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!

Consumer-centered Approach to Innovation by Thomas Jefferson University’s DICE Group

Posted on August 30, 2017 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He is currently an independent marketing consultant working with leading healthIT companies. Colin is a member of #TheWalkingGallery. His Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung.

Sparking and sustaining Innovation is a much-sought-after goal for healthcare systems today. Some organizations have set up specialized innovation centers whose goal is to commercialize technologies developed internally by staff. Others are fostering innovation by becoming incubators and early-stage investors.

Thomas Jefferson University (TJU) in Philadelphia PA is taking multiple approaches to innovation. They created the Jefferson Accelerator Zone (JAZ) where they hold Health Hackathons, host in-person keynotes and have meeting space for local innovators. TJU also created an internal innovation team – the Digital Innovation and Consumer Experience (DICE) Group – a hidden gem.

I had the chance recently to sit down with Neil Gomes @neilgomes – Chief Digital Officer and Senior VP for Technology Innovation and Consumer Experience at TJU and Jefferson Health, who leads the DICE team – to talk about their unique approach to healthcare innovation.

How is DICE different than other healthcare innovation centers that we read about in articles?

We are not an innovation center as people have come to know them. The DICE Group isn’t focused only on commercializing technologies that have been developed by physicians or staff. DICE is an internal group that’s focused on designing and developing solutions to problems faced by the institution, from both a healthcare and educational perspective. Often our solutions incorporate a new technology innovation – but just as often we end up implementing an innovative process without replacing the existing technology. DICE is more like a team of internal catalysts. We enable the design and development of consumer-focused, value-driven, digital-ready solutions. Our goal is to build an efficient, agile, and future-focused organization that delivers value and quality to patients, students, employees, donors, and the community.

How do you find problems to work on?

Our team spends a lot of time out in the field with front-line staff. Not only do we listen to their ideas but we also observe how things are working or not working as the case may be. Through this first-hand interaction with our stakeholders and consumers (aka end-users), we develop focused projects and strategic initiatives.

What are some of the projects you have worked on?

We work on varied projects, some extremely complex such as enabling the implementation of a new Electronic Health Record (EHR) along with other project teams and others that could be as simple as moving equipment to a more efficient location.

On one such simpler (but impactful) project, we enhanced patient experience while at the same time reduced stress on staff – all by moving a label printer from one side of the room to the other. This project started off as a request to reduce delays in the Emergency Room (ER). Through direct observation, we discovered several improvement opportunities. One of the delays we addressed was in the processing of urine samples from patients. Instead of jumping in with a new technology, we took the time to really dig into the problem and just by moving a label printer, we solved it.

On another project, we helped improve our US News & World Report (USNWR) survey scores by assisting our own and referring physicians with setting up their Doximity account. The USNWR annual ranking of Best Hospitals is based on a survey that is distributed online exclusively via Doximity. What we found, however, is that many of the physicians that refer their patients to Jefferson Health and our own physicians did not have their Doximity accounts set up. If a physician is making a referral then they must believe we are a good facility…but without an active Doximity account they wouldn’t be able to participate in the survey. So we created a process along with some technology to help them set up their account when they made a referral. We ended up capturing a lot of that positive sentiment on the USNWR survey and that helped us get to our current ranking of the 16th best hospital in the nation.

We have also done a lot of work with our EHRs (EPIC and several others) as well as designed and developed our own digital apps such as: myJeffHealth, myBaby@Jeff, JeffDocs and Strength Through Insight. While several of our apps are directed at patients and students, we also develop apps and applications for our employees to enable efficiency, data collection, reduce process latency, enhance business processes, and build future-focused competitive advantage. While developing these solutions, we work in partnership with internal and external stakeholders and even with industry partners such as Google, Apple, Adobe, IBM, ServiceNow, EPIC, Harman Kardon, AllScripts, etc. who co-innovate with us.

What is the DICE secret sauce?

If I had to pick one thing that makes us unique it’d be our approach to innovation. We don’t go into situations with a “we must build something” mindset. We remain open to the possibility that a workflow change or additional training may be the best solution to the problem. Our team really takes an ethnographic look at the situation. Nothing is assumed. We give ourselves the time to really dig deep into whether the proposed solution will really achieve the desired outcome and whether it is even aligned with the problem.

