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!

Boston Children’s Creates Special Adolescent PHR

Creating PHRs for adolescents is trickier than preparing them for adults. While childrens’ and adolescents’ PHRs are usually controlled by parents, there are some areas in which teens have a right to privacy, including any discussions about sexually transmitted diseases, reproductive health, substance abuse and mental health information.

At Boston Children’s Hospital, they’re grappling with the problem of a creating a PHR which protects the adolescent’s right to privacy and confidentiality of such information without sealing parents out of areas which are public. This is a difficult problem, given that confidential information is generally seeded throughout EMRs, writes the hospital’s Fabienne Bourgeois.

To address the complex problem of giving adolescents appropriate access to their PHRs, BCH has developed a custom-built portal to meet both hospital and adolescent patient needs, Bourgeios says.

Adolescent patients and parents access the portal separately, through linked accounts.  Parents have sole access until the child turns 13, at which point both get access. At 18  years, the patient becomes the sole owner of the portal account, and unless other constraints exist, the parent link is deactivated, she notes.

Within the portal, sensitive content has been identified and tagged, such as pregnancy-related labs, genetic results, confidential appointments, and possibly sensitive problems and medication.  Right now this data is filtered from both parent and adolescent accounts, but in the future it will flow only to the adolescent account. “This solution does take a lot of time and effort, but best replicates current clinical practice,” Bourgeious notes.

This is quite an interesting project. It’s good to see researchers taking on unique privacy challenges involved in treating adolescents.  Any efforts which engage a population in their own health and make them confident their privacy will be protected are to be commended.

May 22, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

Should EMRs Help Patients Retrieve Medical Records?

As often as not, patients who need to retrieve paper medical records from hospitals go through a painful process, one which is not much easier than it was before EMRs were introduced in hospitals.

I found this out myself recently when I attempted to retrieve a medical record for one of my children from a large hospital in my metro area.  I started by reaching out to the health information management department — where it took three separate calls before I connected with a staff member.  Then I was informed that the despite the paper-free hospital environment, I would have to wait two weeks before I could lay hands on the medical record, as the staff was swamped.

This would have struck me as comical if it wasn’t such an unfortunate situation. Without HIEs in place universally across the hospital world, wouldn’t it make sense if the EMR helped produce the paper copies of records needed everywhere in a universal fashion?

Yes, I realize that EMRs are optimized for care during the hospital visit, and such is necessary to get the job done.  That being said, I could easily see using some of the technology hospitals already have in place to make EMR records retrievable by caregivers and patients.

After all, at least some hospitals already have kiosks in place that allow patients to pay bills. Couldn’t a modification of such kiosk allow patients to pay for their records fees, order the records for a given patient, sign electronically to give permission for such a printout and get the records into the mail on the back end — if not straight into their hands?

Sure, I know HIPAA issues arise when you’re trying to automate the dispensing of private health information, but at least until HIEs are everywhere, it’s a problem that needs to be handled.  After all, the reality is that patients need to carry print records all over the place to get decent care. What’s the point of urging patients to engage with their medical records data if simply retrieving hard copies of them is such an awkward chore?

I know there was some debate about this in meaningful use. Hopefully once the future stages of meaningful use are in place, getting your records from the EHR will be a much faster process than it is today.

May 21, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

Hospital Vs. Clinic EMRs: Key Differences

In some ways, hospital and clinic EMRs have the same job to get done — to assess, test and treat patients. But they do have to be optimized differently, as hospitals and clinics do things at a different pace and of necessity are organized differently.

Here’s some of those differences, courtesy of TELUS Health’s Shawn Vincent:

*  Difference number one:  Minutes count

Hospitals care for patients in acute situations, where minutes or even seconds can determine the patient’s outcome.  In medical practices, “care is measured in weeks, not hours,” Vincent notes.

Result:  Hospitals need test results immediately, where clinic patients can wait until their next visit days or weeks later.

* Difference number two:  Patient departures

In hospitals, patients consume resources until discharge, and that doesn’t happen when tests and treatments are still outstanding.  In clinics, patients can leave while tests are outstanding or treatment results are still pending.

