Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Sutter Health Blends EHR, Patient-Reported Data For MS Treatment

Posted on December 5, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The Sutter Health network is launching a new research project which will blend patient-reported and EHR-based data to improve the precision of multiple sclerosis treatment. Sutter will fund the project with a $1.2 million award from the California Initiative to Advance Precision Medicine.

To conduct the project, Sutter Health researchers are partnering with colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. Working together, the team is developing a neurology application dubbed MS-SHARE which will be used by patients and doctors during appointments, and by patients between appointments.

During the 18-month demonstration project, the team will build the app with input from the health system’s doctors as well as MS patients. Throughout the process of care, the app will organize both patient-reported data and EHR data, in a manner intended to let doctors and patients view the data together and work together on care planning.

Over the short term, researchers and developers are focusing on outcomes like patient and doctor use of the app and enhancing the patient experience. Its big picture goals, meanwhile, include the ability to improve patient outcomes, such as disease progression and symptom control. Ultimately, the team hopes the results of this project go beyond supporting multiple sclerosis patients to helping to improve care for other neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease, seizure disorders and migraine headaches.

The Sacramento, Calif.-based health network pitches the project as potentially transformative. “MS-SHARE has the potential to change how doctors and patients spend their time during appointments,” the press release asserts. “Instead of ‘data finding and gathering,’ doctors and patients can devote more time to conversation about how the care is working and how it needs to be changed to meet patient needs.”

Time for an editorial aside here. As a patient with a neurological disorder (Parkinson’s), I’m here to say that while this sounds like an excellent start at collaborating with patients, at first glance it may be doomed to limited success at best.

What I mean is as follows. When I meet with the neurologist to discuss progression of my symptoms, he or she typically does little beyond the standard exam. In fact, my sense is that most seem quite satisfied that they know enough about my status to make decisions after doing that exam. In most cases, little or nothing about my functioning outside the office makes it into the chart.

What I’m trying to say here is that based on my experience, it will take more than a handy-dandy app to win neurologists over to collaborating over charts and data with any patient. (Honestly, I think that’s true of many doctors outside this specialty, too.) And I’m not suggesting that this is because they’re arrogant, although they may be in some cases. Rather, I’m suggesting that it’s a workflow issue. Integrating patients in the discussion isn’t just a change of pace, it could be seen as a distraction that could lead to worse care rather than better. It will be interesting to see if that’s how things turn out.

Hospital Program Uses Connected Health Monitoring To Admit Patients “To Home”

Posted on November 28, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A Boston-based hospital has kicked off a program in which it will evaluate whether a mix of continuous connected patient monitoring and clinicians is able to reduce hospitalizations for common medical admissions.

The Home Hospital pilot, which will take place at Partners HealthCare Brigham and Women’s Hospital, is being led by David Levine, MD, MA, a physician who practices at the hospital. The hospital team is working with two vendors to implement the program, Vital Connect and physIQ. Vital Connect is supplying a biosensor that will continuously stream patient vital signs; those vital signs, in turn, will be analyzed and viewable through physIQ’s physiology analytics platform.

The Home Hospital pilot is one of two efforts planned by the team to analyze how technology in home-based care can treat patients who might otherwise have been admitted to the hospital. For this initiative, a randomized controlled trial, patients diagnosed at the BWH Emergency Department with exacerbation of heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, cellulitis or complicated urinary tract infection are being placed at home with the Vital Connect/physIQ solution and receive daily clinician visits.

The primary aim of this program, according to participants, is to demonstrate that the in-home model they’ve proposed can provide appropriate care at a lower cost at home, as well as improving outcomes measures such as health related quality of life, patient safety and quality and overall patient experience.

According to a written statement, the first phase of the initiative began in September of this year involves roughly 60 patients, half of whom are receiving traditional in-hospital care, while the other half are being treated at home. With the early phase looking at the success, the hospital will probably scale up to including 500 patients in the pilot in early 2017.

Expect to see more hospital-based connected care options like these emerge over the next year or two, as they’re just too promising to ignore at this point.