We’ve worked hard at building close working relationships with operational leaders and our consumers. We have taken the time to really understand their world and we don’t just come in and try to impose our ideas on them. We build things together with our employees, partners, and consumers. That’s our secret sauce.

Being consumer-centric isn’t ground-breaking. The retail, hospitality, travel, and banking industries have been doing this for years. We have just started to bring consumer-centric thinking into healthcare. For the DICE Group, focusing on the consumer is the most organic and natural way we approach problems and devise solutions.

Many organizations have tried to create internal innovation teams, why has DICE been so successful?

Being close to our end-users has been a cornerstone of our success, but there are few other key things that we do at DICE that we think contribute to our success. One of the core principles we live and breathe every day is human-centered design. This is something that is ignored or overlooked by many in healthcare today – and some HealthIT vendors are especially bad at this. When you subscribe to a human-centered design approach, you realize that building and implementing the technology is only part of the solution. You also have to help end-users incorporate that technology into their daily routines. You have to help them through the disruption and help them bridge the knowledge gap. You can’t just drop in the technology and move onto the next project. Without proper follow-up people will revert back to past patterns – which means the organization will not see any improvement.

That’s another key to our success. We are no longer on the see-problem-solve-problem hamster wheel. In the first few years we “followed the problems” and we racked up early wins. These quick wins helped us build trust, credibility, and most importantly, internal momentum. However, you can’t succeed in healthcare by just solving one problem after another. Healthcare will not be fixed if everyone is just focused on organic point solutions. We need to look above the day-to-day and build solutions that push us in a particular direction. Basically we need to focus on larger, bold, and strategic goals and then creatively innovate towards them.

For example, rather than just looking at streamlining the ER at our Jefferson-Abington hospital, we set ourselves a goal that we would optimally utilize our ER to the extent that we could triage a patient to a room and team in the ER even while they were on the ambulance to the ER. It seemed impossible when we started, but as we worked with our stakeholders and end-users we eventually achieved this goal through a combination of technology and process improvements.

What’s next for DICE?

Now that we are deeply integrated in the organization, we see ourselves getting even more closely involved with the organization’s strategy. With the support of our President and CEO, Dr. Steve Klasko, our staff, board, and co-innovating industry partners, we continue to move from just solving the problems of today to helping TJU solve the problems of tomorrow, develop competitive advantage and value, and deliver closed-loop consumer experiences digitally and in the physical world that engage, enchant, and improve lives.

For more insight into DICE and to see what projects they are working on, follow them on Twitter @DICEGRP

 

CXO Scene Episode 3: EHR Cloud Hosting, the EMR Market, and Health IT Staffing Challenges

Posted on August 28, 2017 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In case you missed the live taping of the third CXO Scene podcast with David Chou, Vice President and Chief Information and Digital Officer at Children’s Mercy Kansas City and John Lynn, Founder of HealthcareScene.com, the video recording is now available below.

Here were the 3 topics we discussed on the 2nd CXO Scene podcast along with some reference links for the topics:
* Cloud hosting
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/ehr/uc-san-diego-health-pushes-ehrs-to-cloud-uc-irvine-slated-for-november

* Future of the EMR market with McKesson acquisition
http://www.mckesson.com/about-mckesson/newsroom/press-releases/2017/allscripts-to-acquire-mckessons-enterprise-information-solutions-business/
http://www.hospitalemrandehr.com/2017/08/18/is-allscripts-an-also-ran-in-the-hospital-emr-business/

* IT staffing challenges

You can watch the full CXO Scene video podcast on the Healthcare Scene YouTube Channel or in the video embed below:

Note: We’re still working on distributing CXO Scene on your favorite podcasting platform. We’ll update this post once we finally have those podcast options in place.

Take a look back at past CXO Scene podcasts and posts and join us for the live recording of future CXO Scene podcasts.

Rush Sues Patient Monitoring Vendor, Says System Didn’t Work

Posted on August 25, 2017 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.

Rush University Medical Center has filed suit against one of its health IT vendors, claiming that its patient monitoring system didn’t work as promised and may have put patients in danger.

According to a story in the Chicago Tribune, Rush spent $18 million installing the Infinity Acute Monitoring Solution system from Telford, PA-based Draeger Inc. between 2012 and early 2016.  The Infinity system included bedside monitors, larger data aggregating monitors at central nursing stations, battery-powered portable monitors and M300 wireless patient-worn monitors.