Result:  Hospitals must perform well at “round trip” test and treatment management.

* Difference number three: Who runs the show?

Hospitals are generally run by a large corps of professional leaders, including boards of directors, business expects, lawyers and many other stakeholders.  Medical practices, traditionally, owned by doctors who practice there, and are responsible for care, documentation, and ultimately, liability for all that takes place.

Result:  Hospitals usually have tough rules in place about how medicine can be practiced, and also how it is documented, which roll down to everything from how the EMR user interface looks to how events are audited. In clinics, doctors make their own rules.

* Difference number four: Short vs. long-Term Care

Hospital encounters usually call for just enough information to treat the patient — more can be a distraction which slows down care.  In medical practices, on the other hand,  having longitudinal data on the patient is central to caring for them over the years.

Result:  Hospital IT systems must be artfully designed to display “just enough information to make a meaningful medical decision without distracting the user with unnecessary details,” he notes.

Readers, what other differences between hospital and medical practice EMRs do you consider to be important?

May 14, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

Cleveland Clinic Brings Epic Smarts To NY Hospital Practices

The Cleveland Clinic is going the consulting route, this time around by working with the physician and specialty practices for a New York hospital to bring Epic up to speed.

Glens Falls is a 410-bed nonprofit which began implementing the Epic EMR in early 2012. The New York facility has 3,000 employees and 28 regional locations.

Apparently dissatisfied with its internal knowledge base on the subject, It’s now contracted with the Clinic’s MyPractice Healthcare Solutions (MPHS) to help deploy and optimize its rollout, reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Among the Epic products installed at Glens Falls is “MyChart,” offering a clinical and billing records portal for patients, according to the Plain Dealer.

The Cleveland Clinic has had Epic in place for more than 10 years, making it one of the first healthcare systems in the country to install the vendor’s product. Having learned from that experience, Cleveland Clinic MPHS now brings project management and implementation expertise to other facilities.

I think this is an interesting business model for the Cleveland Clinic, and I’d be curious to see what other consulting agreements it has put into place. (So far I wasn’t able to turn up any others but my guess is that they exist.)

It seems to me that hospitals who have tamed Epic — Kaiser Permanente comes to mind — might very well go into this line of business, as the need is great. Not to mention that if I were making a decision as to who I’d hire to wire my medical practice into my hospital, a successful institution would have a very strong pitch to make.

Can any of you readers share other examples of hospitals/clinics who are turning their Epic experience into a consulting revenue stream?

May 13, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

W. VA. Rolls Out Enhancements To VistA

Officials with the West Virginia bureau of behavior health and health facilities are putting some finishing touches on VistA installations cutting across the state, adding computerized laboratory information to a six-year-old implementation.

West Virginia officials have implemented Vista in seven communities, Modern Healthcare reports. Facilities include an acute-care hospital, two psychiatric hospitals, four long-term care hospitals, a nursing home and two ambulatory care clinics.  The facilities are all connected to a central database in Charleston via T1 lines.

The state has been working on contract with Medsphere Systems Corp. to install a VistA version known as FOIA VistA, a version in the public domain that can be obtained freely from the VA under the Freedom of Information Act, Modern Healthcare notes.

Though VistA itself is free, the state has spent heavily on installing it across the seven sites.  Since FY 2005, West Virginia has paid Medsphere $8.4 million for system implementation, development and support, and is contracted to pay the vendor $939,800 this year for support.

In addition to paying Medsphere a monthly fee for systems support, the state pays licensing fees to InterSystems, developer of Cache, a version of the MUMPS database and programming language. It also licenses Keane’s financial system, which interfaces with VistA.

West Virginia began looking at a common infrastructure for all of its facilities when HIPAA passed back in 1996, noting that the idea behind it was portability and accountability. Now state officials are glad they moved ahead. “It’s expensive,” but “in terms of satisfaction, I think we’d all agree it was well worth it,” deputy commissioner for administration Craig Richards told the magazine.

May 7, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

Epic Installation Fuels Maine Controversy

Ordinarily, the fact that integrated delivery system MaineHealth had spent $150 million on an Epic EMR system wouldn’t excite a lot of comment.  After all, say what you like about Epic, it doesn’t come cheaply, and a $150 million install is at the low-ish end of what hospitals are spending to put the vendor’s system in place.

