Normally, attention is focused on workflows that provide the emergency department (ED) physicians with images and radiology reports in a timely fashion. There are a number of discrete workflows (including communications) that address the interplay of patient, radiology and the ED staff. This can usually be handled by fairly straightforward means using the available technologies.
Things get more complicated when an outlying emergency room needs to transfer the patient to a trauma center. Whether an ambulance or helicopter is used, it will usually take valuable time to get the patient to the new location, very often along with a CD/DVD or hardcopy films of radiology images that were taken in the initial ER. More time is then spent in re-evaluating the images and the patient.
If we leverage the Internet to securely transmit such images before the patient arrives at the trauma center, then surgeons and radiologist can evaluate, plan and prepare treatment ahead of the patient’s arrival. At Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), I set up VPN connections with a few of the top referring ERs. This allowed these facilities to send diagnostic quality Dicom images directly to HCMC where radiology, the ER, and the surgeons could review them. Since its inception, this service has been expanded to half a dozen referring facilities.
New Mexico has a system called IMEDCON (NMsoftware) that allows for instant digital file sharing without giving access to PACS. The system has been a success, allowing hospitals to manage head trauma cases without transfer. It is currently set up for 12 or so hospitals around the state to be able to share images with the regional Level One trauma center. A similar coverage system for stroke patients is currently underway.
As we move to expanding health information exchanges (HIE) we must also look at how we can quickly route such time critical data. Ideally the image set can be bundled into a single file using lossless compression and sent to the destination facility where it would automatically notify the trauma center of its availability. The facility would then open the study with their PACS tools and proceed with evaluating the incoming patient.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
National Patient Identifier
We are moving towards an environment that will allow us to exchange important patient information with all providers and payers of healthcare. The key to successful health information exchange requires an accurate means for uniquely identifying an individual to ensure privacy and safety. Even last name, first name and date of birth do not guaranty uniqueness and the use of social security numbers is not allowed. Compounding this, congress passed shortsighted legislation which prohibits government from taking any action to bring about a national patient identifier.
On one hand we have HIPAA and high concern for patient privacy while on the other, a burgeoning number of sites where people freely trade personal data and their experience regarding various types of medical treatment. If the government has its hands tied by laws, the free market and people’s interest in obtaining the best healthcare may drive the adoption of a voluntary national patient identifier.
For instance, a patient could subscribe to a service that provides a unique identifier analogous to purchasing the rights to a domain name on the Internet. They could then provide that ID to any health provider (perhaps when providing their HIPAA releases) and the provider would then link this number to their own patient ID (frequently referred to as Medical Record Number or MRN in hospitals). This would allow providers anywhere in the US to query data under the health information exchange rules currently being established.
On one hand we have HIPAA and high concern for patient privacy while on the other, a burgeoning number of sites where people freely trade personal data and their experience regarding various types of medical treatment. If the government has its hands tied by laws, the free market and people’s interest in obtaining the best healthcare may drive the adoption of a voluntary national patient identifier.
For instance, a patient could subscribe to a service that provides a unique identifier analogous to purchasing the rights to a domain name on the Internet. They could then provide that ID to any health provider (perhaps when providing their HIPAA releases) and the provider would then link this number to their own patient ID (frequently referred to as Medical Record Number or MRN in hospitals). This would allow providers anywhere in the US to query data under the health information exchange rules currently being established.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Cumulative Radiation Exposure
Now that we are finally discussing electronic health records (EHR) and personal health records (PHR) and patient safety, we shouldn’t ignore the cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and treatment modalities such as X-ray, CT, Gammaknife, etc.
It has been known for a long time that tissue damage from X-rays is cumulative and will increase cancer risk, though hard and fast numbers are difficult to determine for each individual. Instead guidelines have been established to safeguard both health workers, patients and the unborn. Workers are in a better position because they carry radiation badges which must checked und occupational health requirements. Most patients rely on the primary health provider but this is at best hit and miss. In the preponderance of cases no tracking done because there is no quantitative data generated or stored other than general information indicating an order for X-rays or a report.
We are know at a place where not only can the new systems deliver good estimates of radiation delivered to the tissue, we soon can share the data with other environment based on the upcoming health information exchange (HIE) protocols.
The only issue remains is how this data can be accrued and collated for a given person. Although the data need not physically reside in a single system, administratively it is easier.
