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, November 09, 2013

Weekly Overseas Health IT Links - 10th November, 2013.

Note: Each link is followed by a title and few paragraphs. 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.
-----

5 Scary Things About Healthcare Quality

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media , October 31, 2013

Despite stringent hospital protocols and watchful government agencies, tragic preventable medical errors continue to severely harm or cause death to some 400,000 patients a year in this country.

Sometimes stories about medical harm are especially creepy and bizarre, especially when incidents that should by now have been made impossible happen anyway.
It gives me nightmares to think that despite the most diligent precautions by providers, wrong site surgeries, retained foreign objects and other tragic medical errors cause avoidable death to some 400,000 patients a year in this country. Still.
-----

3 in 4 Patients Want E-mail Consultations with Doctors

Ryan Chiavetta , November 1, 2013

Patient demand for e-mail consultations with physicians is high, but willingness to pay is low. Physicians practices are finding they can accommodate the preference for e-mail by identifying suitable billing strategies.

Research reveals a large discrepancy between how parents say they would like to communicate with pediatricians and how they actually do communicate with doctors. Three quarters (77%) of parents said they would seek out email advice from their doctors, but only 6% said that they are actually able to communicate with their doctors this way, a study released by the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health has found.
How physicians practices are accommodating the growing patient demand for e-mail consultations involves settling on a reimbursement strategy that makes financial sense and resolving questions about patient privacy concerns.
-----

Tapping the Telehealth Revolution for Advancing Health Care Reform

by Mario Gutierrez Friday, November 1, 2013
A fundamental goal of the Affordable Care Act is to achieve the greatest value for the health care resources spent while making lasting improvements in health. Telehealth can potentially make a valuable difference in achieving this goal, yet widespread adoption is greatly hindered by both policy and practice barriers. 
While telehealth is not new, dramatic improvements in the available communication technologies have made it more accessible than ever before. As such, we can no longer just talk about traditional "telemedicine" to describe the breadth of applications across the entire health care and public health spectrum. As health innovations advance, it will be essential for policymakers, private insurance payers and consumers to fully recognize telehealth's capacity to not only increase access to care, but also to make real improvements in both the quality and the efficiency of care. 
-----

3 ways healthcare orgs use big data

November 1, 2013 | By Julie Bird
Big data isn't all talk and buzzwords--CIO magazine recently highlighted several real-life cases of healthcare organizations that are using big data analytics to improve outcomes and reduce costs in a slideshow. The cases bridge traditional analytics and big data pushes with "rapid, agile insight delivery" to the point of decision. 
-----

Watson vs. Siri: A tale of David and Goliath?

November 1, 2013 | By Susan D. Hall
Will IBM's Watson or Apple's Siri do more to transform healthcare? Robert Pearl, M.D., in a post at Forbes, says it's important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each, relating it to the theme of Malcolm Gladwell's new book, "David and Goliath."
It's easy to assume Watson would win, he says, but the biblical tale reminds us to consider all the conditions.
-----

ICD-10 starts at clinical documentation

Posted on Nov 01, 2013
By Bernie Monegain, Editor
Physicians and other healthcare professionals will have to employ much more accurate and specific documentation of their care if ICD-10 coding is to work right, speakers asserted in an education sessions this week at the AHIMA Convention and Exhibit.
ICD-10, which takes effect Oct. 1, 2014, increases the number of diagnosis and procedure codes from about 13,000 to more than 141,000. The idea is to provide much more granular detail on patient care.
"Clinical documentation impacts both the quality of care and reimbursement and bringing physicians up-to-speed about the level of granularity included in ICD-10 is one of our most important jobs as health information management professionals," Theresa Jackson, director of health information management at the University of Kansas Hospital, said in a statement.
-----

Report Segments 40,000+ Medical Apps and IDs Top 5

OCT 31, 2013 4:18pm ET
A new report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics offers a general assessment of nearly 43,700 health care mobile apps available to consumers today, including the top five that are downloaded.
IMS started with health care apps available through the English language U.S. iTunes store in June. Researchers then excluded more than 20,000 apps as not truly related to health care and essentially gimmicks with no real benefits. That left 23,682 “genuine health care apps” with 7,407 targeting health care professionals and 16,275 for consumer use.
Ninety percent of the apps score less than 40 on an IMS scale of up to 100 for functionality. Nearly 11,000 apps can provide and display information, but less than half of these give instructions and only one-fifth capture user-entered data.
-----

Study: Half of CDS prescription alert overrides are inappropriate

October 31, 2013 | By Julie Bird
Providers override about half of the alerts they receive when using electronic prescribing systems, according to a new study that also finds only about half of those overrides are medically appropriate.
Researchers reviewed more than 150,000 clinical decision support (CDS) alerts on 2 million outpatient medication orders for the study, published online this week by the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA).
The most common CDS alerts were duplicate drug (33 percent), patient allergy (17 percent) and drug interactions (16 percent.) Alerts most likely to be overridden, however, were formulary substitutions (85 percent), age-based recommendations (79 percent), renal recommendations (78 percent) and patient allergies (77 percent).
-----

HSCIC plans a national tech strategy

25 October 2013   Rebecca Todd
The Health and Social Care Information Centre plans to publish a national technology and data strategy in summer 2015.
The strategy will focus on a number of areas including minimising barriers to the flow of data between care settings, making data available in appropriate care settings at the lowest cost possible and improving public access to the data.
An HSCIC draft strategy for 2013-15 was presented to an HSCIC board meeting on Wednesday.
-----

Tips for Training Physicians on ICD-10

OCT 29, 2013 9:58am ET
Many provider organizations getting ready for the transition to ICD-10 understand that the time is drawing near to start training physicians on what they need to know about the new diagnosis and procedure code sets.
When it comes to doctors, less but more focused training will bring more benefits, says Gary Huff, M.D., president and CEO at consultancy HUFF DRG Review.
It is important to economize physician time and that means that training videos are the least effective method of educating them, Huff contends. “Doctors don’t want to watch videos on coding; they’ll do their charts while listening to it,” he said during a talk with Health Data Management at the American Health Information Management Association’s annual conference in Atlanta.
-----

