care professional at the point of care. This is a flawed premise as it is highly unlikely a health care professional has time to “improve” and “assure” the quality of information being fed into the PCEHR. Investments should be made in “source systems” to improve the quality of data within those systems - only when this precondition is demonstrably met and we are assured we have clinical information that is really ‘fit for sharing’ should this be considered for the safety of all.
  • Patient “Opt In”: A key principle is that patients will “opt in” to the system. Without debating the unlikely realisation of tangible benefits from the EHR due to limited (or anything less than near complete) patient take up – a clearly defined privacy and security framework which is both understandable and acceptable to patient groups needs to be articulated. Current proposals (including the use of Patient “Keys” or PUK codes) to control access to patient records are poorly articulated and require consultation before solution delivery commences.
  • There is an extensive focus on the “how” of the solution as opposed to the “what”. A well articulated series of functional requirements from the Commonwealth would provide vendors with a target provision to design solutions to. As currently drafted, the ConOps transfers a considerable portion of risk to the Commonwealth. In the event that the PCEHR does not perform or function as hoped for by the Commonwealth, it is unlikely that the Commonwealth could hold the vendor(s) liable a much of the solution design has been performed by the Commonwealth within the ConOps.

I have chosen not the discuss the consultation processes that have surrounded the PCEHR proposal as I am aware some of those who have been closely involved have developed submissions in this area. Suffice to say that the secrecy that has pervaded nearly every aspect of the development of the ConOps has resulted in a document which is unlikely to succeed and places the future of eHealth within Australia at considerable risk.

A total re-consideration of virtually all aspects of this current ConOps offers the best chance to claim success from an otherwise doomed set of proposals.

Note: I have provided a set of links to postings on my blog which amplify and provide the background to most of the material provided here. See References.

Background to the PCEHR Proposal.

As a result of a series of recommendations in the Final Report to Government of National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) in 2009 the subsequent Commonwealth Budget allocated almost half a billion dollars over two years to make a PCEHR available to all citizens who wanted one by July 2012.

As the PCEHR concept has evolved it has morphed into a conceptual Health Summary and then a series of Event Summaries. The Health Summary contents are intended to be the basic individual demographic details and the information that is normally held - either electronically or on paper - in the General Practitioners Summary Record. This would include allergies, regular medications, key elements of history and current diagnoses. The Event Summaries are envisaged to be such things as a set of pathology results, referral letters and so on.

The idea is that the patient will be in control of this information and will, if they agree and consent, make the information held in this record available to clinicians caring for the patient.

The patient PCEHR record is to be held by a PCEHR system - presumably run by the Commonwealth Government - which will be accessible via a web portal for a clinician, with permission, to review. At a later date the patient will also be able to contribute their personal information and comments should they choose. The system is apparently intended to be a lifelong record which will be accumulated over time.

At present the system is intended to be available for patients who choose to have a PCEHR to register for access by July 2012 - now just 14 months away. The system is presently planned to operate in an ‘opt-in’ fashion where an individual takes a positive decision to register for and establish a PCEHR.

Key Topics Addressed in This Submission.

1. Proposed System Architecture

The PCEHR is a system which will operate in parallel to the systems used by professional care providers and will contain a partial sub-set of the information held in those local systems.

As currently envisaged it is unclear what the clinical purpose of the PCEHR is. It is not a highly refined abstract of that clinical information (needed for emergency care) nor a complete longitudinal record to replace what is currently used by those providers who have local electronic records.

By falling in this inconclusive middle ground the planned record has no clear user audience and does not seem to have any real function and purpose. The proposal brings with it some almost insurmountable issues around the currency, reliability, and quality of the information held within the PCEHR system and this situation will mean it will be poorly used. Clinico-legal liability and related issues around the possible erroneous interpretation of data held within the system will also mean a lack of trust and adoption of the system by many clinicians.

2. Sustainability of Proposal

It was never likely that a two year half billion dollar national e-Health program initiated from what was essentially a ‘standing start’ would be able to demonstrate useful outcome in the time allocated - as has been demanded by Minister Roxon. Globally we can see that every other national program has taken at least 3 times that period (i.e. six years) to even begin to show results of the scale identified by the Commonwealth.