This time, though, the health system is taking fire from the community, in part because it’s decided to close 22-bed St. Andrews Hospital in Boothbay Harbor, reports EHR Intelligence. 

In an open letter published in the Boothbay Register, local selectman and St. Andrews Regional Task Force member Stuart Smith argues that the Epic install cost is “extremely high.”

Smith also notes that Maine Health has had a bad time with the installation, which was supposed to go live on December 1, 2012 and now looks as though it won’t go live until 2015.  As Smith sees it, a lot of money and time is being wasted on the Epic project:

Millions of dollars have been charged to member hospitals and staff time (salaries and mileage) over the past 2–3 years with no benefit. The system failure also adds operational costs going forward that were not planned for and regional consolidation of finance will now be delayed.

As things stand, Smith notes, the planned closure of St. Andrews is part of a larger shuffle moving urgent and emergency services around which has led to roughly $2 million in losses for the facility.

With St. Andrews wobbly, leaders are considering merging it with struggling Miles Memorial Hospital, a combination which could allow its owners to keep $5 million in federal reimbursement by keeping its critical access hospital designation.

May 6, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

Survey: Confusion Slowing Meaningful Use Compliance

While Meaningful Use is likely to spur improvements in health IT, confusion over regulations — and the need to pursue other pressing HIT projects — are slowing down MU compliance, according to a new study.

The survey was conducted by Stoltenberg Consulting, which spoke with health IT managers, clinicians, HIT vendors and government agencies that attended this year’s HIMSS event.

Researchers asked which areas in which HIT will achieve the biggest improvements over the next 12 months.  The biggest group (35 percent) named Meaningful Use, while 19 percent said health information exchange, clinical integration and mobile health were due for the most growth.

When asked what might hold them back from meeting Meaningful Use requirements, 29 percent said confusion and/or ambiguity in the regulations were a challenge. Others named competing health IT projects (23 percent) and a lack of key resources such as funding, IT skills, talent and time (17 percent).

The survey also asked respondents what issues were likely to dominate HIT discussions this year.  Respondents favored health information exchange (62 percent), followed closely by mobile health (58 percent) and clinical analytics (54 percent).

As part of the survey, Stoltenberg also asked survey respondents which problems HIT executives would most likely attempt to solve with the help of a specialized IT consulting firm. The responses included ICD-10 (25 percent), Meaningful Use (25 percent), clinical and business intelligence (23 percent), cloud computing (21 percent) and CPOE/clinical systems implementation (20 percent).

May 3, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

7 Tips to Increase Nurse Adoption of Point of Care Technologies

Over on the Point of Care Corner blog is a really great post about the 7 tips to get nurses to adopt point of care technologies. The post is really great because it comes from a nurse named Brittney Wilson (better known as The Nerdy Nurse). I always love seeing first hand suggestions from nurses and doctors and this list does not disappoint.

Here are the 7 tips that Brittney provides:

  1. Demonstrate Value
  2. Provide Ample Training
  3. Show Compassion
  4. Put the Patient First
  5. Feed Them
  6. Designate Super Users
  7. Ask for Input

The thing that stands out most to me in this list is showing compassion because it plays a role in every other tip. It’s amazing how making someone feel like you care effects someone. Show them that you care what they think of the change. Help them understand that you care how they’re being effected by the change. Listen to what they have to say before you respond too quickly.

Listening is an incredibly valuable thing to do when implementing any change in health IT. This is particularly true with point of care technologies where the nurse will literally live with the technology her entire shift. By listening to the nurses, you show you care, but they will also surprise you with valuable information you probably wouldn’t otherwise learn.

My favorite item on the list might be “Feed Them.” Even this suggestion is a form of showing compassion. Never underestimate the power of food (this applies to your IT support staff as well). I’ve always considered free food like a small raise. Not only did I not have to buy lunch, but I didn’t have to think about what I wanted for lunch either. Plus, the food becomes a social rallying point where everyone can discuss the challenges of the implementation and solutions they’ve found. In a bad implementation, sometimes just realizing you get some nice free food can make a terrible day not so bad.