5 usability keys for HealthCare.gov

Posted on Oct 29, 2013
By Chip Means, Manager, Digital Operations, HIMSS Media
A guy who launches websites for a living says Healthcare.gov is, despite popular opinion, not the worst website of all time.
I work at the offices where Healthcare IT News is published. I’m a former associate editor of Healthcare Finance News. We’re a HIMSS-owned company. And I have no idea what to think about Healthcare.gov as a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act.
In a way, I love that a website is so critical to the success of the program - a sure sign of progress that ostensibly enables what couldn’t be achieved with large-scale health insurance mandates in the past. We’re all on the web now. We all get it. In this regard, we quietly and deftly leapt a major hurdle in the last decade.
-----

Patient portals pose new security issues

Posted on Oct 29, 2013
By Gus Venditto, VP, Content
As healthcare facilities launch their own patient portals, technology is only the first step. Administrators are learning that decisions need to be made on everything from patient login protocols to support for patient record revisions.
HIPAA regulations, always a primary concern when patient records are involved, are far from clear cut and that means administrators need to carefully consider the choices, says Adam Greene, a lawyer and consultant on HIPAA-related issues with his firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. He spoke at the AHIMA annual conference in Atlanta on October 28.
Even the question of how to provide account logins requires serious attention, Greene said. Patient records must secure, but complex password requirements may create the impression that a provider is in the position of denying a patient access to his records. Greene advised against requiring high-security protocols for passwords that require multiple character sets: “You need to have password security that is not so strong that users can’t get in.”
-----

EHR workarounds, poor documentation cause deaths at Memphis VA

October 29, 2013 | By Marla Durben Hirsch
The inadequate use of the Memphis VA Medical Center's EHR led to the deaths of at least two patients in its emergency department (ED), according to a new report by the Department of Veteran's Affairs' Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The OIG, which conducted its inspection after receiving a complaint of three patient deaths, found that in one case a nurse had inputted into the EHR the fact that the patient had an allergy to aspirin, but that the physician bypassed the EHR and hand-wrote an order for an anti-inflammatory drug that is contraindicated for aspirin. Had the physician order been inputted into the EHR, pursuant to hospital policy, a drug alert would have automatically been generated.
-----

CommonWell talks top 3 HIE challenges

By Tom Sullivan, Editor
As it nears the launch of its interoperability pilot project, officials from the CommonWell Health Alliance used AHIMA’s annual conference here to outline some of the toughest health information exchange challenges facing vendors and providers today.
“If you want to share information with 5 organizations, you need 10 contracts,” Dan Schipfer, senior vice president at Cerner said Monday morning, explaining that regional HIE is happening, but thus far it is limited to local exchange.
“We EHR vendors have not made it easy for you to interoperate,” within the nomenclature and the organization, he said. “It’s a big deal, it’s something you believe in, we believe in, but there are challenges.”
-----

95M Americans used mobile for health in 2013

By: Jonah Comstock | Oct 29, 2013
As of 2013, 95 million Americans are using mobile phones as health tools or to find health information, according to Manhattan Research. That’s 27 percent more than 2012, when the number was 75 million.
These numbers come from Manhattan’s annual Cybercitizen Health US survey. The research firm surveyed 8,605 US adults online and on the phone between August and September.
The study found that 45 percent of online adults with a chronic condition reported that the internet is essential to managing that condition. Manhattan listed the top ten conditions for which patients use mobile devices. Cystic fibrosis was number one, followed by growth hormone deficiencies, acne, ADD and ADHD, hepatitis C, migraines, Crohn’s disease, chronic kidney disease, generalized anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder.
-----

Patients Wary of Secondary EHR Data Use, Study Finds

Written by Ellie Rizzo (Twitter | Google+)  | October 29, 2013
Patients care more about the purpose of secondary electronic health record data use than the user of the data or the sensitivity of the data, according to an article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Researchers surveyed more than 3,300 adult patients, describing a scenario in which data from their personal health record was used either by a university hospital, commercial enterprise or public health department for research, quality improvement or commercial marketing. Researchers described the hypothetical data as either having genetic information about a particular patient's cancer risk or not.
-----

You may know a drug cocktail is dangerous before FDA

By: Chris Morris, Special to CNBC.com
CNBC.com | Tuesday, 29 Oct 2013 | 9:13 AM ET
Picture this: Your doctor prescribes a new medication, but once you start taking it, you begin to feel a little off. While the smart thing to do is call the doctor or pharmacist, the more common action today is to hop on the Web and see if you can figure out what's going on.
As it turns out, that self-diagnosing and hypochondriac-like behavior could help save people's lives.
Researchers at Microsoft Research Labs, in conjunction with Stanford University, have found that Web searches can help the FDA and pharmaceutical companies discover previously unknown dangerous drug interactions. And the FDA is welcoming the help.
-----

Star Trek Telemedicine Tablet Wasn’t Real McCoy, U.S. Says

OCT 25, 2013 12:35pm ET
An Illinois man who persuaded a company to provide almost $1 million in financing for a telemedicine computer tablet named after the physician on the “Star Trek” TV show was arrested for fraud, according to federal prosecutors.
Howard Leventhal also allegedly presented an undercover U.S. agent posing as an investor with a fake contract to supply the Canadian government with a make-believe device.
“Leventhal claimed to have lucrative connections within the Canadian government and cutting edge technology that could help save lives,” U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch in Brooklyn, New York, said in a statement today announcing Leventhal’s arrest on a wire fraud charge. “In reality, his scheme was pure science fiction, complete with phony documents and a fictional medical device.”
-----