The application of such politically driven deadlines, with no commitment to continued investment and funding adds substantially to the risks of the program as it distorts quite unreasonably what is being attempted and what would be planned - and have a higher chance of success - in more realistic circumstances.

It is notable that the funding for the PCEHR still has not been confirmed in any amount beyond June, 30, 2012 - when even the Budget papers make it clear very little will be available for clinicians and other healthcare professional users.

3. The Politics of Names and Actual Reality.

The issue here is that Shared EHRs (as described on Page 108 and 109 of the Conops) are not analogous to the PCEHR in any way. Each of these initiatives are, in fact, Shared EHR systems intended to be used by clinicians and not by patients. There is NO experience anywhere in the world with the model proposed in the ConOps. Indeed, I have often been told by people internal to NEHTA that there is a deliberate desire within NEHTA To construct something “different” to the rest of the world, and that people are chastised if their work bears too many similarities to work from elsewhere.

The statements made at the top of page 108 are deliberately distorting of the reality that the NEHTA proposed IEHR and the earlier HealthConnect Shared EHR are very different from what is proposed with the PCEHR:

“The Strategy identified a national Individual Electronic Health Record (IEHR) System as a high priority. The Strategy envisaged the IEHR as:

A secure, private electronic record of an individual’s key health history and care information. The record would provide a consolidated and summarised record of an individual’s health information for consumers to access and for use as a mechanism for improving care coordination between care provider teams. [AHMC2008]

Since the Strategy was originally developed, the term ‘PCEHR’ is now preferred as it better aligns with the perceived recommendations from the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission which recommended that a national approach to electronic health records should be driven by ‘the principle of striving to achieve a person-centred health system.’ [NHRR2009]. In reality, “patient controlled” and “person centred” are not the same thing. The “patient controlled” moniker appears to be a knee jerk reaction to anticipated patient concerns – which have not materialised, and could be resolved by a considered approach to privacy and security. Indeed, evidence from around the world is that patients are not overly concerned and that a relatively small number express desires to “opt out” of such systems. This evidence has not been picked up on by NEHTA or the Commonwealth.

In 2010, the Government has invested 466.7 million in the first release of a PCEHR System.”

To suggest they are the same or even quite similar is just dishonest. Equally it is dishonest to claim the IEHR was a high priority in the National Strategy - it simply was not.

It is also quite surprising to see NEHTA claim consultations on HealthConnect which were conducted 5+ years ago and many of the other consultation processes cited on Page 103 bear any relevance to the PCEHR proposal. They do not.

4. Lack of Evidence Regarding Benefits.

Again this is an area where both NEHTA and the Department of Health have been less than frank with the public.

All the modelling undertaken by NEHTA and DoHA has indicated that it is providing clinicians with reliable information at the point of care (for medication management and so on) and providing clinical decision support is where the major benefits from e-Health can be obtained. However what we see in the ConOps, buried on page 18, is:

“2.8.1 Clinical decision support

The PCEHR System will not provide clinical decision support services. It is intended that the PCEHR System will provide information to help drive clinical decision support algorithms and the industry and healthcare professions will take the lead on delivering clinical decision support services.”

The point needs to be made that Clinical Decision Support (CDS) can only be as good as the clinical information it is basing its decision making on, the quality of the actual CDS implementation and the quality of the knowledge base which is driving its capability. The issue raised above regarding clinical data quality is also relevant here.

No business case exists to justify the PCEHR. (NEHTA did develop one a year or so back for the IEHR, but that is not really in any way comparable as it is quite different in architecture and intent.) This alone should cause some alarm. At best we have very sloppy thinking, at worse we have downright deception.

Coupled to this is the insistence of following a model of “opt in”, where the potential benefits of the PCEHR (especially with regard to epidemiology and public health) will not be realised before there is a critical mass that is representative of the entire Australian population.

5. Consent Model.

At present it is proposed that consumers will have the option of signing up at a PCEHR for the proposed electronic record as of July 1, 2012. Signing up will be totally voluntary i.e. the system is conceived as an ‘opt-in’ system. Additionally, at any point the consumer will be able to inactivate their PCEHR as well as decide with parts of the PCEHR will be accessible to whom. As an example a spouse might have complete access to the others record but the same consumer may choose to make some sections of the record inaccessible to their GP. Equally the consumer can make quite the reverse decision. These decision can be changed at any point.

