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 16, 2013

Weekly Overseas Health IT Links - 17th 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.
-----

3 tips for proactively protecting PHI

November 8, 2013 | By Ashley Gold
In a recent podcast with Healthcare Informatics, Jared Rhoads, senior research specialist with the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) Global Institute for Emerging Healthcare Practices, spoke about emerging technologies to protect personal health information (PHI).
Rhoads talked, in particular, about how the environment is changing for medical identity theft and why hospitals and medical practices need to be more vigilant.
-----

ONC Enhances Certified EHR Database

NOV 7, 2013 3:01pm ET
Following the government shutdown, the Office of the National Coordinator has updated its Certified Health IT Product List database of software that complies with one or more electronic health records meaningful use requirements.
ONC also has introduced new functions on the site. Links to test result summaries are available for newly-certified products, with summaries for previous certified products becoming available later this month.
-----

EHR Interoperability Remains Elusive

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media , November 8, 2013

A lack of standards, privacy concerns, and proprietary and competition issues are just a few of the hurdles hampering the interoperability of EHR data among participants in health information exchanges.

Healthcare providers have made solid progress over the last decade building in-house electronic health records systems to share patient data within their networks. However, interoperability with outside providers and payers remains a significant barrier, according to eHealth Initiative's 10th annual survey of health information exchanges.
Three-quarters of the nearly 200 eHI survey respondents said they've had to build numerous time-consuming and expensive interfaces between different systems to facilitate information sharing, including 68 organizations that said they had to build 10 or more interfaces with different systems. More than 140 respondents cited interoperability as a pressing concern.
-----

An 'unintended consequence' of EHR adoption: Litigation discovery

November 5, 2013 | By Marla Durben Hirsch
Of the more than 300 comments have been submitted regarding proposed changes to the gathering of evidence during litigation, the American Health Information Management Association is the first to address the role electronic health records in discovery. 
The federal government has proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would change the discovery of electronic information, make the discovery process less burdensome, improve litigation management and protect against sanctions in certain instances when evidence wasn't retained.  
In a recent comment letter, AHIMA CEO Lynne Thomas Gordon points out that the group's members play a "key role in e-discovery" but that the healthcare industry "is still primarily focused on the implementation of EHRs and their use in providing clinical care, rather than establishing new systems, processes and policies to respond to litigation and regulatory investigations." 
-----

NHS England moves to regulate apps

6 November 2013   Lis Evenstad
NHS England is working with the US Food and Drug Administration on a bilateral framework for regulations on mobile health apps.
Last month, the FDA issued its final guidance on regulating health apps in the US, and NHS England is looking to follow in the same direction.
Speaking at EHI Live 2013, Inderjit Singh, head of enterprise architecture at NHS England, said it wants to define a set of standards for clinician facing apps.
----

Academy calls for standardised records

6 November 2013   Daloni Carlisle
Electronic patient records must be standardised to support both patient safety and patient access, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges says today in a report on NHS IT.
The report calls for “radical changes” to healthcare IT to ensure that patients are treated safely and effectively, arguing that improved electronic records are crucial to delivering both.
Professor John Williams, Director of the Royal College of Physicians Health Informatics Unit, said: “The Francis Report and Berwick Review both identified that the NHS has lost its way, and must be reoriented to deliver patient-focused, compassionate, safe care.
-----

NIST orders review of its encryption standards development processes

November 7, 2013 | By Susan D. Hall
After reports based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden raised questions about existing encryption standards, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has launched a formal review of its processes.
NIST data encryption standards currently are used in electronic healthcare data security and exchange.
Both The New York Times and The Guardian published articles based on material from Snowden saying the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States and the UK intel agency GCHQ have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat Internet encryption.
-----

An Altered Electronic Order Set Could Create Cost Savings, Better Care

November 5, 2013
Altering the design of an electronic order set in electronic medical record (EMR) could ultimately lead to better care and increased cost savings for patients, says a University of Missouri researcher.
Victoria Shaffer, an assistant professor of health sciences in the MU School of Health Professions, and a team of researchers looked at how physicians selected lab tests using three order set list designs on the same EMR. One was “opt-in,” where no lab tests were pre-selected; the second was opt-out, in which physicians had to de-select lab tests that were not clinically relevant; and third had only a few tests pre-selected based on recommendations by pediatric experts.
What they found was clinicians ordered three more tests when using the opt-out version than the opt-in or recommended versions. Additionally, they ordered more tests recommended by the pediatric experts when using the recommended design than when using the opt-in design.
-----

Diagnostic Error Detection Comes Into Focus

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media , November 7, 2013

A developing discipline aims to find ways to measure efficient accuracy and diagnostic prowess, just as we now scrutinize core measures and surgical outcomes.