Registries playing catch up with Stage 3

Posted on Oct 29, 2013
By Anthony Brino, Editor, HIEWatch
Although meaningful use visionaries are hoping to advance the cause of robust public health registries as part of the program's Stage 3, widespread, seamless public health data exchange still has a ways to go.
Among several meaningful use Stage 3 issues discussed by stakeholders charged with advising the Health IT Policy Committee, advanced case reporting to both public health agencies and specialized disease registries is striking some as overly ambitious and potentially impractical.
The Meaningful Use Workgroup is trying to align Stage 1 and 2 objectives and Stage 3 requirement recommendations with Stage 3 goals, such as for case reporting -- "efficient and timely means of defining and reporting on patient populations to identify areas for improvement," and data sharing with public health agencies.
-----

3D medical holograph shows early wins

Posted on Oct 29, 2013
By Erin McCann, Associate Editor
Three-dimensional holographic medical imaging may not be as far away in the future as one might think, one recently concluded hospital pilot study has confirmed. 
For certain structural heart disease procedures, the 3D holographic visualization technology has shown considerable promise, according to the results of a pilot conducted at Israel-based Schneider Children’s Medical Center in collaboration with Royal Philips and RealView Imaging.  
The pilot included eight patients who required minimally invasive structural heart procedures, and according to officials, doctors on the interventional team were able to view detailed, dynamic 3D holographic images of the heart essentially "floating in free space" during these specific procedures, without using special eyewear.
-----

2015 records access promise scaled back

29 October 2013   Rebecca Todd
The government’s pledge for patients to have online access to their GP record by March 2015 will only require access to the brief information held on their Summary Care Record.
NHS England’s Patient Online programme lead Kathy Mason told EHI that providing access to the same information as held in the SCR is the minimum that GPs must do by March 2015.
The SCR contains a core set of clinical data, including allergies, medications and adverse reactions, but there is work going on to enrich it.
-----

Latest Wave of MU Audits Delivers a Fresh Scare

Scott Mace, for HealthLeaders Media , October 29, 2013

A slew of Meaningful Use audit notices have suddenly materialized, aimed not only at Medicare, but at Medicaid recipients as well. The deadlines are tight and the documentation requirements exacting, making a most unwelcome October surprise for healthcare CIOs.

As the CHIME conference wound down on the evening of October 10, CIOs were abuzz: A new wave of Meaningful Use audit notices was making its way into their email boxes with November 7 due dates for responses.
The government might have been shut down, but the federal contractor conducting the audits, Figliozzi & Company, was still on the job. The new fiscal year was unfolding before CIOs with a fright worthy of Halloween.
-----

ECRI on health IT hazard trail

Posted on Oct 28, 2013
By Bernie Monegain, Editor
ECRI Institute Patient Safety Organization has unveiled a new health IT hazard reporting system that employs AHRQ common formats and a tested standardized taxonomy for health IT hazard information.
"Well designed, well implemented health IT has the potential to help healthcare organizations improve care and patient outcomes, but too often health IT is implemented without full understanding of the work environment, and results in risks," Karen P. Zimmer, medical director, ECRI Institute, said in a news release.
The Health IT Hazard Manager was developed and piloted in a federally funded project led by Abt Associates with ECRI Institute and Geisinger Health System’s Patient Safety Institute. The reporting system collects IT hazards via the Internet in a centralized and standardized way, which allows for the identification of specific types of hazards and the ability to trend data.
-----

EHRs at risk of becoming irrelevant

Posted on Oct 28, 2013
By Eric Wicklund, Editor, mHealthNews
With mHealth becoming the norm instead of the exception, a panel at Partners HealthCare's 10th Annual Connected Health Symposium last week concluded that EHR vendors will have to find a way to modify their products to focus on data that the patient and his or her care team want, or they'll become obsolete.
Important information for a patient's care actually exists outside the electronic medical record, panelists said.
"In many ways the EHRs are on the outside," said Andrew Watson, MD, medical director for the Center for Connected Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the panel's moderator. "This is on the inside. It's not the paranormal … any more – it's the normal."
-----

Partners HealthCare Symposium: 'A new level of maturity' can boost health IT

October 28, 2013 | By Susan D. Hall
The basic infrastructure is largely in place to foster widespread low-cost innovation in health IT, Bill Geary of Northbridge Venture Partners said as part of a panel discussion last week at the Partners Connected Health Symposium.
"We're seeing the ability on relatively small dollars to build really compelling tools that providers absolutely need to run their businesses. It's so incredibly disruptive to legacy vendors, but in healthcare, we needed to see that cost curve collapse to really get innovative products," he's quoted as saying at Mobihealth News.
The event was part of Boston's Connected Health Week, which began with leading policymakers from the United States and European Union gathering at the EU-US eHealth Marketplace and Conference to discuss how technology innovation can improve patient care and provide economic benefits, according to a post at Boston.com.
-----

Digital reform within the NHS is not a choice, but a necessity

One of Professor Bruce Keogh's ambitions for the NHS is to have the leadership using data competently
The NHS turned 65 this year but the world's second largest publicly funded organisation is experiencing the most challenging time since its creation in 1948.
The recent publication of the Keogh review looking into 14 hospital trusts has sent shockwaves at a national level to the quality of healthcare in the NHS. In many cases, the problems are also financial, with nearly a quarter of clinical commissioning groups struggling each financial year.
Why is this happening? Some of the NHS's pressures come from a governmental level with the target of £20bn worth of efficiency savings by 2014/2015 looming and the funding gaps in 2020 and 2025 threatening to have a significant impact on long-term budgeting. As there are challenges on both the provider and commissioner sides of the NHS, there is urgency to find an immediate and long term solution.
-----

New House bill aims to slash FDA's mHealth oversight

October 25, 2013 by Arezu Sarvestani

A bipartisan group of House Reps introduces a new bill that would limit keep the FDA's mHealth oversight of out of software that is a component of a regulated medical device.
A new House bill co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers aims to cut deep into the FDA's newly finalized oversight of mobile medical apps, keeping regulation only to programs that complement medical technologies or those that turn a mobile device into a medical one.
The bill would keep the FDA's tendrils out of apps deemed to be 'clinical' or 'health' software, reserving oversight for programs that directly changes the structure or function of any part of the body, makes clinical recommendations for consumers and includes the use of a drug or device without the involvement of a healthcare professional.
-----