However, despite years of attempting to fix the system, its patient alarms were still unreliable and inaccurate, it contends in the filing, which accuses Draeger of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud.

In the suit, the 664-bed hospital and academic medical center says that the system was dogged by many issues which could have had an impact on patient safety. For example, it says, the portable monitors stopped collecting data when moved to wireless networks and sometimes stole IP addresses from bedside monitors, knocking the bedside monitor off-line leaving the patient unmonitored.

In addition, the system allegedly sent out false alarms for heart arrhythmia patients with pacemakers, distracting clinicians from performing their jobs, and failed monitor apnea until 2015, according to the complaint. Even then, the system wasn’t monitoring some sets of apnea patients accurately, it said. Near the end, the system erased some patient records as well, it contends.

Not only that, Draeger didn’t deliver everything it was supposed to provide, the suit alleges, including wired-to-wireless monitoring and monitoring for desaturation of neonatal patients’ blood oxygen.

As if that weren’t enough, Draeger didn’t respond effectively when Rush executives told it about the problems it was having, according to the suit. “Rather than effectively remediating these problems, Draeger largely, and inaccurately, blamed them on Rush,” it contends.

While Draeger provided a software upgrade for the system, it was extremely difficult to implement, didn’t fix the original issues and created new problems, the suit says.

According to Rush, the Draeger system was supposed to last 10 years. However, because of technical problems it observed, the medical center replaced the system after only five years, spending $30 million on the new software, it says.

Rush is asking the court to make Draeger pay that the $18 million it spent on the system, along with punitive damages and legal fees.

It’s hard to predict the outcome of such a case, particularly given that the system’s performance has to have depended in part on how Rush managed the implementation. Plus, we’re only seeing the allegations made by Rush in the suit and not Draeger’s perspective which could be very different and offer other details. Regardless, it seems likely these proceedings will be watched closely in the industry. Regardless of whether they are at fault or not, no vendor can afford to get a reputation for endangering patient safety, and moreover, no hospital can afford to buy from them if they do.

A New Hospital Risk-Adjustment Model

Posted on August 23, 2017 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.

Virtually all of the risk adjustment models with which I’m familiar are based on retrospective data. This data clearly has some predictive benefits – maybe it’s too cliché to say the past is prologue – and is already in our hands.

To look at just one example of what existing data archives can do, we need go no further than the pages of this blog. Late last year, I shared the story of a group of French hospitals which are working to predict admission rates as much as 15 days in advance by mining a store of historical data. Not surprisingly, the group’s key data includes 10 years’ worth of admission records.

The thing is, using historical data may not be as helpful when you’re trying to develop risk-adjustment models. After all, among other problems, the metrics by which evaluate care shift over time, and our understanding of disease states changes as well, so using such models to improve care and outcomes has its limitations.

I’ve been thinking about these issues since John shared some information on a risk-adjustment tool which leverages relevant patient care data collected almost in real time.

The Midas Hospital Risk Adjustment Model, which is created specifically for single organizations, samples anywhere from 20 to 600 metrics, which can include data on mortality, hospital-acquired complications, unplanned readmission, lengths of stay and charges. It’s built using the Midas Health Analytics Platform, which comes from a group within healthcare services company Conduent. The platform captures data across hospital functional areas and aggregates it for use in care management

The Midas team chooses what metrics to include using its in-house tools, which include a data warehouse populated with records on more than 100 million claims as well as data from more than 800 hospitals.

What makes the Midas model special, Conduent says, is that it incorporates a near-time feed of health data from hospital information systems. One of the key advantages to doing so is that rather than basing its analysis on ICD-9 data, which was in use until relatively recently, it can leverage clinically-detailed ICD-10 data, the company says.

The result of this process is a model which is far more capable of isolating small but meaningful differences between individual patients, Conduent says. Then, using this model, hospitals risk-adjust clinical and financial outcomes data by provider for hospitalized patients, and hopefully, have a better basis for making future decisions.

This approach sounds desirable (though I don’t know if it’s actually new). We probably need to move in the direction of using fresh data when analyzing care trends. I suspect few hospitals or health system would have the resources to take this on today, but it’s something to consider.