Last month's shocker that a robustly healthy long-time friend had just been diagnosed with an awful cancer has devastated me. The discovery of his illness came so late that it allowed him just a few weeks to prepare for his death.
Distracted and irritable, I hid behind life's minutiae to deny what was actually happening. I told myself the poor prognosis was exaggerated. After the inevitable had been confirmed and I had had a good cry, it prompted the question we all ask ourselves when terrible stuff like this happens.
Why didn't his doctors catch this sooner?
-----

Study Links Medical Errors to EHR Default Values

SEP 5, 2013 2:58pm ET
A new study analyzes errors related to “default values” which are standardized medication order sets in electronic health records and computerized physician order entry systems.
The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority, an independent state agency, conducted the study. “Default values are often used to add standardization and efficiency to hospital information systems,” says Erin Sparnon, an analyst with the authority and study author. “For example, a healthy patient using a pain medication after surgery would receive a certain medication, dose and delivery of the medication already preset by the health care facility within the EHR system for that type of surgery.”
These presets are the default value, but safety issues can arise if the defaults are not appropriately used. Sparnon studied 324 verified safety reports, noting that 314, or 97 percent, resulted in no harm. Six others were reported as unsafe conditions that caused no harm and four reports caused temporary harm involving some level of intervention.
-----

Analytics works wonders in Colorado

Posted on Nov 06, 2013
By Anthony Brino, Editor, HIEWatch
Among state experiments in Medicaid policy, Colorado’s accountable care collaborative program is showing early successes in coordinating care and curtailing overutilization — and its analytics platform is supporting a good deal of the collaboration, despite a number of hurdles.
Now covering about half the state’s beneficiaries, Colorado’s Medicaid accountable care program saw a 15 percent reduction in hospital admissions and a 25 percent reduction in high-cost imaging in the 2013 fiscal year, contributing to $44 million in savings, the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing announced recently.
Most of that is going to providers as incentive bonuses and $6 million is returning to state coffers.
-----

Software design can affect lab tests ordered

November 6, 2013 | By Susan D. Hall
Modifying the software list of lab tests for a particular condition can affect the number and relevance of those ordered, according to research from the University of Missouri.
Victoria Shaffer, an assistant professor of health sciences in the MU School of Health Professions, and her team focused on three configurations in the same electronic medical system: an opt-in version in which no lab tests were pre-selected, an opt-out version in which physicians had to de-select lab tests they believed were not clinically relevant, and one with a few tests pre-selected based on recommendations by pediatric experts.
-----

Alarm fatigue tops health technology hazards list

November 6, 2013 | By Ashley Gold
The ECRI institute released its top 10 health technology hazards list yesterday, bringing to attention that with new innovation comes great responsibility--for training, implementation and day-to-day use.
"All of the items on the list represent problems that can be avoided or risks that can be minimized through careful management of technologies," the report states. "For this Top 10 list, we focus only on what we call generic hazards--problems that result from the risks inherent to the use of certain types or combinations of medical technologies."
-----

Digital health tools likely to decrease visits to the doctor

Researchers at Johns Hopkins analyze recent trends in digital health care, concluding that health-related apps and electronic health records will dramatically reduce in-person doc visits.
November 4, 2013 3:23 PM PST
In the not-too-distant future, it is quite likely that most interactions between patients and the health care system will happen online, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who partnered with The Commonwealth Fund to review recent trends in digital health care as well as scientific literature.
Thanks to consumer-directed health apps, electronic health records (EHRs), telemedicine, and the like, researchers say that patients are going to dramatically change the way they interact with their doctors. They report their findings in the November issue of the journal Health Affairs.
-----

Mobile Health Tech Could Reduce Doctor Visits

Scripps researchers laud potential, say more evidence needed to show whether apps to manage acute and chronic illnesses are safe and effective.
Because of mobile health apps and home monitoring, physicians will eventually see patients far less often for minor acute problems and followup visits than they do today, said three doctors from Scripps Health in a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). But before that can happen, they cautioned, "real-world clinical trial evidence" is needed to confirm the benefits of mobile health apps for patients, clinicians and payers.
The three cardiologists who wrote the commentary all work at the Scripps Translational Science Institute, which does clinical trials of mobile health applications and devices. They include Eric Topol, the institute's director and a longtime mobile health advocate; Steven R. Steinhubl, director of digital medicine for Scripps Health; and Evan D. Muse, a clinical scholar and cardiovascular fellow at the institute.
-----