Physicians’ Exchange of Clinical Data Capabilities Vary, ONC Study Reveals

October 25, 2013
A new study, conducted by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) researchers, detailed the effectiveness with which office-based physicians are exchanging lab and medication data.
The research, which appeared in the American Journal of Managed Care, looked at how physicians were to electronically sharing clinical information with other providers and to describe variation in exchange capability across states and electronic health record (EHR) vendors. They used data from a 2011 survey of physicians for the study, with 4326 responding.
Of the findings, one of the more interesting pieces was the overall capability of all physicians (55 percent) to send prescriptions electronically. For those physicians with an EHR, the number was up to 78 percent.
-----

Unsolicited Data in EHRs Posing Workflow, Legal Challenges for Some Providers

by Michelle Stuckey, iHealthBeat Staff Writer Monday, October 28, 2013
With the growing use of health information exchange technology and personal mobile health devices, patients' health records are being inundated with information that might not have been requested by their provider.
While such data can help make patient records more comprehensive, unsolicited information also can cause disruptions to providers' workflows and affect the usability of their EHR systems. Further, providers could be held liable if patient harm or misdiagnosis occurs that could have been prevented by more thoroughly reviewing such data, according to experts.
A recent practice brief released by the American Health Information Management Association outlines the challenges that unsolicited health information can pose for providers and offers recommendations for adopting protocols to handle such data. The problem was identified by AHIMA's Physician Practice Council -- which includes attorneys, health information management experts and consultants that work in the physician arena.
-----

How Big Data is destroying the U.S. healthcare system

One thing I find ironic in the current controversy over problems with the healthcare.gov insurance sign-up web site is that the people complaining don’t really mean what they are saying. Not only do they have have little to no context for their arguments, they don’t even want the improvements they are demanding. This is not to say nothing is wrong with the site, but few big web projects have perfectly smooth launches. From all the bitching and moaning in the press you’d think this experience is a rarity. But as those who regularly read this column know, more than half of big IT projects don’t work at all. So I’m not surprised that there’s another month of work to be done to meet a deadline 5.5 months in the future.
Yes, the Obama Administration was overly optimistic and didn’t provide enough oversight. Yes, they demanded fundamental changes long after the system design should have been frozen. But a year from now these issues will have been forgotten.
-----

The seven deadly sins of HealthCare.gov

A data center failure is the latest in Obamacare site's litany of woes.

Everyone—even the CTO of President Obama's successful second presidential campaign—seems to have something to say about why HealthCare.gov experiences so much trouble. Today's news that the Affordable Care Act website and supporting IT infrastructure suffered from a data center outage piled more pain upon a project that members of the "tech surge" team now say will take at least another month to put in order.
The data center, operated by Verizon's Terremark unit, went down on Sunday when an equipment failure made it lose its Internet connection. Service was restored Monday morning, and services were brought gradually back online.
Data center outages happen to almost everyone in the cloud business, as Amazon and Google and Microsoft can testify to. But the structure of HealthCare.gov's deployment makes it particularly vulnerable to outages since it runs out of a single Verizon data center. That's just one more piece of a larger problem, however: rather than turning to private industry to look for best practices in running a high volume e-commerce website, the government's team embraced the opposite approach.
-----

Responsibility for Healthcare.gov's IT problems lie with dot gov

This was a management not a technology failure. Obama's error was not to empower technologists to tell him the truth
The launch of Healthcare.gov has not gone well. This is the Obama administration's fault.
In the immediate aftermath of the 1 October launch, it looked as if the problems were caused by a surfeit of interest. As the days went on, however, the problems persisted. The site's most basic interactive operation was creating a new account. This was required for all subsequent uses of the insurance market, but something like nine out of ten attempts failed. By the middle of the month, Consumer Reports was telling its readers "Stay away from Healthcare.gov for at least another month if you can", because the site could not perform, even under the conditions its designers imagined.
-----

Enjoy!
David.

Friday, November 08, 2013

As This Blog Said Years Ago HealthSMART Was A Real Fiasco. Pretty Sad.

The following appeared last week.

Victoria's HealthSmart system introduces 'safety risk' to patients

Summary: Victoria's statewide healthcare IT system has failed to achieve its goals, and has been criticised for putting patients at potential risk by administering wrong medications or incorrect doses.
By Michael Lee | October 30, 2013 -- 05:34 GMT (16:34 AEST)
The Victorian Department of Health has an inadequate understanding of its clinical IT systems and failed to plan adequately for 19 of its services, according to a report from the state's auditor-general.
The report (PDF) found that the department "significantly underestimated project scope, costs, and timelines, as well as the required clinical and other workflow redesign and change management efforts".
At the centre of the state's issues is the statewide HealthSmart system. The clinical IT system has only been installed at four of the 19 state hospitals that it had been planned for, and only one installation is considered to be fully implemented.
At three of the sites, the systems introduced significant risks to patients, with prescriptions sometimes being manually amended to reflect the actual medication that should be prescribed, or instances where discharge statements would need to be completed even prior to surgery or treatment taking place.
Problems have resulted in over 100 incidents where medication has been missed or nearly missed, or medicines administered at higher doses than prescribed.
"While these three health services have put some manual workarounds in place to reduce the potential risks, they are not fail-safe, they increase inefficiency in the short term, and they do not provide a long-term solution to the identified problem."
A ministerial review of the HealthSmart system, released earlier this week, argued for the abolition of the "participation policy" that currently forces all 19 hospitals to use or otherwise adopt the system.
Lots more here:
There was also coverage here:

Victorian Department of Health slammed in ICT system audit

HealthSMART rollout $87 million over budget, according to latest Auditor-General report
The Victorian Department of Health has failed to implement clinical ICT systems across 19 of the state’s health services due to poor planning and inadequate understanding of system requirements, according to a damning audit report released Wednesday.
The audit examined the status of ICT systems in eight Victorian health service providers – including four HealthSMART system rollouts – to determine if they had been appropriately planned and implemented, and benefits were being realised.
Victorian Auditor-General John Doyle said in the report that the department “significantly underestimated project scope costs and time lines”. He said it also underestimated the required clinical and other workflow redesign and change management efforts.
As of this month, the cost of Victoria’s HealthSMART clinical ICT system rollout has blown out to $145.3 million or 150 per cent more than the original budget of $58.3 million, the Auditor-General’s report said.
“This translates to an average installation cost of $36.3 million for each of the four HealthSMART sites,” the report said.
“Clinical ICT systems in four non-HealthSMART sites have cost much less; the average cost of installation is $1.8 million per site, although in terms of functionality, each of the systems has major differences compared to the HealthSMART clinical ICT system,” the report said.
Lots more here:
There is a link to the report in the first article.
Without being smart I picked all this in the middle of 2007.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Is HealthSMART as Smart as it Claims?