Perhaps the most advanced I’ve written about to date must be the Chesterfield, Mo-based Mercy Virtual Care Center, which describes itself as a “hospital without beds.” The $54M Virtual Care Center, which launched in October 2015, employs 330 staffers providing a variety of telehealth services, including virtual hospitalists, telestroke and perhaps most relevant to this story, the “home monitoring” service, which provides continuous monitoring for more than 3,800 patients.

My general impression is that few hospitals are ready to make the kind of commitment Mercy did, but that most are curious and some quite interested in actively implementing connected care and monitoring as a significant part of their service line. It’s my guess that it won’t take many more successful tests to convince wide swath of hospitals to get off the fence and join them.

Longitudinal Patient Record Needed To Advance Care?

Posted on November 23, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

In most day to day settings, a clinician only needs a small (if precisely focused) amount of data to make clinical decisions. Both in ambulatory and acute settings, they rely on immediate and near-term information, some collected during the visit, and a handful of historical factors likely to influence or even govern what plan of care is appropriate.

That may be changing, though, according to Cheryl McKay of Orion Health. In a recent blog item, McKay argues that as the industry shifts from fee-for-service payment models to value-based reimbursement, we’ll need new types of medical records to support this model. Today, the longitudinal patient record and community care plan are emerging as substitutes to old EMR models, McKay says. These new entities will be built from varied data sources including payer claims, provider EMRs, patient health devices and the patients themselves.

As these new forms of patient medical record emerge, effective population health management is becoming more feasible, she argues. Longitudinal patient records and community care plans are “essential as we steer away from FFS…The way records are delivered to healthcare providers– with an utter lack of visibility and a lot of noise from various data sources– creates unnecessary risks for everyone involved.”

She contends that putting these types of documentation in place, which summarize patient-based clinical experiences versus episodic clinical experiences, close big gaps in patient history which would otherwise generate mistakes. Longitudinal record-keeping also makes it easier for physicians to aggragate information, do predictive modeling and intervene proactively in patient care at both the patient and population level.

She also predicts that with both a longitudinal patient record and community care plan in place, getting from the providers of all stripes a “panoramic” look at patients, costs will fall as providers stop performing needless tests and procedures. Not only that, these new entities would ideally offer real-time information as well, including event notifications, keeping all the providers involved in sync in providing the patient’s care.

To be sure, this blog item is a pitch for Orion’s technology. While the notion of a community-care plan isn’t owned by anyone in particular, Orion is pitching a specific model which rides upon its population health technology. That being said, I’m betting most of us would agree that the idea (regardless of which vendor you work with) of establishing a community-wide care plan does make sense. And certainly, putting a rich longitudinal patient record in place could be valuable too.

However, given the sad state of interoperability today, I doubt it’s possible to build this model today unless you choose a single vendor-centric solution. At present think it’s more of a dream than a reality for most of us.

Health System Sees Big Dividends From Sharing Data

Posted on November 21, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

For some health organizations, the biggest obstacle to data sharing isn’t technical. Many a health IT pundit has argued — I think convincingly — that while health organizations understand the benefits of data sharing, they still see it as against their financial interests, as patients with access to data everywhere aren’t bound to them.

But recently, I read an intriguing story by Healthcare IT News about a major exception to the rule. The story laid out how one healthcare system has been sharing its data with community researchers in an effort to promote innovation. According to writer Mike Miliard, the project was able to proceed because the institution was able to first eliminate many data silos, giving it a disciplined view of the data it shared.

At Sioux Falls, South Dakota-based Sanford Health, one health leader has departed from standard health system practices and shared a substantial amount of proprietary data with research organizations in his community, including certain clinical, claims, financial and operational data. Sanford is working with researchers at South Dakota State University on mathematics issues, University of South Dakota business researchers, Dakota State University on computer science/informatics and University of North Dakota on public health.

The effort is led by Benson Hsu, MD, vice president of enterprise data and analytics for the system. Hsu tells the magazine that the researchers have been developing analytical apps which are helping the health system with key issues like cost efficiencies, patient engagement and quality improvement. And more radically, Hsu plans to share what he discovers with competitors in the community.