Health I.T. vs. Influenza

NOV 1, 2013
One of the influenza strains that afflicted New Yorkers in 2012 was so sneaky that it even fooled Pascal Imperato, M.D., the former head of the city's health department, a renowned expert on infectious diseases, and now dean of the school of public health at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn.
"I didn't think of taking an antiviral because it began in an insidious manner and I didn't think it was the flu," he says. "Then it caused severe chills. I've never in my life had chills like that-and I've had malaria." By the time his wife started showing symptoms, Imperato knew enough to get her a dose of Tamiflu, which banished the bug in two days.
If the subtle early symptoms had been more widely known and publicized, Imperato might have saved himself a week in bed and a month of feeling not quite himself. The prevailing techniques of flu surveillance-tracking test results and reports of "influenza-like illness"-are blunt instruments for providing that kind of information, but they're being supplemented increasingly by information gleaned from sophisticated lab testing, social media, electronic health records and simply asking people to report whether they have the flu. These new information streams, properly analyzed and integrated, can help providers see disease patterns even among people who don't go to the doctor or the hospital, can give early warning when a virus has undergone changes or presents in an unfamiliar way, and can produce a complete picture of the overall human toll and cost of a season of flu.
-----

Once they start sharing notes with patients, docs don't want to stop

By Diana Manos, Senior Editor
The call to action came when Jan Walker saw her physician’s notes.
“My doctor had been telling me for years to lose weight, but when I saw that he called me mildly obese in his note, and how he’s really worried about my weight, it finally sank in,” Walker said, “and I decided to do something about it.”
A registered nurse and principal associate in medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, Walker is not the only one to change her life because of what doctors had written but not always told patients.
Yet the practice of sharing physician notes is mired in conjecture about elongated visit times, numerous questions outside normal encounters, curtailed productivity, and the concern that doing so will either offend or unnecessarily worry patients. Perceived factors that a new study has determined to be largely illegitimate.
-----

IBM goes big with two data projects

Posted on Nov 05, 2013
By Bernie Monegain, Editor
IBM has launched two separate projects with two top health systems. One involves the use of big data to help clinicians provide predictive care at Emory University Hospital. The other is focused on reducing vendor fraud – again by employing big data analytics.
The company announced the details of its work Nov. 4 at IBM's Information On Demand conference.
Emory University Hospital is collaborating with IBM and Excel Medical to employ a novel use of big data to help ICU doctors and nurses provide predictive care for critically ill patients.  
-----

3 ways to make BYOD (fairly) easy

Posted on Nov 05, 2013
By Jeff Rowe, Contributing Writer
Sometimes, developing new policies comes down to putting a foundation under a process that’s already well under way, and perhaps in no sector of healthcare is this truer than in mobile health.  
After all, doctors and other caregivers are as curious about mobile communications technology as the next person, but unlike many other people when they get a new gadget they want to start using it both at home and at work.
According to Ed Ricks, vice president of information services at Beaufort Memorial Hospital, in Beaufort, S.C., that’s essentially how his organization’s bring your own device policy got launched.
-----

5 HIO practices that put data integrity at risk

November 5, 2013 | By Julie Bird
Health information exchange organizations (HIOs) routinely put data security at risk through five risky practices, two health IT experts contend in an article published by the Journal of the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA).
"Despite their potential, system issues, stakeholder demands, and resource limitations have forced many HIOs to resort to subpar data integrity practices that, while appearing harmless on the surface, could compromise the long-term success of the HIO--and potentially patient safety," write Grant Landsbach, data integrity/MPI manager for Denver-based Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth and Exempla Health System, and Beth Haenke Just, founder and CEO of Just Associates, a healthcare data integration consulting firm.
-----

Hospital saw deaths, code blues and length of stays rise with telehealth use

November 5, 2013 | By Julie Bird
Patients in one hospital's intensive care units had slightly higher mortality rates and stayed slightly longer in the ICU after the hospital started using telemedicine monitoring tools, according to preliminary study results reported by MedPage Today.
None of the effects were statistically significant, study author Ajit Dhakal, M.D., of Northside Medical Center in Youngstown, Ohio, said in presenting the findings at the CHEST meeting in Chicago, according to the article. But, he said, the results were trending in the wrong direction.
The year-over-year mortality rate rose from 78 to 90 and the mean length of stay increased from 3 to 3.2 days. The rate of falls went from zero to 0.81, the study found, and the number of code blues rose from 39 to 54.
-----

ECRI Announces Top 10 Healthcare Technology Hazards

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media , November 5, 2013

ECRI Institute collects data on adverse events and near misses and releases an annual report on the top technology dangers in healthcare.