It is funny how things come back to haunt you. In the 2003/4 Victorian Budget an allocation of aadditional funding of $138.5 million was provided budget for a Health Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Strategy to roll out an integrated approach to the implementation and ongoing support of business applications and their underpinning technical architecture.
The full cost of the Health ICT Strategy was estimated at $323.5 million. This included $138.5 million over four years provided in the 2003–04 budget, with the remaining funds to be contributed by hospitals and existing information and communication technology funding from the Department of Human Services.
The additional funding is as follows:
Health ICT Strategy (Additional Funding)
2003/4 18.5M
2004/5 38.0M
2005/6 40.5M
2006/7 41.5M
Total = 138.5M
This means that had things gone as planned the investment would have been finished a day or so from now and all would be wonderful – Health IT wise – in the great Southern State.
Under the Health ICT Strategy, the Government was to remove obsolete, aged products and invest in modern proven systems, based on accepted interoperability standards covering hospital administration systems, clinical systems and electronic medication ordering.
Of course that was never going to happen. We now find that – to quote from the HealthSMART website:
“HealthSMART is a $323M technology program operating across the public health care sector funded through the 2003-04 Victorian State Budget. Initially a four-year program, it is now running over six years from 2003 - 2009.”
To be frank even this timeline looks more than optimistic. Why do I say this?
First, it seems that with clinical systems HealthSMART has adopted the approach of developing State-Wide Builds of the Cerner Software. Experience elsewhere has shown that this can be very problematic (just look at the UK NHS) – as the users don’t see they are getting the system they need that really suits them – rather they are getting a compromise – to them – state-wide solution.
One only has to see that the State-Wide System is being driven by a committee representing 13 different health systems (from major to minor hospitals and from cancer to paediatric hospitals) with over 40 members to recognise that getting agreement on what is to be done will be both slow and tricky to achieve.
Second if one reviews the time-lines provided in each of the progress reports (Roadmaps as they are called) it is clear that with each update issued the time-lines are extending.
Third my making the choice to implement Cerner clinical applications on top of an iSoft Patient Management System they have greatly complicated the operations of each and have lost many of the key benefits of integration that the Cerner system offers.
This is especially true given their approach is to integrate patient administration, outpatients, emergency, laboratory, pharmacy and radiology (at least) onto a Cerner core repository. I believe this is a plain stupid strategy. The amount of context switching from source systems (lab, pharmacy etc) that many clinicians will be forced into is likely to be both time-wasting and annoying.
Fourth with the some of the system selections made there must be the suspicion that adequate financial due-diligence was not undertaken given the difficulties being experienced at present by iSoft.
Fifth, any Health IT strategy that takes six-seven years to implement in the Public Sector has a high risk profile no matter what else goes well initially.
It seems to me that sadly this strategy is facing some existential threats. I hope it can prosper and deliver but it is looking less likely to me as of late June, 2007.
Clearly I am not the only one who has noticed there are a few issues:

Health revolution stalls over mass funding blowout

Jason Dowling
June 24, 2007
AN UPGRADE of the health system's computer network — which the Government says will "revolutionise" the way hospitals and surgeries deal with patients — has blown way over budget and is years behind schedule.
The upgrade program has cost $363 million so far — $40 million over budget — and is two years behind schedule. It also has been scrutinised by auditors amid allegations of conflicts of interest involving a contractor employed by the Department of Human Services.
…… (see URL for full article)
The stories of contract irregularities, budget blow outs and compulsion of clinicians etc bode very badly indeed.
I suspect that by the time 2009 rolls around I will be seen to have been quite prescient – time will tell.
David.
----- End Extract.
Enough said - a salutary lesson that should be noted by the PCEHR Review. If you don’t have the clinicians on side you are dead in the water!
David.

Thursday, November 07, 2013

Finally One Government Tells The Truth About Australian Government E-Health. Amazingly Comprehensive Coverage Of What Is Going On.

A link to the following report appeared last week.

Ministerial Review of Victorian Health Sector Information and Communication Technology

The Victorian Health Sector ICT Review Panel have issued their report, which recommends changes in the three major areas of governance, procurement and investment in health sector ICT.
Download here:
Here is the link:
The report makes wonderful reading on the Victorian sector but Section 9 is the one to read first.