Hsu laid the groundwork for the program, HIN reports, by integrating far-flung data across the sprawling health system, including multiple custom versions of the Epic EHR, multiple financial accounts and a variety of HR systems; analytics silos cutting across areas from clinical decision support and IT reports to HR/health plan analytics; and data barriers which included a lack of common data terms, benchmarking tools and common analytic calculator. But after spending a year pulling these areas into a functioning analytics foundation, Sanford was ready to share data with outside entities.

At first, Hsu’s managers weren’t fond of the idea of sharing masses of clinical data with anyone, but he sold them on the idea. “It’s the right thing to do. More importantly, it’s the right thing to do for the community — and the community is going to recognize that Sanford health is here for the community,” he argued. “Secondly, it’s innovation. Innovation in our backyard, based on our population, our social determinants, our disparities.”

According to HIN, this “crowdsourced” approach to analytics has helped Sanford make progress with predicting risk, chronic disease management, diagnostic testing and technology utilization, among other things. And there’s no reason to think that the effort won’t keep generating progress.

Many institutions would have shot down an effort like this immediately, before it could accomplish results. But it seems that Sanford’s creative approach to big data and analytics is paying off. While it might not work everywhere, I’m betting there are many other institutions that could benefit from tapping the intellect of researchers in their community. After all, no matter how smart people are, some answers always lie outside your walls.

Rush University Medical Center Rolls Out OpenNotes

Posted on November 18, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Back in 2010, a group of primary care doctors from three different healthcare organizations across the US came together to launch a project in which they’d begin sharing their clinical notes directly with their patients. The doctors involved were part of a 12-month study designed to explore how such sharing would affect healthcare. The project was a success, and today, 10 million patients have access to their clinicians’ notes via OpenNotes.

Now, Rush University Medical Center has joined the party. The 664-bed academic hospital, which is based in Chicago, now allows patients to see all of their doctor’s notes through a secure web link which is part of Epic’s MyChart portal. According to Internet Health Management, Rush has been piloting OpenNotes since February and rolled it out across the system last month.  Patients could already use MyChart to review physician instructions, prescriptions and test orders online.

If past research is any indication, the new service is likely to be hit with patients. According to a study from a few years ago, which looked at 3,874 primary care patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Geisinger Health System and Harborview Medical Center, 99% of study participants wanted continued access to clinician notes after having it for one year. This was true despite the fact that almost 37% of patients reported being concerned about privacy after using the portal during that time.

Dr. Allison Weathers, Rush associate chief medical information officer, told the site that having access to the notes can help individuals with complex health needs and under the care of multiple providers. “Research shows that when patients can access their physicians’ notes, they better understand the medical issues and treatment plan as active partners in their care,” she said. “When a patient is sick, tired or stressed during a doctor’s visit, they may forget what the doctors said or prescribed.”

I think it’s also apparent that giving patients access to clinician notes helps them engage further with the process of care. Ordinarily, for many patients, medical notes from their doctor are just something that they hand along to another doctor. However, when they have easy access to their notes, alongside of the test results, appointment scheduling, physician email access and other portal functions, it helps them become accustomed to wading through these reports.

Of course, some doctors still aren’t OpenNotes-friendly. It’s easy to see why. For many, the idea of such sharing private notes — and perhaps some unflattering conclusions — has been out of the question. Many have suggested that if patients read the notes, they can’t feel free to share their real opinion on matters of patient care and prognosis. But the growth of the OpenNotes program suggests to me that the effect of sharing notes has largely been beneficial, giving patients the opportunity not only to correct any factual mistakes but to better understand their provider’s perspective. As I see it, only good can come from this over the long run.

Hospital CIOs Say Better Data Security Is Key Goal

Posted on November 9, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A new study has concluded that while they obviously have other goals, an overwhelming majority of healthcare CIOs see data protection as their key objective for the near future. The study, which was sponsored by Spok and administered by CHIME, more than 100 IT leaders were polled on their perspective on communications and healthcare.

In addition to underscoring the importance of data security efforts, the study also highlighted the extent to which CIOs are being asked to add new functions and wear new hats (notably patient satisfaction management).

Goals and investments
When asked what business goals they expected to be focused on for the next 18 months, the top goal of 12 possible options was “strengthening data security,” which was chosen by 81%. “Increasing patient satisfaction” followed relatively closely at 70%, and “improving physician satisfaction” was selected by 65% of respondents.