Occupational radiation hazards to healthcare workers in 'hybrid' operating rooms, failure to test EHR software or network devices before they're used, and surgical errors caused by insufficient training on robot devices are three new types of danger that made the ECRI Institute's top 10 technology hazards list for 2014.
"Every year that we've published this list it's continued to get more attention, and I believe it's helped healthcare organizations focus on important technology concerns," James P. Keller, ECRI's vice president of health technology evaluation and safety, said in an interview about the 7th annual report, which the institute released Monday.
"In my 29 years with ECRI, I don't believe hospitals have paid close enough attention to technology safety."
-----

3 Tech Things That Irk Me

Scott Mace, for HealthLeaders Media , November 5, 2013

Destructive APIs, a lack of interoperability standards—and their glacial pace—and Twitter are a few of the tech irritants on Scott Mace's mind this week.

This week, I've worked up a mini-rant about some of the most maddening things about information technology, in a healthcare context, of course.
1. APIs work great, until they break
Epic recently announced an application program interface (API) for its EHR software. Details remain sketchy, but I can guarantee one thing: Somewhere down the road, for some good reason, Epic will change its API and break a whole bunch of things built on top of the first API.
Don't blame Epic. It's the nature of APIs to change, particularly if the business model of the company publishing them depends on not allowing too much openness with competitors or potential competitors.
That's why we hunger for standards from groups such as HL7 to set the APIs in concrete. But standards are usually the product of vendors jockeying to deny each other any kind of competitive advantage, so they always end up being some kind of least common denominator.
-----

Cash-strapped country makes financial strides with health IT

Posted on Nov 04, 2013
By Erin McCann, Associate Editor
Greece is no stranger to fiscal turmoil. It has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Western world and has racked up more than €321 billion of public debt, which translates to about 169 percent of the country's GDP. But some say the country's two-and-a-half-year-old e-prescribing system, one of the most advanced in Europe, is one thing on the right track, helping reduce pharmaceutical expenditures by 50 percent.  
At the EU-US eHealth conference in Boston last month, Christina Papanikolaou, general secretary of public health in Greece, shared her country's e-prescribing story, and how the system -- which now has a whopping 97 percent of doctors using it -- has helped curb pharmaceutical expenditures by up to €2.5 billion, or $3.4 billion, since 2009. 
Papanikolaou spoke to international world health leaders on how the financial crisis, both local and international, served as a catalyst for innovative idea development to shrink the country's climbing deficit. "I believe that effective use of innovative technologies in the health sector is a big challenge and at the same time an opportunity towards structural reforms for an efficient and sustainable healthcare system," she said.
-----

Technology combines array of monitoring into single information stream

November 4, 2013 | By Julie Bird
Doctors at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta are using health IT to combine complex streams of data collected by multiple machines used in critical care into a single report they hope will provide a comprehensive picture of a patient's condition, the Associated Press reported.
It's part of healthcare's emerging efforts to make big data actionable, including through the use of predictive medicine.
"If you were to ask me, 'What's been going on with this patient for the last minute? The last five minutes? The last 30 minutes?' I couldn't tell you. There's so much data going by," Tim Buchman, M.D., director of the Emory Center for Critical Care, told the AP.
-----

Physician Buy-In Key to Reducing Health Care Costs

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report finds some points of agreement among physician panel
FRIDAY, Nov. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Physician buy-in is essential for creation of any new payment system aimed at reducing health care costs, according to an article published Oct. 21 in Medical Economics.
Researchers at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation interviewed a panel of 18 physicians regarding solutions to help halt the rise of health care expenses.
-----

Superbug app spreads with 100K downloads in first month

The free iOS app Epocrates Bugs + Drugs uses aggregated electronic health record data and geotagging to help users see superbug prevalence as well as sensitivity to drugs.
October 31, 2013 2:38 PM PDT
An app that tracks the presence of superbugs and their sensitivities to drugs by ZIP code is making the rounds among doctors in the US. The app, which has been downloaded more than 100,000 times since it was released in early October, shot to the top of the Apple App Store's free medical app list in its first week alone and now boasts an average user rating of 4+ stars.
Epocrates Bugs + Drugs, a free app for iOS devices, uses aggregated electronic health record (EHR) data and geotagging to help users see both superbug prevalence and sensitivity to drugs by location. The developers, Athenahealth and Epocrates, add more than 6,000 lab isolate data points (from urine, blood, and skin samples) every day to keep the results fresh.
-----

Deaths at VA hosptial blamed on poor EHR use

By Anthony Brino, Associate Editor
Three recent deaths at the Memphis VA Medical Center emergency department could probably have been prevented with better communication, documentation and layout design, according to an investigation by the Veterans Administration Inspector General.
After receiving an anonymous complaint describing potential inadequate care incidents at the Memphis VA Medical Center’s 22 bed ED, the VA OIG reviewed committee minutes, relevant documents, and the electronic health records of the patients, and largely substantiated the claims, finding physicians missing nurse notes and EHR alerts, and a poor ED design leaving some patients only partly monitored.
One patient came to the ER complaining of back and neck pain and confirmed an aspirin allergy with a nurse upon arrival, but the physician reviewing the patient three hours later hand-wrote on paper an order for the aspirin-containing anti-inflammatory drug ketorolac, missing an alert that would have noted a contraindication and bypassing the medical center’s policy of digital documentation.
-----