Appendix 9: Key national committees and agencies

The following describes those national e-health initiatives as they appeared to the panel at the time of this review.
A national e-health memorandum of understanding has been agreed in principle by the Standing Council on Health (SCoH) and endorsed by the Victorian Government. It is currently undergoing the process of formal ratification by all jurisdictions, including Victoria. Some priorities are to:
develop a business case for the national e-health infrastructure and services, including the PCEHR
harmonise reporting to the government
implement national health identifiers for people and providers
roll out a national information and data standards, to be adopted by all ICT vendors.
National E-Health Transition Authority
In July 2004 Australian health ministers recognised the pivotal role e-health plays in improving the safety and quality of healthcare services and controlling healthcare costs. They noted the need for cooperation on significant national e-health programs and established the National E-Health Transition Authority
(NEHTA) in July 2005. NEHTA is funded on a cost-share basis as agreed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and is a private company limited by guarantee. The NEHTA board comprises all of the jurisdictional health chief executives plus one independent member and an independent chair.
In 2006 initial funding was endorsed by COAG for three years to develop national identifiers, for both providers and individuals, and standard clinical terminology for use in health applications, recognising that these are key dependencies to be able to achieve accurate and timely identification of patients and providers.
In 2008 COAG endorsed the allocation of a further three years’ funding to continue its existing work program, commence operation of the Identification and Authentication Services and to establish an Individual Electronic Healthcare Record (IEHR) Project Taskforce to progress related components of
other national programs into the IEHR work plan. The IEHR was initially a COAG initiative but the subsequent personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) program was a 2010 Budget initiative of the Australian Government administered by the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA).
Following the cessation of COAG funding in June 2012, the SCoH agreed to a reduced funding program for NEHTA to manage its core operations until June 2014. These core services comprise the Healthcare Identifier (HI) Service, Clinical Terminology Service, National Authentication Service for Health (NASH), National Product Catalogue and e-health standards and specifications development. The HI Service and NASH are operated by the Commonwealth Department of Human Services under contract to NEHTA. To date Victoria has contributed over $50 million as its cost-shared contribution with other jurisdictions to the NEHTA work program.
The ongoing governance and funding of NEHTA beyond 2014–15 will be an important matter for consideration by the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC) E-Health Working Group, which is due to report to SCoH by September 2013 for possible later consideration by COAG.
From 2009–10 to the present NEHTA has also received funding to assist DoHA in managing the progress of the PCEHR. Specifically this was for the development of the large volume of technical specifications and standards required for the PCEHR and to act as the managing agent to oversee DoHA’s industry partners and the three ‘Wave 1’ lead implementation sites and nine ‘Wave 2’ implementation sites funded to test and validate planned processes and technical foundations for the PCEHR that would inform the design and implementation approach.
The three Wave 1 sites tested three common information exchange mechanisms (discharge summaries, electronic referrals and shared health summaries) required to support the PCEHR and their ability to incorporate national identification and data standards. The nine Wave 2 sites were focused on more PCEHR components, for example, medications and consumer portals.
The role of the Victorian Department of Health’s Secretary on the NEHTA board is as a director of a private company, albeit nominated under its constitution as the member’s (i.e. Victoria’s) representative.
Consequently the position includes specific fiduciary obligations and liabilities with respect to the company. Departmental briefings are provided with respect to board matters but it remains the director’s responsibility for actions taken by the board.
NEHTA executives including the CEO also meet regularly with the National Health Chief Information Officers’ Forum (NHCIOF) to identify any issues arising from their work program and to draw on the available expertise to aid resolution. NEHTA also has recently established a Statewide Product Consultation Group, with clinical, consumer, industry and informatics representation.
National eHealth Information Policy
Governance over national e-health and information policy is complex. The national environment is presently in a volatile and dynamic state. A number of important reviews and decisions, each at a different stage of development but all due to complete in 2013, are currently underway, including:
the SCoH development of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in relation to developing an effective national e-health capability between all states and territories and DoHA
the SCoH-sponsored review and update of the 2008 National E-Health Strategy and an associated national business case for potential consideration by COAG
the SCoH-sponsored review and renewal of the National Health Information Agreement (NHIA) between the states and territories and DoHA and other Commonwealth agencies, including the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
the independent review of the regulation and operation of the national HI Service that is required under the Commonwealth Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010.
The MOU, with respect to developing an effective national e-health capability, is the most advanced and documents existing arrangements and agreed financial commitments.
The review of the National E-Health Strategy and the associated business case will have the greatest potential impact. Its terms of reference include making recommendations on the overall national governance of e-health for the next decade. The business case will potential run to billions of dollars, although the terms of reference need to take account of the current fiscal constraints of all governments.
Beyond these policy and machinery-of-government changes there are operational factors that are driving a high level of need for collaboration between jurisdictions. Some of these include:
• the complex integration needs of modern hospital clinical systems environments to enable decision support, medications management and enterprise scheduling
• the increasing demand for solutions to support continuity of care across settings, requiring more rigorous and comprehensive standards for interoperability
• the introduction of new national reporting requirements by recently established bodies such as the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA), National Health Performance Authority (NHPA), National Health Funding Body (NHFB) and the Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Healthcare (ACSQC) – these requirements include reporting for activity-based funding and on national performance indicators
• the Commonwealth’s program for implementation of the PCEHR and associated legislation, which has impacted on the design and operation of information exchange between providers for all purposes
• an Australia-wide shortage of both clinicians and information specialists with health informatics expertise, as highlighted by Health Workforce Australia in a recent publication on the state of the health information workforce.
Memorandum of understanding
The MOU to develop a national e-health strategy and business case was agreed in principle by SCoH at its 9 November 2012 meeting.
The MOU provides an interim arrangement pending consideration of longer term national governance and future investments beyond 30 June 2014, which will be framed in the national e-health business case currently being developed, for consideration by SCoH in 2013 and possible subsequent consideration by COAG. The MOU does not propose any new funding beyond existing commitments for national e-health projects.
A schedule to the MOU describes the roles and responsibilities of the states and territories, which includes the following interim goals (current status shown in italics):
• compliance with standards and specifications when investing in new information systems The OCIO has documented the current suite of approved national standards for incorporation into tender specifications.
• incorporating SNOMED CT-AU/AMT into new clinical systems and upgrades and specifying the inclusion of standard terminology functions when procuring new systems or replacing existing systems AMT is already incorporated into the Cerner clinical system and is the standard expected for any other clinical systems. To date only a limited number of SNOMED CT-AU reference sets have been developed by NEHTA but these will be incorporated in the standards when nationally endorsed.
• plan for the implementation of an appropriate authentication service over the next three years (all organisations using PCEHR are to obtain an appropriate authentication certificate)
The National Authentication Service for Health (NASH) program is yet to deliver its full functionality, although a roadmap has been developed in consultation with the NHCIOF. The future approach to authentication will be dependent on what is finally delivered.