The problem with this ‘opt-in’ approach is that it is only successful if there is sufficient utility and value provided by the PHR to stimulate adoption. The functionality that has been found to be most valued by consumers include being able to arrange appointments, request prescription repeats and access a secure e-mail messaging system to seek information and explanations related to their care. Consumers also find it useful to have access to test results and other information sources.

Sadly the first mentioned three functions are not planned in any proposed release of the PCEHR and provision of results information is likely to take significant time being dependent on HI Service implementation, NASH implementation and system modification on the part of diagnostic system providers. The net result of this approach would seem to suggest a very low adoption and use of the PCEHR system is highly likely.

Additionally there seem to be a very limited number of circumstances when a practitioner would want to access an individual’s PCEHR given that most of the information held in the PCEHR, other than the consumer contributed material, will already be held in the provider’s clinical system.

The convoluted plans for the consent model and the potential incompleteness of what may be there when access is granted will greatly limit clinician’s interest in obtaining access to the consumer PCEHR.

Overall, at best, significant usage of the PCEHR will take many years to evolve and the potentially transformative benefits of other architecture and consent models will come very late if at all.

6. The Lack of Appropriate National Governance and Leadership in Australian E-Health.

In order for any National E-Health Program - such as the PCEHR - to be successful there are a number of critical success factors that appear to need to be in place based on international experience. These include top level political commitment at Cabinet level, stability of long term and adequate funding, expert national leadership, appropriate consultative and governance frameworks and an agreed national vision and consensus on the way forward.

I would contend that Australia is presently lacking most of these critical success factor with but 2 years funding agreed, division of responsibility for the PCEHR between NEHTA and the Commonwealth Department of Health, no single point accountability for PCEHR delivery and a forward plan which essentially ignores the agreed National E-Health Strategy which was approved in 2008.

A related issue around governance which has not been addressed - and which will probably need legislation to totally clarify - is how legal liability for the creation and use of information contained in the PCEHR is to be handled. Clearly, unless there are appropriate protections in place, no responsible practitioner want to be exposed to any additional personal risk due the use or reliance on PCEHR information.

A key lesson learned from EHR experiences around the world is that lack of clinical leadership causes national EHR programs to fail. With clinical leadership in place (and not academic technocrats) a clear functional requirement and need for the PCEHR can be defined. As of right now, the PCEHR ConOps defines a aspirational technology approach which a) has no obvious clinical benefits and b) has not been achieved on any scale anywhere in the world.

7. The Lack of A Trained Workforce and Plans To Develop Such Capability.

In July 2009 the Department of Health and Ageing received a Review of the Australian Health Informatics Workforce. This report said we did not have enough staff capability in the domain and that there was no apparent plan in place to correct the deficiency. As far as is presently know there has really been no significant progress in the two years since the report was produced, and the skills and capability gap remains and is probably worsening if the number of job vacancies advertised by NEHTA is any guide.

As for supporting a major national implementation of the scale of the PCEHR this is simply not possible.

8. Information Sources and Lack of Clinician Incentives

The ConOps document seems throughout to have as an underpinning assumption the belief that clinicians (and diagnostic service providers) will be so excited by the prospect of what is to be offered by the planned PCEHR that they will spend their own resources to provide the technology and work effort involved to populate the PCEHR with their in-house information on individual patients at their (the providers) expense.

With the ongoing financial pressure on diagnostic service providers and clinicians currently being applied by the Commonwealth Government such altruism in the context of such unproven and potentially time consuming technology is simply not going to happen without substantial financial carrots being provided.

It needs to be clearly appreciated that without enthusiastic co-operation of the clinical community the PCEHR will be simply a useless empty vessel which will be of no use to either consumer or clinician.

Additionally the current ConOps proposes requesting clinician review of result information followed by release of the result information to the PCEHR repository. Another step is required here, and that is processes around informing the consumer about the outcome of their investigation before release to the PCEHR. The workflow implications of these various steps - and hence additional practitioner cost - are unknown at present.