Still a Long Way To Go in Overcoming Health Data Exchange Barriers

by Kate Ackerman, iHealthBeat Editor in Chief Monday, November 4, 2013
WASHINTGON -- At the eHealth Initiative's Health Data Exchange & Interoperability Summit last week, eHI CEO Jennifer Covich Bordenick said she's been getting a lot of questions over the last few weeks about the health insurance exchanges and how an important technology launch could have so many problems.
But the technology issues plaguing the health insurance exchanges are not surprising to those in the health IT world, Covich Bordenick noted. "The connections and complexity of exchanging data [are] not easy," she said.
She likened it to trying to connect Lego blocks and Lincoln logs.
-----

Enjoy!
David.

Friday, November 15, 2013

If This Is The Quality Of Medicare Local Leadership We Have There Is A Big Problem.

This popped up today.

No free universal health for unhealthy choices: McRuvie

15th Nov 2013
A MEDICARE Local CEO has surprised colleagues by saying she does not believe in universal free healthcare, and by suggesting people should be punished financially for their unhealthy lifestyle choices.
“Universal free healthcare I don’t think is a good thing,” Central Queensland ML CEO Jean McRuvie told the Australian Medicare Local Alliance’s National Primary Health Care Convention on the Gold Coast last week.
The remark, in a panel discussion, elicited murmurs from an audience of more than 1000 delegates. Asked to elaborate, Ms McRuvie, whose ML area has one of the highest obesity rates according to the National Health Performance Authority (NHPA), said she questioned giving free healthcare to people who made poor choices.
“We all say ‘the cost of health care is high’. Why are we not paying for our healthcare?” she said.
“Why are we not rewarding people by giving free healthcare for doing all the things they should do to maintain their health?”
“You teach children ‘if you do that, there is a consequence’. We need to have some hard conversations about healthcare.”
She added that many good GPs were ordering unnecessary tests “just because it’s free”.
More here:
This CEO is clearly severely out of step with anyone who knows anything about health service delivery and what nonsense this is. She simply needs to just resign. She clearly has no place managing health services delivery.  Minister Dutton needs to make sure ML leadership have a clue and are not in the game of punishing people.
Nutty Right Wing Queenslanders strike again!
David.

This Is A Very Serious Problem That Needs A Solution If Clinical Decision Support Is To Make A Difference.

This appeared a little while ago.

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).
On average, 53 percent of alert overrides were considered appropriate, according to the study abstract. Only 12 percent of renal recommendation alert overrides were deemed appropriate, compared with 92 percent for patient allergies.
The researchers concluded that refining the alerts could improve relevance and reduce alert fatigue.
Alert fatigue and other misuses of EHRs can cause serious problems.
More here with links.
I look forward to suggestions as to what can be done to keep this incidence low. Insist on a reason for the override being recorded maybe?
What do you think?
David.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Interesting Discussion On The PCEHR Enquiry From The USA. Their System Is Really Different.

This appeared last week.

As Aussies struggle with e-health, is meaningful use that bad?