When asked which factors were most important in making investments in communications-related technologies for their hospital, the top factor of 11 possible options was “best meets clinician/organizational needs” with 82% selecting that choice, followed by “ease of use for end users (e.g. physician/nurse) at 80% and “ability to integrate with current systems (e.g. EHR) at 75%.

When it came to worfklows they hoped to support with better tools, “care coordination for treatment planning” was the clear leader, chosen by 67% of respondents, followed by patient discharge (48%), “patient handoffs within hospital” (46%) and “patient handoffs between health services and facilities” chosen by 40% of respondents selected.

Mobile developments
Turning to mobile, Spok asked healthcare CIOs which of nine technology use cases were driving the selection and deployment of mobile apps. The top choices, by far, were “secure messaging in communications among care team” at 84% and “EHR access/integrations” with 83%.

A significant number of respondents (68%) said they were currently in the process of rolling out a secure texting solution. Respondents said their biggest challenges in doing so were “physician adoption/stakeholder buy-in” at 60% and “technical setup and provisioning” at 40%. A substantial majority (78%) said they’d judge the success of their rollout by the rate the solution was adopted by by physicians.

Finally, when Spok asked the CIOs to take a look at the future and predict which issues will be most important to them three years from now, the top-rated choice was “patient centered care,” which was chosen by 29% of respondents,” “EHR integrations” and “business intelligence.”

A couple of surprises
While much of this is predictable, I was surprised by a couple things.

First, the study doesn’t seem to have been designed for statistical significance, it’s still worth noting that so many CIOs said improving patient satisfaction was one of their top three goals for the next 18 months. I’m not sure what they can do to achieve this end, but clearly they’re trying. (Exactly what steps they should take is a subject for another article.)

Also, I didn’t expect to see so many CIOs engaged in rolling out secure texting, partly because I would’ve expected such rollouts to already have been in place at this point, and partly because I assume that more CIOs would be more focused on higher-level mobile apps (such as EHR interfaces). I guess that while mobile clinical integration efforts are maturing, many healthcare facilities aren’t ready to take them on yet.

Health System Pays Docs To Use Cerner EHR

Posted on November 7, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Typically, we cover US-based stories in this blog, but the following is just too intriguing to miss. According to a Vancouver newspaper, an area hospital system agreed to pay physicians a daily fee to use its unpopular Cerner EHR, positioning the payments as compensation for unpaid overtime spent learning the system.

The Times Colonist is reporting that local hospital system Island Health has offered on-call physicians at its Nanaimo Regional General Hospital $260 a day, and emergency department physicians up to $780 a day, to use its unpopular Cerner system.

The newspaper cites a memo from hospital chief medical officer and executive vice president Dr. Jeremy Etherington, which says that the payment was in recognition of “the extra burden the new electronic health record has placed on many physicians during the rollout phase” of the new EHR.

In 2013, Island Health (which is based in British Columbia, Canada) signed a 10 year, $50 million deal with Cerner to implement its platform across its three hospitals. More recently, in March of this year, Island Health’s three facilities went live on the Cerner platform.

Within weeks, physicians at Nanaimo Regional Hospital were flooding executives with complaints about the new platform, which they claimed we randomly lost, buried or changed orders for drugs and diagnostic tests. Some physicians at the hospital reverted to using pen and paper to complete orders.

Not long after, physicians signed a petition asking the health system to stop further implementation, citing safety and workability concerns, but executives still moved forward with the rollout.

Neither the newspaper article nor other reports could identify how many physicians accepted the offer from Island Health. Also, the health systems management hasn’t shared how it picked doctors who were eligible for the payout, and what criteria it used to determine the size of the higher emergency department physician payouts. However, according to a Nanaimo physician and medical staff member quoted by Becker’s Health IT & CIO Review quotes, execs structured the payments to reflect the unpaid overtime doctors put in to learn the system.

As for the claims that the Cerner system was causing clinical problems and even perhaps endangering patients, that issue is still seemingly unresolved. In late July, British Columbia Minister of Health Terry Lake apparently ordered a review of the Cerner system, but results of that review do not appear to be available just yet.