the incremental adoption of healthcare identifiers for patients (IHIs) into electronic record systems of public healthcare services, such as when:
– new patients are added to electronic record systems (including new births)
– investments in new or replacement systems are made, such as new patient administration systems
Statewide adoption of IHIs is a government election policy. IHIs are being used in the national lead ehealth sites in Eastern health and Barwon. Victoria has also published, in collaboration with NEHTA, a best practice approach to the safe adoption of IHIs but is yet to initiate any more widespread adoption.
take steps towards healthcare identifiers being used in public hospitals so that healthcare identifiers for healthcare provider organisations (HPI-O) are more broadly adopted across health sectors
Outside of the lead e-health sites this has been a local decision with no statewide policy position. There have been administrative difficulties in setting up HPI-Os. This has led to some change in the national approach and there is likely to be further change as a result of the current HI Service review of operations.
supporting the incremental connection of the health information, within the services they manage and fund, to the information held in the PCEHR system, including progressive uploading of clinical documents, subject to the approval of the Rapid Integration Project by the NEHTA board The NEHTA board has approved $2.1 million in funds to extend the functionality of the existing Victorian lead e-health sites to enable posting of national standard discharge summaries to the PCEHR and provide their clinicians with access to the PCEHR. This builds on the work already undertaken to implement national standard messaging (including use of all national identifiers) for point-to-point messaging from hospitals to General Practitioners. There is also a possibility of this extending to Peninsula Health and Austin Health as further NEHTA funds become available.
migration to the National Health Services Directory (NHSD)
The NHSD is built on the Victorian Human Services Directory (HSD), which has been sublicensed to the National Health Call Centre Network (NHCCN) to support its management of the NHSD. The NHCCN took over full management responsibility of the Victorian system at the end of February 2013.
agreeing and adopting the Telehealth Technical Standards.
The standards have recently been endorsed by NHIPPC for adoption in all public health services and a policy directive will be issued to the Victorian Public Health service to that effect.
National E-Health Strategy and business case
The 2008 National E-Health Strategy was developed and endorsed by health ministers but only noted by COAG. Consequently, it was never explicitly funded beyond already committed resources flowing to NEHTA to develop the e-health foundations (identifiers, terminologies and specifications).
When the Commonwealth announced the PCEHR in April 2010, the $467 million funding was claimed to be equivalent to the first stage of implementing the individual electronic health record (IEHR) described in the strategy. This was not agreed by the states and territories not only because they disputed the costing but also because the scope and design of the PCEHR varied significantly from the IEHR proposed in the strategy. For this reason, Victoria’s official position is that it will not implement the PCEHR beyond supporting lead implementations (and then only if externally funded) until there is an agreed national business case.
The business case will cover the costs and benefits to the nation of future investment in e-health. It will address the level of recurrent funding required for ‘national infrastructure’ and address the issue of what programs and initiatives should be nationally coordinated, and what subject matters should be dealt with via national standards for e-health and informatics in support of each of the following:
national governance, regulation and compliance
secure message exchange
healthcare identifiers
NASH
clinical terminology
NHSD
PCEHR
telehealth
medications management
electronic transfer of prescriptions
National Product Catalogue/eProcurement
orders and results for diagnostics and imaging
clinical decision support
care plans
healthcare reporting and research datasets
The business case should, for each of the programs and services, at the national level and for each jurisdiction, provide advice on:
the disaggregated cost of ownership (capital and recurrent) including the cost of change and adoption, workforce skills development and ongoing maintenance and governance
the costs of all components necessary to deliver the planned benefits, including the cost of central infrastructure and of supporting systems in the health services, and recommendations on how those costs should be shared between jurisdictions
agreed measurable benefits for consumers, health professionals, the Commonwealth and states and territories, drawing on existing benefits analysis and evaluations – the benefits that are to be accrued must also be aligned with the investment required.
This level of detail will be essential as it is often the case in e-health that there is an inequitable burden placed on parts of the system in delivering an overall beneficial outcome. For example, preliminary modelling done for the PCEHR shows that hospitals bear a significant cost in implementation for which they receive little direct benefits in return. There will need to be close analysis of where the costs and benefits fall in any negotiations with the Commonwealth on sources of funding and incentives in the final business case. This may provide opportunities for complementary and mutually beneficial investment.
The development of the business case is being run by the Commonwealth with the support of a steering committee and working group (Victoria is on both). Central agencies are also engaged nationally through an EHealth Reference Group and both the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance have been closely involved in Victoria.
Deloitte Consulting has been engaged with the report is due to SCoH in September 2013. The timing of subsequent referral to COAG will be affected by the September 2013 federal election.
National Health Information Agreement
The purpose of the NHIA is to ensure the availability of nationally consistent high-quality health information to support policy and program development, and improve the quality, efficiency, appropriateness, effectiveness and accountability of health services provided to individuals and populations. The agreement promotes the efficient, secure, confidential and timely use of information across the complete life cycle from development to use.
The NHIA will govern the structures and processes through which Commonwealth, state and territory health, national statistical authorities and national health reform bodies work together to improve, maintain and share national health information.
The scope of the agreement is all national health-related information, including clinical and statistical information, as determined by AHMAC. In order to ensure consistent national information, the scope of the agreement includes standards, definitions, classifications and terminologies for data collections and indicators.
The NHIA has existed as a policy instrument for over a decade but the current revision is much more comprehensive than previous versions, principally to accommodate the needs of the National Health Reform Agreement and the requirements of the new agencies formed under that agreement (IHPA, NHPA, ACHCQS and the funding administrator).
Specifically it has now taken a much broader view of the complete information life cycle from data capture to collection, collation, analysis and reporting and archiving, with an emphasis on principles such as ‘single provision, multiple use’ articulated in the National Health Reform Agreement, which is being progressed by the Standing Committee on Performance and Reporting (SCPR) for consideration by AHMAC.
The latest draft of the NHIA was been reviewed by AHMAC and is currently being finalised by the National Health Information and Performance Principal Committee (NHIPPC), based on advice from AHMAC for endorsement by SCoH. An issue yet to be determined is the role of SCoH in authorising updates to mandated national minimum datasets once it has initially approved them.
Health Identifier Service Review
Section 35(1) of the Commonwealth Healthcare Identifiers Act requires that an independent review is undertaken of the HI legislation and the HI Service after two years of operation. The aim of the review is to ensure the Act provides the regulatory support to enable the HI Service to operate efficiently and effectively and support the sharing of clinical information in practice.
The review is also to consider the implementation, operation, performance and governance of the HI Service and the HI Service operator. The Commonwealth Department of Human Services (DHS) is the service operator under contract to NEHTA.
The review has produced its draft report, which has a large number of recommendations for improvements to both the legislation and service operations. This reflects Victorian experience to date.
The legislation and its restrictive interpretation by DHS (despite legal advice to the contrary) has limited the level of functionality able to be achieved in interacting with the HI Service and in progressing change requests to make it more efficient.
----- End Section
For once we see a real representation that we can believe about what is going on.
Unheard of in modern times. Read closely and really understand who is doing what with whom!
David.