Author Name Jennifer Bresnick   |   Date November 5, 2013
Occasionally, it’s helpful to raise our noses from the grindstone and look around at how the world is progressing around us.  When it comes to EHR implementation and health information exchange (HIE), the United States isn’t the only one facing some serious issues.  This week, Australian Health Minister Peter Dutton announced an inquiry into the sluggish uptake of the country’s Personally Controlled eHealth Record System (PCEHR), which has cost AU$1 billion so far while attracting only a fraction of the providers and patients expected.  Can Australia’s EHR woes teach us a little something about the effectiveness of meaningful use?
Since 2010, Australia has been developing the PCEHR system as a national, all-in-one health information exchange.  Intended to hold up-to-date, interoperable clinical summaries in the HL7 format, the PCEHR uses a unique individual healthcare identifier to tag patient records across a network of connected systems.  Officials hoped to have 500,000 patients using the system by the end of June 2013, but as of October, the system has fallen short by 100,000 opt-in sign ups, and only a few hundred providers have actually uploaded and shared fewer than 5000 documents in the country of 22 million residents.
“On those numbers it runs out at about $200,000 a patient in terms of investment,” noted Dutton.  “We want to make sure for argument’s sake that we get good numbers around the electronic health record because we think there can be savings if people have their records coordinated at accessible emergency departments or general practice.”
Unlike the American EHR Incentive Program, Australia’s PCEHR provides no financial incentive for adoption, nor does it institute penalties for non-use.  A lack of participation in meaningful use will cost US providers up to 3% of their Medicare reimbursements by 2017.  While 98% of general practice EHR software in Australia is compatible with the PCEHR system, a clear advantage over the fragmented EHR landscape in the United States, the lack of a business case for PCEHR could be its downfall.
Australian Medical Association (AMA) President Steve Hambleton acknowledged the problem with the system’s “strategic direction” in an interview with ABC Radio. Hambleton has been appointed to the three-person inquiry panel to review the PCEHR in the coming months. 
More here:
In answer to the question “Can Australia’s EHR woes teach us a little something about the effectiveness of meaningful use?” I would suggest the answer is a firm no!
I keep seeing discussions from NEHTA about pursuing “Meaningful Use” but the differences between what is being done in the US and what is happening in Australia are vastly different.
First in the US the capabilities of the actual EHR systems are certified - which is different to what is done with our ePIP program where the requirements are much broader and less specific.
Second we have only incentives but no penalties which do exist in the US to get the equivalent of our Medicare payments.
As far as the article is concerned I suspect they have not really grasped the nuance the that PCEHR is an add on system rather than the sole EHR system and they have not grasped we have ePIP.
The US on the other hand has, in their program, taken an interesting approach of incrementally increasing the level of capabilities required for continuing payments - and it does seem this is having a good effect. The scale of the payments are now in the 10’s of billions.
I think we could learn more from the US and they can learn from us.
David.


Draft PCEHR Enquiry Submission November 2013 Version 2

Note this is a condensed summary document. I do not believe anything contained here is not supported by detailed evidence which can be found on my blog.
Background To and Core Issues Regarding the PCEHR Program.
The idea for the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record emerged from the NHHRC, as an afterthought, and appeared, without any significant consultation, in the May 2010 Budget as a $467M 2 year project that was to go live on July 1, 2012. Further funding was to be contingent on the system delivering benefits - but nevertheless more funding as provided to the present day.
There was no cost / benefit studies undertaken on the plans and it was assumed the benefits case for a quite different NEHTA IEHR proposal was assumed to be correct - despite the fact that many of the drivers of the benefits were not present in the PCEHR (e.g. Clinical Decision Support). A public consultation on the original PCEHR Proposal resulted in virtually no change to the plans despite a lot of sensible concerns being expressed.
The PCEHR went live, with some issues that appeared to be related to absurdly tight delivery guidelines applied by the then Minister, in July 2012 and since then it has been gradually enhanced and considerable work has been done to integrate access to the PCEHR from the major General Practice Management Systems. This explains why some 16 months later the system is still not delivered and fully functional. Politics has also led to ‘function creep’ with announcements of additional functionality before the system was stabilised.
Nowhere in Western World has a major Health IT project of this scale, with the planned mode of operation been either delivered successfully in such a time-frame or shown to offer benefit. The design has been based on intuition rather than evidence and on the basis of clinician and patient reaction this seems not to have been correct. (The evidence for this lies in the fact that despite over 1 million people having registered for a record only 30,000 or so have actually added some of their information to the record - so the public is not using it).  
The Three Major Issues
Ignoring all the usability, medico-legal, workflow, workload, data ownership, data control and clinical relevance issues (which are all very, very important) to me there are three major problems. The first is that the PCEHR can’t be a system to properly and fully serves the needs of professional clinicians and patients simultaneously. They have dramatically different needs and just who the PCEHR is for and what it is actually meant to do for them is crucial. If it is for patients the system lack and really can’t deliver the functions international experience shows are valued (appointment making, repeat prescriptions, direct e-mail to their GP and access to approved laboratory results (not yet available but maybe possible). If it is for clinicians it is too slow, lacks decision support, external communications and the list goes on. 
The second issue is, bluntly, that the concept of patient control just alienates clinicians as a place to source information that can be trusted. Clinician trust is vital and the issue of being able to trust information crucial, as if information is either inaccurate of incomplete then there is a real risk of patient harm. From a practical clinical perspective it is much more sensible to start a patient’s assessment and treatment from the ‘ground up’ than try to sort out what can believed and what can’t be. There are real medico-legal implications in all this.
The third issue - which relates to the second is data quality. Obviously trust and data quality are inextricably linked. We have seen many errors in the data uploaded to the PCEHR already from Medicare Australia data sources - which includes some in my PCEHR record.
Throughout the conceptual development, actual development and roll out the drivers of progress have been NEHTA and the then DoHA who have both been actively hostile to many private sector initiatives and who have actively corrupted and distorted the e-Health Standards setting processes.
Over the last two to three years the leadership and governance of the PCEHR Program and other initiatives has been secretive, non-transparent arrogant and un-consultative.  
The outcome of all this is that we have a system which was not recommended by the 2008 National E-Health Strategy, which does not serve anyone’s needs well, which is said to have now cost near to a billion dollars, which is strongly suspected to be intended to be an administrative and not clinically focussed system which have so far delivered virtually no benefits to patients or their doctors.
What Is To Be  / Should Be Done From Here?
To put is simply, for me, what is needed is that the policy makers decide (in consultation with relevant stakeholders) what it is they want in a national system and just who that system is to be deigned to serve.
It goes without saying that what follows assumes dramatically improved leadership, governance and transparency which has been evidenced to date by NEHTA and DoHA in the e-Health domain.
If asked, my preferred approach to e-Health going forward, would have two broad components.
The first would be based on enhanced connectivity and functionality for current practice management systems used by GPs, Specialists, Allied Health and Hospitals. The objective would be to maximise, standardise and optimise the information flows between all actors in the health system and thereby improve the patient experience as well as the quality and safety of care. Much of this could be achieved working with the private sector. As part of this effort there needs to be a major focus on data quality and interoperability.
Part of the enhancements would be to design (as is happening in the UK and the US) ways that patients could interact electronically with their clinicians to see the benefits cited above.
The second would be to develop regional geographic shared record hubs which would hold a carefully considered small  subset of health information to assist Hospitals and other clinicians offer care (with the patient’s consent) based on information held on the shared records in emergent and travel situations. These hubs I envisage as being developed, trialled and refined over time with an active network to learn what was working, what was not and how the good ideas that are working can be spread.
As far as current activities are concerned I would see the continuation of the core e-Health infrastructure (SMD, IHI Service, Terminology Support etc.) and would consider continuing support of the PCEHR until such time as regional shared record hubs can be put in place. Longer term I believe the overall architecture of the PCEHR is so flawed that is should be retired.
I would also fundamentally restructure NEHTA and the e-Heath parts of DoH to improve transparency, stakeholder engagement etc. I believe all this is consistent to the 2008 E-Health Strategy and likely to be consistent with the planned 2013 refresh.
There is a lot of detail that can be filled in to flesh out these ideas but overall it seems to me an approach of this type can achieve the dual objectives of quality professional / clinician support and communication with patient interaction to the extent they desire can be mediated. Taking this rouht would also re-engage Government with the private sector and allow the Government to focus on the things it needs to do while having the private sector do what it does best and would be consistent with the National E-Health Strategy
Please Note: I am more than happy to discuss these ideas with the review panel if desired.
References and Major Links.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The PCEHR Concept of Operations - As Released Today - Is Just Not A Goer