9. Privacy and Security Concerns

It is unnecessary for this document to rehearse the potential privacy and security issues that surround the creation of a national EHR system.

It is enough to say that a range of technical and privacy experts have expressed significant concerns that have yet to be properly addressed and that until such experts are reasonably satisfied appropriate controls are in place there is likely to be major resistance to the PCEHR proposal from such sections of the community.

An example of the sort of issue that has been rather ‘swept under the carpet’ in the ConOps are the arrangements to ensure that, with the PCEHR accessible over the Internet, that it is possible to definitively identify the consumer who is accessing their PCEHR, and that access is not being achieved by another, possibly malevolent citizen here or overseas via identity theft or the like.

Many of the vendor community have been working around the world on developing these models. I have identified and provided links to some of the public Points of View pulished by those organisations. These represent the “best thinking” in the industry around Privacy and Security – and none of these appear to have been taken on board by NEHTA in the construction of the ConOps. Indeed, NEHTA seems to have thought up innovative solutions to problems which have not been articulated. This is nugatory and disruptive and will lead to both non-delivery by the chosen vendors, and failure of adoption by patients and clinicians.

NEHTA simply admits they have not worked out how this is to be managed and so have no idea of the potential cost and effort involved - which may be very substantial indeed.

10. Clear Medico Political Rejection of The Present PCEHR Plans.

The following recent article from Computerworld - and many other similar remarks from both the key GP representative organisations make it clear they are not at all satisfied with the present approaches and plans. If these key stakeholders are anything less than very enthusiastic the likelihood of success with the PCEHR program is essentially zero.

Budget 2011: E-health communication trumps spending

Peak health groups have called for greater focus on standards, rather than spending, for effective e-health implementationg

Australia’s peak health industry bodies have warned of the Federal Government’s e-health solutions becoming “siloed” without greater attention to standards surrounding implementation of technology for doctors and practitioners.

Both the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) expect there to be little in the way of further funding for e-health initiatives in Tuesday’s federal budget, following the government’s $467 million pour in to personally controlled electronic health records (PCEHR) last year. The government has also committed nearly $400 million to subsidising telehealth services from 1 July next year.

Any health funding announced by federal treasurer, Wayne Swan, is expected to be put toward mental health schemes.

However, AMA federal vice president, Dr. Steve Hambleton, told Computerworld Australia that even without additional funding, the industry required a greater, whole-of-sector approach to the looming initiatives.

“E-health has grown up in isolation, we’ve got to start talking about protocols we can communicate to each other nationally,” he said. “NEHTA [National E-Health Transition Authority] is trying to do that, but hospitals have different software in each state and only recently have we started getting a single unique healthcare identifier.

“GP [general practitioner] software, which we’re all going to rely on ultimately to communicate, is all different and the way GPs use the same software is different so standards are really important otherwise we can’t get up and running.”

E-consultations with GPs were particularly important, as they required standardised software and hardware at both ends.

Royal College of General Practitioners (RACGP) e-health spokesperson, Dr. Nathan Pinskier, said standards were also required for implementation, change and adoption of the technology required. He warned a lack of protocols could ultimately silo e-health outcomes.

“Medicare Australia for example struggled to roll out its initiatives for a number of years until it adopted a more broad focus on a whole sector approach,” he said.

For the PCEHR program to have utility it must be embedded into existing software programs, Pinskier said, even once technical requirements have been locked down.

“If it requires practitioners to log out of one system and into another and then copy and paste information or transcribe information it’s not going to fly, if it’s embedded into existing technology so it’s one push at the end of a consultation subject to the patient consent we’re much more likely to have uptake.”

The full article is here:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/385928/budget_2011_e-health_communication_trumps_spending/

Concluding Remarks

I had planned to address the specific areas that NEHTA’s ConOps document suggested needed further review but after working through the ten points above there did not seem to be a great deal left to say.

The PCEHR proposal needs an insightful and pragmatic review and major revision to address the issues raised above. If this is not done the outcome is likely to be very bad indeed in my view and project failure has the possibility to set back implementation of evidenced based and useful e-Health by many years.