Still, I’d want to know two things before digging into Midas further. First, while the idea sounds good, is there evidence to suggest that collecting recent data offers superior clinical results? And in that vein, how much of an improvement does it offer relative to analysis of historical data? Until we know these things, it’s hard to tell what we’ve got here.

Healthcare Robots for Elderly – Triumph or Tragedy?

Posted on August 21, 2017 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He is currently an independent marketing consultant working with leading healthIT companies. Colin is a member of #TheWalkingGallery. His Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung.

When most people talk about robots in healthcare they often are referring to the self-guided machines that help deliver medications, food and other items to patient rooms.

Robots of this type can be very helpful and alleviate some of the mechanical tasks on overburdened staff. There is, however, another type of robot that is making in-roads in healthcare – companion robots like Softbank’s Pepper and Intelligent Systems Research’s PARO.

Instead of performing a physical action, the aim of these robots is to serve as patient companions. PARO, for example, has been used extensively in Japan with patients suffering from Alzheimer’s and Dementia – where it has helped reduce wandering, agitation, depression and loneliness. Below is a short video from Alzheimer’s Australia about PARO.

From a technology standpoint this is an amazing triumph. A machine providing emotional support to a patient was the stuff of Science Fiction a decade ago. At the same time, however, do these robots represent a failure of society? Does the fact that these robots exist demonstrate that we would rather delegate human contact with elderly patients to machines rather than go ourselves?

The #hcldr community debated this topic on a recent tweetchat.

A manual analysis of the tweets shows that approximately 80% of the community saw robot companions as a positive development. Most people, like Grace Cordova, pointed to the fact that our aging population already outstrips the existing infrastructure so why shouldn’t we invest in robots to help us manage (as a society).

Some responded with tempered positivity. Jon McBride saw the potential in robots but cautioned against relying on them solely for human companionship.

Many echoed Jon’s sentiment.


Personally I see robots as an innovative solution to addressing a problem that already exists – the lack of human interaction with elderly patients. I believe we have to admit to ourselves that staff are stretched thin in elder-care facilities and there are long stretches where patients are on their own. If those hours can be filled by interacting with a robot companion that responds in a human or animal-like way…I’m all for it.

What are your thoughts?

Is Allscripts An Also-Ran In The Hospital EMR Business?

Posted on August 18, 2017 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.

It all began with a question, as many classic tales do. Someone writing for the HIStalk.com website  – I think it was ever-anonymous, eponymous  leader Mr. HISTalk – asked readers to answer the question “Who will benefit most from the proposed acquisition of McKesson EIS by Allscripts?”

The survey results were themselves worth a read:

* Approximately 29% voted for “McKesson customers”
* About 27% voted for “Allscripts customers”
* 8.4% voted for “McKesson shareholders”
* Roughly 23% voted for “Allscripts shareholders”
* About 13% voted for “Allscripts competitors”

Two things about these responses interested me. One is that almost a third of respondents seem to think McKesson will make the bigger score after being acquired by Allscripts. The other is that a not-inconsiderable 13% of the site’s well-informed readers think the deal will help Allscripts’ competitors. If these readers are right, perhaps Allscripts should rethink the deal.

I was even more engaged by the analysis that followed, which the writer took a close look at the dynamics of the hospital EMR market and commented on how Allscripts fit in. The results weren’t surprising, but again, if I were running Allscripts I’d take the following discussion seriously.

After working with data supplied by Blain Newton, EVP of HIMSS Analytics, the writer drew some firm conclusions. Here are some of the observations he shared:

  • While McKesson has twice as many hospitals as Allscripts, most of these hospitals have less than 150 beds, which means that the acquisition may offer less benefit, he suggests.
  • In addition to having only 3% of hospitals overall, Allscripts controls only 6% of the 250+ bed hospital market, which probably doesn’t position it for success. In contrast, he notes, Epic controls 20% of this market and Meditech 19%.
  • His sense is that while hospitals typically want a full suite of products when they work with Epic, Cerner or Meditech, Allscripts customers may be more prone to buying just a few key systems.
  • Ultimately, he argues, Cerner, Epic and Meditech have a commanding lead in this market, for reasons which include that the three are well ahead when it comes to the overall number of hospital served.
  • Given his premise, he believes that Epic is at the top of the pyramid, as it has almost double the number of hospitals with 500+ beds that Cerner does.