6 November 2013, 2.29pm AEST

Unfixable: time to ditch personally controlled e-health record scheme

A/Professor David Glance.  Director of the UWA Centre for Software Practice UWA

The e health revolution—easier said than done

Research Paper no. 3 2011–12
Dr Rhonda Jolly
Social Policy Section
17 November 2011

MSIA: The eHealth paradigm and the PCEHR

Written by Emma Hossack on 18 May 2012.

Opinion: the eHealth world moves on

Labor promised so much, delivered so little, on e-health

Emma Hossack is the secretary of the Medical Software Industry Association and CEO of Extensia. The views above are her personal views alone.

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

Last Updated: 28 October 2013
Lastly my blog at www.aushealthit.blogspot.com.au is searchable with over 3000 articles since 2006.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Very Draft PCEHR Enquiry Submission November 2013 Version 0.1

Note this is a condensed summary document. I do not believe anything contained here is not supported by detailed evidence which can be found on my blog.

Background To The PCEHR Program.


The idea for the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record emerged from the NHHRC, as an afterthought, and appeared, without any significant consultation, in the May 2010 Budget as a $467M 2 year project that was to go live on July 1, 2012. Further funding was to be contingent on the system delivering benefits - but nevertheless more funding as provided to the present day.

There was no cost / benefit studies undertaken on the plans and it was assumed the benefits case for a quite different NEHTA IEHR proposal was assumed to be correct - despite the fact that many of the drivers of the benefits were not present in the PCEHR (e.g. Clinical Decision Support). A public consultation on the original PCEHR Proposal resulted in virtually no change to the plans despite a lot of sensible concerns being expressed.

The PCEHR went live, with some issues that appeared to be related to absurdly tight delivery guidelines applied by the then Minister, in July 2012 and since then it has been gradually enhanced and considerable work has been done to integrate access to the PCEHR from the major General Practice Management Systems. This explains why some 16 months later the system is still not delivered and fully functional. Politics has also led to ‘function creep’ with announcements of additional functionality before the system was stabilised.