It has been known for a long time that tissue damage from X-rays is cumulative and will increase cancer risk, though hard and fast numbers are difficult to determine for each individual. Instead guidelines have been established to safeguard both health workers, patients and the unborn. Workers are in a better position because they carry radiation badges which must checked und occupational health requirements. Most patients rely on the primary health provider but this is at best hit and miss. In the preponderance of cases no tracking done because there is no quantitative data generated or stored other than general information indicating an order for X-rays or a report.
We are know at a place where not only can the new systems deliver good estimates of radiation delivered to the tissue, we soon can share the data with other environment based on the upcoming health information exchange (HIE) protocols.
The only issue remains is how this data can be accrued and collated for a given person. Although the data need not physically reside in a single system, administratively it is easier.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thoughts about the proposed Meaningful Use definitions
Looking at what’s in the proposal of Meaningful Use (MU), I see good intentions but also a risk of requiring so many changes that it may end up burdening the clinical process with metrics which cannot be derived automatically from the currently available EHR applications.
The June 16 draft focuses on CPOE, large-scale integration of currently diverse systems, patient safety metrics, use metrics, electronic health information exchange (with the patient/family and other healthcare providers), and security.
Current clinical documentation systems are in many ways still in their infancy. Companies are still learning how to adapt the user interface to the clinical workflow. Good interfaces, like the evolution of computerized spreadsheets, will take a while to crystallize. Much of what is available now, was designed to mimic our current documentation process and was not designed to collect the information proposed in the draft MU.
Just looking at how long RHIOs have taken to get establish and settle on HIE formats makes me rather dubious that we have enough time before 2011 to promulgate, let alone implement and use the EHRs. To achieve the stated timetable we must:
1. Publish final MU definitions (End of 2009)
2. Publish final HIE definitions and formats (End of 2009)
3. Allow the vendors to program and test the needed changes (say 6 months: June 2010)
4. Have the certification body certify the application (say 3 months: September 2010)
5. Let the users evaluate and purchase (say 3 months: December 2010)
6. Implement and start using (hospitals will be setting records if they get this done by December 2011)
This accelerated schedule above would still have many if not most users miss out on the first year of CMS reimbursements.
I see two options:
1. Delays to the CMS reimbursements are enacted and we retain the proposals.
2. The current MU proposal for 2011 is scaled back to focus more on implementation and use of the current versions of EHR, and less on patient safety metrics and HIE. At the same time as the 2011 MU requirements are published, clear definitions for 2013 MU must be promulgated as well to allow vendors and users to prepare with adequate lead-time.
Because of the nature of HIE, it may still be possible to have available as an add-on to existing EHR by the 2011 deadline though attention to all necessary security could end up slowing down this process.
The June 16 draft focuses on CPOE, large-scale integration of currently diverse systems, patient safety metrics, use metrics, electronic health information exchange (with the patient/family and other healthcare providers), and security.
Current clinical documentation systems are in many ways still in their infancy. Companies are still learning how to adapt the user interface to the clinical workflow. Good interfaces, like the evolution of computerized spreadsheets, will take a while to crystallize. Much of what is available now, was designed to mimic our current documentation process and was not designed to collect the information proposed in the draft MU.
Just looking at how long RHIOs have taken to get establish and settle on HIE formats makes me rather dubious that we have enough time before 2011 to promulgate, let alone implement and use the EHRs. To achieve the stated timetable we must:
1. Publish final MU definitions (End of 2009)
2. Publish final HIE definitions and formats (End of 2009)
3. Allow the vendors to program and test the needed changes (say 6 months: June 2010)
4. Have the certification body certify the application (say 3 months: September 2010)
5. Let the users evaluate and purchase (say 3 months: December 2010)
6. Implement and start using (hospitals will be setting records if they get this done by December 2011)
This accelerated schedule above would still have many if not most users miss out on the first year of CMS reimbursements.
I see two options:
1. Delays to the CMS reimbursements are enacted and we retain the proposals.
2. The current MU proposal for 2011 is scaled back to focus more on implementation and use of the current versions of EHR, and less on patient safety metrics and HIE. At the same time as the 2011 MU requirements are published, clear definitions for 2013 MU must be promulgated as well to allow vendors and users to prepare with adequate lead-time.