To cap off his analysis, Mr. HISTalk concludes that market forces make it unlikely that a dark horse will squeeze out one of the top hospital EMR vendors: “Everybody else is eating their dust and likely to lose business due to hospital consolidation and a shift toward the most successful vendors as much as all of us who – for our own reasons – wish that weren’t the case.”

It would take a separate analysis to predict whether the top three hospital EMR vendors are likely to win out over each other, but Epic seems to hold the most cards. Last year, I wrote a piece suggesting that Cerner was edging up on Epic, but I’m not sure whether or not my logic still holds. Epic may indeed be King of the (HIT) Universe for the foreseeable future.

ROI in the Business Office: Why HIM Should Keep a Watchful Eye – HIM Scene

Posted on August 16, 2017 I Written By

The following is a HIM Scene guest blog post by Lula Jensen, MBA, RHIA, CCS, Director of Product Management at MRO.  This is the second blog in a three-part sponsored blog post series focused on the relationship between HIM departments and third-party payers. Each month, a different MRO expert will share insights on how to reduce payer-provider abrasion, protect information privacy and streamline the medical record release process during health plan or third-party commercial payer audits and reviews.

According to most business office staff, pulling information and releasing medical record documentation to payers is a necessary evil to get claims paid and reduce accounts receivables. It is not their core competency.

Whether the request is unsolicited or solicited by the payer, time required to compile information and respond wreaks havoc on business office productivity. Also in efforts to meet payer deadlines and expedite claims, human mistakes can be made. Incorrect patient information might slip through the cracks.

Despite concerns, many business office directors prefer that payer disclosures be sent out by their own business staff—versus by the HIM department. If your organization follows that practice, this HIM Scene blog post is for you.

Two Types of Business Office Requests

There are two instances of business office Release of Information (ROI) to know: unsolicited and solicited requests. The unsolicited process takes place when medical documentation containing all the additional information pertinent to the service being billed is submitted proactively by the provider with the initial claim. The solicited process occurs when the original claim is sent without additional supporting medical record documentation and the payer subsequently (during the adjudication process) determines that additional information is needed. The payer then places a request for the additional documentation from the provider.

Unsolicited Releases During Claims Processing

The purpose of releasing information during claims processing is to expedite payment. In an effort to get the claim paid faster, medical records are sent proactively with the claim. This is especially true for high-dollar claims, payer policies, readmissions within 30 days and the published Office of Inspector General (OIG) Work Plan.

Sounds like a good intention with the organization’s best financial interests in mind. However, three concerns arise when business offices send medical record documentation to payers—versus having HIM professionals take charge.

  1. Business office staff may not know which parts of the medical record will be required to support the claim. Often, the entire chart is sent—a process that is not practical for high-dollar or long-length-of-stay cases.
  2. Sending the entire record is also not compliant with HIPAA’s Minimum Necessary Standard. By sending too much information, hospitals are at risk for HIPAA breach.
  3. Upon receipt of prepay documentation, the payer’s staff logs each record received, scans or otherwise digitizes the documents, and incorporates them into their own electronic systems. This creates a huge administrative burden on payers.

Similar challenges ensue with solicited payer medical record requests that occur during the adjudication process or retrospective reviews.

Business Office Disclosures for Payer Audits and Reviews

There has been significant uptick in payer audits and reviews, a topic that was covered by HIM Scene last month. This includes governmental and third-party commercial. According to one central business office director at an MRO client site, “The pull lists for payer audits and reviews keep getting longer and the piles of medical records to send keep getting higher.”

To reduce administrative burdens with payers, some organizations are allowing payers direct access to their EMRs and EHRs to obtain the required information during audits and reviews. While this process may lighten the load for billing personnel, it is laden with additional privacy risks.

Business office personnel complain about the travails of responding to all the various requests for records. However, a significant number of business office directors still insist on owning the ROI process for payer audits and reviews. When this is the case, there are several important steps for HIM directors to consider.

Three Steps for HIM: Educate, Track and Talk

For both types of business office disclosures, it is important to educate billing staff about the implications of a HIPAA breach and privacy risks listed above. Establish an organization-wide standard for ROI to keep PHI safe during all types of business office disclosures. Educating all personnel involved in business office ROI (whether for claims processing, audits or reviews) helps relieve frustration with the record release process.