Resistance to change is a real and powerful force in healthcare. I think these two cartoons sum up the challenge of change:
Resistance to Change Quote

This second one may take a minute to process.
Resistance to Change Square Wheels

The quality of the idea matters, but how you present and implement the change matters much more. Otherwise people will keep pulling the wagon with square wheels despite having a better solution at their fingertips. The best leaders realize this and make sure to incorporate compassion into the change process.

Are there other lessons you’ve learned implementing point of care technologies in your organization? Where have you found resistance to change in your health IT projects? What tricks and tips do you have to help those working through the challenge of changing something?

May 1, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 5000 articles with John having written over 2000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 9.3 million times. John also recently launched two new companies: InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com, and is an advisor to docBeat. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

Is Epic Stifling Health IT Innovation?

In many ways and definitely based on the buzz, Epic is at the top of the hospital EMR market. According to one estimate, about 40 percent of the U.S. population has its medical information stored in an Epic EMR, a stunning number given the level of competition in the hospital EMR space.

The question is, what impact is that having on the EMR marketplace?  According to one piece posted this week by Medical Economics,  Epic may be stifling health IT innovation due to its nearly-unassailable market lead.

As readers probably know, Epic has established an empire built around antiquated technology (MUMPS), which essentially forces any company that hopes to interoperate to bear its MUMPS core in mind. We’re talking the blunted edge here.

Perhaps more importantly, now that Epic has such a dominant market share, if it chooses to keep a closed system in place, customers will only get what innovations are driven internally by Epic.  If hospitals want innovations emerging outside the Epic bubble, they’ll have to consider the staggering costs — in some cases in the hundreds of millions of dollars — of switching outright to another vendor. If that doesn’t stifle innovation I don’t know what does.

This situation hasn’t been lost on healthcare industry leaders, some of whom have begun to balk at Epic’s rise, Medical Economics reports.

As the piece notes, Epic has attracted outspoken critics that question whether Epic’s’ market dominance is bad for the health IT world as a whole. One of those critics is Paul Levy, former CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who has taken shots at the EMR giant from his “Not Running A Hospital” blog.

Levy, who Medical Economics cites as one of Epic’s toughest opponents, has been known to compare customers’ relationship with Epic to Stockholm Syndrome, a condition occurring when hostages begin to sympathize and identify with their captors.

All that being said, at the  moment, there’s little critics can do to change Epic’s business practices or development plans. Perhaps the Federal Trade Commission will step in at some point if it appears to staff there that Epic’s market control is anti-competitive.   In the mean time, though, Epic seems to have a lock on the hospital marketplace — and a disproportionate role in shaping the future of EMRs generally.

April 30, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.

EMRs Have Certifications Yanked

A California EMR developer has become the first to have its certification for Meaningful Use taken away by the ONC.

EHRMagic-Ambulatory and EHRMagic-Inpatient, both of which were developed by Santa Fe Springs, Calif.-based EMRMagic, failed to meet certification requirements, reports EMR Thoughts.

The de-certification process began when ONC and ONC-authorized certification body InfoGard Laboratories were notified that the EHRMagic products didn’t meet Meaningful Use certification requirements.

InfoGard Laboratories analyzed the information sent along with the notification and contacted the vendor. It then began the process of ONC-ACB required surveillance activities, according to HIN. At that point, InfoGard decided to test the two products for compliance with certain requirements.  EHRMagic’s products were then retested, and failed to meet criteria for Meaningful Use certification.

Fortunately for the company’s customers, no providers had yet attempted Meaningful Use attestation using these products. One can only imagine the frustration they would have faced if they attempted to attest in good faith and found out that the EMR product they were using wasn’t capable of supporting MU certification.

I’m left wondering whether providers would have grounds for a lawsuit against the offending vendor if they attempted certification with a product that didn’t support Meaningful Use, particularly if the vendor had any idea that this might be the case.

Realistically, it seems likely at some point in the future, some provider will be left high and dry by a certified product that shouldn’t have gotten the go-ahead.  My guess is that things will get nasty pretty quickly!

April 29, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 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.