It’s not clear whether the payments bought Island Health enough goodwill to mollify the bad feelings of doctors who didn’t receive one of these payments, nor whether those who are being paid will stay bought. And that’s the real question here. Call the payments a publicity stunt, an attempt at fairness or cynical political strategy, they may not be enough to get physicians onto the system if they are convinced it doesn’t work. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Steps Hospitals Should Consider When Migrating EMR Data

Posted on November 2, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

When your organization decides to convert to a new EMR, the problems it faces extend beyond having to put the right technical architecture in place. Deciding which data to migrate and how much data to migrate from the previous EMR poses additional challenges, and they’re not trivial.

On the one hand, moving over all of your data is expensive (and probably not necessary). On the other, if you migrate too little data, clinicians won’t have an adequate patient history to work from, and what’s more, may not be in compliance with legal requirements.

But there are methods for determining how to make the transition successfully. HCI Group Data Technical Lead Mustafa Raja, argues that there are three key factors hospitals should consider when planning to migrate legacy EMR data into a new system:

  • Decide which data you will archive and which you will migrate. While many organizations fall back on moving six months of acute care data and a year’s worth of ambulatory data, Raja recommends looking deeper. Specifically, while ambulatory transitions may just include medications the patients are on and diagnostic codes in the past year, acute care data encompasses many different data types, including allergies, medications, orders, labs and radiology reports. So deciding what should transition isn’t a one-size-fits-all decision. Once you’ve made the decision as to what data will be transitioned, see that whatever archival storage system you decide upon is easily accessible and not too costly, Raja suggests. You’ll want to have the data available, in part, to respond to security audits.
  • Consider how complex the data is before you choose it for transition to the new EMR. Bear in mind that data types will vary, and that storage methods within the new system may vary from the old. If you are migrating from a nonstandard legacy system to an EMR with data standards in place — which is often the case — you’ll need to decide whether you are willing to go through the standardization process to make the old data available. If not, bear in mind that the nonstandard data won’t be easily accessible or usable, which can generate headaches.
  • Be prepared for the effect of changes in clinical rules and workflow. When upgrading from your legacy system, you’ll probably find that some of its functionality doesn’t work well with the new system, as the new system’s better-optimized workflows will be compatible with the old system, Raja notes. What kind of problems will you encounter? Raja offers the example of a legacy system which includes non-required fields in one of its forms, transitioning to a system that DOES require the fields. Since the data for the newly-required fields doesn’t exist, how do you handle the problem?

Of course, your plans for data migration will be governed by many other considerations, including the speed at which you have to transition, the purposes to which you plan to put your new EMR, your budget, staffing levels and more. But these guidelines should offer a useful look at how to begin thinking about the data migration process.

Mount Sinai Uses AI To Manage CHF Cases

Posted on October 31, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

New York-based Mount Sinai Hospital has begun a project which puts it in the vanguard of predictive analytics, working with a partner focused on artificial intelligence. Mount Sinai plans to use the Cloud Medx Clinical AI Platform to predict which patients might develop congestive heart failure and care better for those who’ve already done so.

As many readers will know, CHF is a dangerous chronic condition, but it can be managed with drugs, proper diet and exercise, plus measurement of blood pressure and respiratory function by remote monitoring devices. And of course, hospitals can mine their EMR for other clinical clues, as well as rifling through data from implantable medical devices or health tracking bands or smartwatches, to see if a patient’s condition is going south.

But using AI can give a hospital a more in-depth look at patterns that might not be visible to the unaided clinician. In fact, CloudMedx is already helping Sacramento-based Sutter Physician Services improve its patient care by digging out unseen patterns in patient data.

To perform its calculations, CloudMedx runs massive databases on public clouds such as Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, then layers its specialized analytics and algorithms on top of the data, allowing physicians or researchers to query the database. The analytics tools use natural language processing and machine learning to track patients over time and derive real-time clinical insights.

In this case, the query tools let clinicians determine which patients are at risk of developing CHF or seeing their CHF status deteriorate. Factors the system evaluates include medical notes, a patient’s family history, demographics and past medical procedures, which are rolled up into a patient risk score.