Because of the nature of HIE, it may still be possible to have available as an add-on to existing EHR by the 2011 deadline though attention to all necessary security could end up slowing down this process.
Friday, June 5, 2009
HIT: not all about IT
Much money is spent on clinical applications and too often we say hospitals have developed isolated silos of information. EHR will hopefully remedy this situation, but frequently the selection and implementation of a new specialty application is conducted with a focus that is too narrow. This results in different groups being dissatisfied and also delivers less than stellar returns on the investment. Clinical applications might have a computer program at their heart but they are hugely multi-dimensional and a successful project needs more focus on the elements often regarded as peripheral.
For example, the implementation of an emergency department information system (EDIS) needs to integrate with the rest of the hospital systems (hospital information system, pharmacy, radiology, lab, respiratory therapy, environmental services, communications, clinical data repository, billing, etc.). This requires planning for, and evaluation of such things as compliance issues, legal aspects, metrics for performance, incorporation of quality initiatives, workflows and workflow redesign, user interfaces, user buy-in, unexpected obstacles, common dictionaries, order sets, formularies, handling referring and primary care physicians, granularity of access, and exchanging data with other facilities. The preceding list illustrates some of the complexity involved when integrating with enterprise applications and the need to lay a solid foundation to ensure outcomes when moving to a new clinical tool.
The old saying of measure twice, cut once applies in this situation. Being prepared with knowledge and commitment will make the IT portion of the implementation that much easier.
For example, the implementation of an emergency department information system (EDIS) needs to integrate with the rest of the hospital systems (hospital information system, pharmacy, radiology, lab, respiratory therapy, environmental services, communications, clinical data repository, billing, etc.). This requires planning for, and evaluation of such things as compliance issues, legal aspects, metrics for performance, incorporation of quality initiatives, workflows and workflow redesign, user interfaces, user buy-in, unexpected obstacles, common dictionaries, order sets, formularies, handling referring and primary care physicians, granularity of access, and exchanging data with other facilities. The preceding list illustrates some of the complexity involved when integrating with enterprise applications and the need to lay a solid foundation to ensure outcomes when moving to a new clinical tool.
The old saying of measure twice, cut once applies in this situation. Being prepared with knowledge and commitment will make the IT portion of the implementation that much easier.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Up-to-date ePrescribing Information
As part of integrating the hospital environment, the focus on computerized physician/provider order entry (CPOE) has come to the forefront. ePrescribing is a subsection of this area and is directed at ordering, checking and relaying prescriptions.
While the digital process can interact with other knowledge/decisions support systems such as drug interactions, allergies, contraindications, etc, it has also delivered many poor user interfaces and a commensurate amount of debate. Like most technologies, the user interfaces, application intelligence and practicality is continuously evolving (just think of how the simple spreadsheet moved to Lotus 1-2-3 and then continued to evolve into the amazingly powerful Excel product).
Because of this ever-changing environment, new technologies, varying State and Federal initiatives and regulations, people need access to timely information as the plan for and select ePrescribing for their facilities. An ideal solution is the Wiki, which is essentially a living, evolving encyclopedia which is updated by its users. This allows the content to stay current with developments.
HIMSS has developed an ePrescribing Wiki site to provide up-to-date information accessible to all. The HIMSS wiki addresses definitions, issues, remedies, DEA's position on controlled substances and many more aspects of ePrescibing. Users are asked to review, edit and add to the wiki, keeping it relevant.
While the digital process can interact with other knowledge/decisions support systems such as drug interactions, allergies, contraindications, etc, it has also delivered many poor user interfaces and a commensurate amount of debate. Like most technologies, the user interfaces, application intelligence and practicality is continuously evolving (just think of how the simple spreadsheet moved to Lotus 1-2-3 and then continued to evolve into the amazingly powerful Excel product).
Because of this ever-changing environment, new technologies, varying State and Federal initiatives and regulations, people need access to timely information as the plan for and select ePrescribing for their facilities. An ideal solution is the Wiki, which is essentially a living, evolving encyclopedia which is updated by its users. This allows the content to stay current with developments.
HIMSS has developed an ePrescribing Wiki site to provide up-to-date information accessible to all. The HIMSS wiki addresses definitions, issues, remedies, DEA's position on controlled substances and many more aspects of ePrescibing. Users are asked to review, edit and add to the wiki, keeping it relevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