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

The Privacy Foundation Is Not Happy With Government Regarding The PCEHR. Others Also Have Concerns.

This has been released very recently.
http://www.privacy.org.au/
3 November 2013
Public Statement: PCEHR
The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) notes that large numbers of practitioners are signing up for the Practice Incentives Program (PIP), which is tied to the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR).1
The APF further notes that very few of those practitioners are populating their patients' PCEHRs.2-3
The APF also observes that numbers of patients are signing up for the PCEHR, which is tied to the plethora of assisted registration services that do not explain governance or safety issues. Very few of the patients have initiated the population of PCEHRs post their assisted registration. 4-5
This is good for bureaucrats in two ways:
1. it inflates the apparent take-up rate for the PCEHR
2. it enables the exploitation of individuals' personal health-care data for administrative purposes.6
But the multi-millions poured into the PCEHR project are delivering very little indeed in the way of positive outcomes for patients or clinicians.4
The APF and others argued, over many years, that the design of the PCEHR disclosed that the motivations were administrative, not health care. The cynical behaviour described above reaffirms what APF argued.
It is deplorable, both because of the waste of vast sums of taxpayer money on administrative convenience, and because of the exploitation of personal data for the benefit of public servants, not patients.
References
1. http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/incentives/pip/
2. Australian Medical Association. E-health records in need of urgent help: GPs, 21/10/13
https://ama.com.au/node/13019
3. Australian Medical Association. AMA Puts flawed PCEHR on the mend. 22/10/13
http://aushealthit.blogspot.com.au/
4. McDonald, K. DOHA rejects claims patients “inveigled” into PCEHR sign-up. Pulse IT,
http://www.pulseitmagazine.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1563:doha-rejects-claimspatients-inveigled-into-pcehr-sign-up&catid=16:australian-ehealth&Itemid=327
5. McDonald, K. DOHA rejects claims patients “inveigled” into PCEHR sign-up. Pulse IT,
http://www.pulseitmagazine.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1563:doha-rejects-claimspatients-inveigled-into-pcehr-sign-up&catid=16:australian-ehealth&Itemid=327
6. Kruys, E. The PCEHR moving forward. 23/09/13. http://doctorsbag.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/the-pcehr-movingforward/
Last week we also had this appear.

Australia: Update on Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records - legal and privacy issues

Last Updated: 28 October 2013
By Alison Choy Flannigan
As part of the 2010/11 Federal budget, the Government announced a $466.7 million investment over two years for a national Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) system for all Australians who choose to register on-line, from 2012-2013. This initiative has the potential to be a revolutionary step for Australian health care, in terms of both consumer's access to their own health information and improvement in information which will be available to health professionals when they treat a patient.
Lots omitted  here:
There are a number of medico-legal and privacy issues which arise with the PCEHR. Some of these are summarised below:
Medico-legal
  • If a medical practitioner consults with a patient and is negligent in entering information onto the PCEHR, there are more clinicians relying upon it, so the potential for liability from a negligent assessment of a patient or negligently prepared medical record increases.
  • Health professionals must be mindful that the PCEHR is not a complete medical record and must continue to be vigilant in continuing to obtain independent information from patients. Information may be excluded from the PCEHR at the request of a patient and missing information is unlikely to be flagged.
  • If a medical practitioner has relied upon information on the PCEHR which is incorrect, then the medical practitioner will need to track the author of the original information to join as a cross-defendant.
  • If a patient instructs a medical practitioner not to include information on the PCEHR then the medical practitioner will be under an obligation to inform the patient the risks and consequences of this.
  • Direct access to a medical record may be denied if providing access would pose a serious threat to the life or health of any individual. In those cases, the patient is usually provided access through another medical practitioner. If consumer access requests are dealt with centrally, measures should be implemented to ensure that a clinical assessment is made in relation to whether or not a patient's request for access or information could pose a serious threat to the life or health of any individual. Arguably such information should not be included in the PCEHR.
  • Often a request for access can be an indicator of a potential claim which can be resolved quickly by the clinician by early discussions with the patients. There should be a mechanism so that relevant clinicians are informed if there is a potential claim early.
Privacy issues
There are also a number of privacy issues, including:
  • Obtaining adequate privacy consent from patients;
  • Ensuring that the systems can accurately implement the consent options of patients, such as limiting access or prohibiting access to the PCEHR to health professionals nominated by patients.
  • Ensuring that only information which is required to provide treatment for the patient is collected.
  • Privacy issues if the system involves a number of system vendors and subcontractors or cloud computing.
  • Uniformity of the usage of medical terms and abbreviations and clear handwriting is preferred to protect data quality.
  • Clear understanding of the information flows and potential for leakage of personal health information to unapproved persons or overseas.
  • Data security issues.
  • Patient and participating health professional identification and verification issues.
  • Education and training of participating health professionals.
Full article here:
There are some really good issues for the enquiry into the PCEHR to sort out here!
David.