I urge that the Commonwealth takes on-board one of the lessons learned from around the world and publish a meaningful Functional Specification for what it wants the PCEHR to do – not how it wants it to do it. This can then be taken by vendors and Solution Architectures developed. As currently drafted the ConOps places delivery risk with the Commonwealth, is virtually undeliverable, and quantifying delivery achievement is unlikely to be possible.

References

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/05/alberta-in-canada-taking-rational.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/05/another-truth-we-need-to-have-nehta.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-seems-others-think-pcehr-is-nonsense.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-personally-controlled-electronic.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-any-chance-pcehr-dog-will-hunt.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/03/current-operational-plans-for-pcehr.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/03/here-is-model-of-pcehr-that-makes-lot.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/03/here-is-another-issue-we-need-to.html

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com/2011/01/some-dont-miss-comments-on-pcehr-post.html

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Alberta In Canada Taking A Rational Approach To E-Health.

Canada Infoway issued this press release a few days ago.

Albertans get connected to reliable health information

Improved provincial wait times reporting website also back on-line

May 4, 2011 (Edmonton, AB) - A new online health tool connecting Albertans to trusted health care information and services, other health tools and wellness management tips has been launched.

MyHealthAlberta's 2011 release is the first phase of the $33 million personal health portal (PHP) initiative. Once complete, the portal will give Albertans secure access to their personal health information through the province's electronic health record system.

"When it comes to your health, information can be very powerful," said Gene Zwozdesky, Minister of Health and Wellness. "By providing Albertans with access to health information that can help them stay well, we have created a very innovative way to strengthen primary care - one of the key strategies in our 5-Year Health Action Plan."

The site covers nearly 9,000 health topics including information on how to prepare for upcoming medical tests and doctors' visits, approved treatments and home remedies or tools to help determine if medical care may be needed. The content has been reviewed by a panel of Alberta physicians and other health providers to ensure the information is accurate and relevant.

"Effective primary care involves a team of health care providers and patients themselves are a vital part of that team," said Dr. Chris Eagle, President and CEO of Alberta Health Services. "This new tool will empower Albertans to be proactive in their health by supporting them to live well, manage their health conditions and care for their families."

Work is already underway on the next phase of MyHealthAlberta. When completed next year, it will provide secure log-in for individuals who want to track their own personal health data such as blood pressure readings, insulin levels, weight, immunizations, and much more.

"Millions of Canadians have diabetes, asthma, and other chronic diseases, conditions that are best managed when these individuals are informed, active participants in their health care", said Richard Alvarez, President and CEO, Canada Health Infoway. "MyHealthAlberta will provide Albertans with reliable information and resources to help manage chronic disease and promote wellness."

When the initiative is complete in 2015, MyHealthAlberta will provide individual access to Alberta's electronic health record system, a first for Canada.

Video walk-throughs that will help guide first-time visitors through the many features and tools on myhealth.alberta.ca can be found on the site's main page.

The new Alberta Wait Times Reporting website was also launched. The website shows wait time information on surgical procedures and diagnostic tests including MRI scans, cancer services and hip and knee replacement surgeries as reported by Alberta specialists and facilities. The site allows Albertans to search wait times by procedure, by specialist and by facility and will also show wait times trends over the most recent 13-month period for many procedures.

Information on the Alberta Wait Times Reporting website is compiled by Alberta Health and Wellness from data submitted by the province's urban and rural hospitals and diagnostic clinics.

Albertans interested in viewing the latest wait times for surgical and diagnostic procedures can find them at waittimes.alberta.ca.

The Alberta government is working to build a better Alberta by fostering economic growth, strengthening our health and education systems, investing in infrastructure, supporting safe and strong communities and ensuring a clean and healthy environment.

Contact details are found here:

https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/index.php/lang-en/about-infoway/news/news-releases/722

If you visit the various sites you will soon discover Alberta has been on a long journey with Health IT and that the focus of the work has been to get providers automated and communicating securely. With this work now pretty well advanced they are planning to get more information available to the public.

This is obviously the right sequencing of effort and investment. Pity we are seeing rather the reverse associated with insecure and ill-considered investment from our ‘health IT’ leaders with this PCEHR nonsense!

David.