Nowhere in Western World has a major Health IT project of this scale, with the planned mode of operation been either delivered successfully in such a time-frame or shown to offer benefit. The design has been based on intuition rather than evidence and on the basis of clinician and patient reaction this seems not to have been correct. (The evidence for this lies in the fact that despite over 1 million people having registered for a record only 30,000 or so have actually added some of their information to the record - so the public is not using it).

Ignoring all the usability, medico-legal, workflow, workload, data quality, data ownership, data control and clinical relevance issues to me there are two major problems. The first is that the PCEHR can’t be a system to properly and fully serves the needs of professional clinicians and patients simultaneously. They have dramatically different needs and just who the PCEHR is for and what it is actually meant to do for them is crucial. If it is for patients the system lack and really can’t deliver the functions international experience shows are valued (appointment making, repeat prescriptions, direct e-mail to their GP and access to approved laboratory results (not yet available but maybe possible). If it is for clinicians it is too slow, lacks decision support, external communications and the list goes on.

The second issue is, bluntly, that the concept of patient control just alienates clinicians as a place to source information that can be trusted.

Throughout the conceptual development, actual development and roll out the drivers of progress have been NEHTA and the then DoHA who have both been actively hostile to many private sector initiatives and who have actively corrupted and distorted the e-Health Standards setting processes.

Over the last two to three years the leadership and governance of the PCEHR Program and other initiatives has been secretive, non-transparent arrogant and un-consultative.

The outcome of all this is that we have a system which was not recommended by the 2008 National E-Health Strategy, which does not serve anyone’s needs well, which is said to have now cost near to a billion dollars, which is strongly suspected to be intended to be an administrative and not clinically focussed system which have so far delivered virtually no benefits to patients or their doctors.

What Is To Be / Should Be Done From Here?


To put is simply, for me, what is needed is that the policy makers decide (in consultation with relevant stakeholders) what it is they want in a national system and just who that system is to be deigned to serve.

It goes without saying that what follows assumes dramatically improved leadership, governance and transparency than has been evidenced to date by NEHTA and DoHA in the e-Health domain.

If asked, my preferred approach to e-Health going forward, would have two broad components.

The first would be based on enhanced connectivity and functionality for current practice management systems used by GPs, Specialists, Allied Health and Hospitals. The objective would be to maximise and optimise the information flows between all actors in the health system and thereby improve the patient experience as well as the quality and safety of care. Much of this could be achieved working with the private sector.

Part of the enhancements would be to design (as is happening in the UK and the US) ways that patients could interact electronically with their clinicians to see the benefits cited above.

The second would be to develop regional shared record hubs which would hold a carefully considered subset of health information to assist Hospitals and other clinicians offer care (with the patient’s consent) based on information held on the shared records in emergent and travel situations. These hubs I envisage as being developed, trialled and refined over time with an active network to learn what was working, what was not and how the good ideas that are working can be spread.

As far as current activities are concerned I would see the continuation of the core e-Health infrastructure (SMD, IHI Service, Terminology Support etc.) and continue support of the PCEHR until such time as regional shared record hubs can be put in place.

I would also fundamentally restructure NEHTA and the e-Heath parts of DoH to improve transparency, stakeholder engagement etc. I believe all this is consistent to the 2008 E-Health Strategy and likely to be consistent with the planned 2013 refresh.

There is a lot of detail that can be filled in to flesh out these ideas but overall it seems to me an approach of this type can achieve the dual objectives of quality professional / clinician support and communication with patient interaction to the extent they desire can be mediated.

What would others do?

Critical Link:

http://aushealthit.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/pcehr-concept-of-operations-as-released.html

David.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

PCEHR Enquiry - Opportunity To Provide Input. Please Help!

I have just been asked by the Enquiry to produce a 2 page summary of the issues and recommendations that I feel need to be fully reviewed and considered by the three man team who are developing the report for Minister Dutton.

I would really like input from all readers as to what readers see as important, so I can be sure I am on the money.

My early list is that we need to make sure major changes are made to the leadership and governance of the whole e-Health effort, that real involvement and consultation happens with clinicians, consumers and the industry and that we need to be very clear just what the PCEHR is actually meant to be and do and use that to decide how it should be reshaped.

Basic brief is what is wrong, how can it be fixed and  how can we get there?

I think most readers know my views but I really want to put something to the Review that reflects the expert audience we have here. If you don't want me to wander off with my own preferences now is the time to provide a comment or e-mail (davidgm@optusnet.com.au).

Many thanks and I will try to reflect the views I receive.

David.