In moving ahead with this strategy, Mount Sinai is rolling out what is likely to be a common strategy in the future. Going forward, expect to see other providers engage the growing number of AI-based healthcare analytics vendors, many of whom seem to have significant momentum.

For example, there’s Lumiata, a developer of AI-based productive health analytics whose Risk Matrix tool draws on more than 175 million patient-record years. Risk Matrix offers real-time predictions for 20 chronic conditions, including CHF, chronic kidney disease and diabetes.

Risk Matrix bases its predictions on its customers’ datasets, including labs, EHR data claims information and other types of data organized using FHIR. Once data is mapped out into FHIR, Risk Matrix generates output for more than 1 million records in less than three hours, the company reports. Users access Risk Matrix analyses using a FHIR-compatible API, which in turn allows for the results to be integrated into the output of the existing workflows.

But Lumiata is just the tip of the iceberg. CB Insights has identified more than 90 companies applying machine learning algorithms and predictive analytics to important problems in healthcare.

While many startups have flocked into the imaging and diagnostics space, expect to see AI-related activity in drug discovery, remote monitoring and oncology. Also, market watchers say companies founded to do AI work outside of healthcare see many opportunities there as well.

Now, at least at this stage, high-end AI tools are likely to be beyond the budget of mid-sized to small community hospitals. Nonetheless, they’re likely to be deployed far more often as value-based reimbursement hits the scene, so they might end up in use at your hospital after all.

Should Hospitals Track ED “Frequent Fliers” In Their EMR?

Posted on October 28, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Particularly as value-based reimbursement falls into place, hospitals have good reasons to track emergency department utilization across populations. As with readmissions, ED visit rates and diagnoses can tell you something valuable about patients’ conditions and the extent to which they are managing those conditions, as well.

However, tracking individual ED use, especially by behavioral health patients, may result in less-desirable consequences. In fact, according to a viewpoint article published recently in JAMA, adding icons or symbols to the records of patients who are considered to be “superusers” or “frequent fliers” can stigmatize patients and create bias against them.

“A pejorative branding, ‘frequent flyers’ are often assumed to be problem patients. In psychiatric settings, these patients are sometimes said to be ‘borderlines,’ ‘drug seekers,’ ‘malingerers,’ or ‘treatment resistant,’ according to authors Michelle Joy, MD, Timothy Clement, MPH and Dominic Sisti, PhD.

The researchers note that at least one EMR offers the capacity to insert an airplane icon beside the patient’s name, and not only that, to display the icon in different colors depending on where the patient falls among the high using population. But they consider this to be ethically and clinically inappropriate.

For one thing, they say, uses such an icon ‘encourages the use of disrespectful and stigmatizing terminology.’ What’s more, the use of such labels may change the clinician’s initial interactions with the patient in a way that affects their judgment negatively, and may subject the patient to the risk of a poor outcome from their care.

Not only that, they point out, while it might be useful to know that a patient presents in the ED frequently, determining why this happens can only take place if the clinician does a deeper dive into their utilization history. And slapping a high utilization icon the patient record actually discourages such in-depth examination, they contend.

On top of all that, if the patient is assumed to be visiting the ED frequently for largely psychiatric reasons, “diagnostic overshadowing” may occur, to the patient’s detriment. For example, they note, if a patient has a co-occurring mental illness in a condition such as cardiovascular disease, the patient is less likely to receive adequate medical care than patients without a medical condition, as the psych diagnosis overshadows their medical problems.

To avoid creating signifiers like the icon, which may build in the makers’ implicit biases, EMRs and behavioral health apps should be filled and tested in collaboration with patients, consumers, ethicists and other parties sensitive to the broader ramifications of using such language and iconography, the authors suggest.

In the meantime, readers of this publication might want to stop and think if there are any other ways in which the health IT systems they design and use reflect other unhelpful biases. While placing a frequent flyer icon beside a patient’s name seem like a particularly egregious instance — or does to me anyway – there may be subtler ways in which your HIT systems foster negative or inappropriate assumptions. And it’s good to dig those out and examine them. After all, nobody wins when patients fail to get the care they need.