Billers should also track which specific records, and what sections of each, were sent. By documenting and then reviewing this information, organizations gain valuable knowledge about payer trends—insights that can be used to prevent denials and negotiate more favorable terms for payer contracts.

Collaborate with privacy and the business office to determine which release information to track. Then establish a common database or software application to document each release to payers. Here are four ways to make the most of business office ROI tracking data:

  • Look for patterns in what payers are requesting. Any trends in payer request activity could offer opportunities for provider improvement.
  • Identify risk. Analytics can help business offices detect weaknesses in the revenue cycle, involving coding, documentation or other internal processes.
  • Educate coders, biller, collectors, physicians, etc. on payer trends and how collaboration can promote accurate, complete billing for services rendered and support a claim via medical record documentation.
  • Use data analysis. When payer contract negotiations arise, use payer trend statistics to your advantage in the next round of negotiations.

Talk with local payers and stay updated on policy changes related to claims processing, audits and retrospective reviews. Open communication with each payer is recommended to ensure records are sent in the most secure way possible. Communication with payers also reduces phone tag and minimizes payer-provider abrasion.

Finally, due to the importance of collecting medical record documentation, health plans are willing to pay for records. Business offices and HIM departments fulfilling these requests are encouraged to discuss and pursue reimbursement from payers.

About Lula Jensen

In her role as Director of Product Management for MRO, Jensen drives product enhancements and new product initiatives to ensure MRO’s suite of solutions enable the highest levels of client success and end-user satisfaction. She has more than 15 years of experience in healthcare, focusing on Health Information Management (HIM), Revenue Cycle Management, analytics, software development and consulting. In addition to holding product management roles at McKesson Health Solutions and CIOX Health, she also served as Revenue Cycle Manager at Fox Chase Cancer Center and taught a course on ICD-9 CM Coding and Reimbursement at Bucks County Community College. Jensen is an active member of the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) and Pennsylvania Health Information Management Association (PHIMA); she is a 2005 PHIMA Scholar Award recipient. Jensen holds a B.S. in HIM from Temple University and an M.B.A. in Health Care Administration from Holy Family University.

If you’d like to receive future HIM posts in your inbox, you can subscribe to future HIM Scene posts here.

E-Patient Update: When EMRs Make A Bad Process Worse

Posted on August 14, 2017 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.

Last week, I wrote an item reflecting on a video interview John did with career CIO Drex DeFord. During the video, which focused on patient engagement and care coordination, DeFord argued that it’s best to make sure your processes are as efficient as they can get before you institutionalize them with big technology investments.

As I noted in the piece, it’d be nice if hospitals did the work of paring down processes to perfection before they embed those processes in their overall EMR workflow, but that as far as I know this seldom happens

Unfortunately, I’ve just gotten a taste of what can go wrong under these circumstances. During the rollout of its enterprise EMR, a health system with an otherwise impeccable reputation dropped the ball in a way which may have harmed my brother permanently.

An unusual day

My brother Joey, who’s in his late 40s, has Down’s Syndrome. He’s had a rocky health history, including heart problems that go with the condition and some others of his own. He lives with my parents in the suburbs of a large northeastern city about an hour by air from my home.

Not long ago, when I was staying with them, my brother had a very serious medical problem. One morning, I walked into the living room to find him wavering in and out of consciousness, and it became clear that he was in trouble. I woke my parents and called 911. As it turned out, his heart was starting and stopping which, unless perhaps you’re an emergency physician, was even scarier to watch than you might think.

Even for a sister who’d watched her younger brother go through countless health troubles, this is was a pretty scary day.  Sadly, the really upsetting stuff happened at the hospital.

Common sense notions

When we got Joey to the ED at this Fancy Northeastern Hospital, the staff couldn’t have been more helpful and considerate. (The nurses even took Joe’s outrageous flirting in stride.)  Within an hour or two, the clinical team had recommended implanting him with a pacemaker. But things went downhill from there.

Because he arrived on Friday afternoon, staff prepared for the implantation right away, as the procedure apparently wasn’t available Saturday and Sunday and he needed help immediately. (The lack of weekend coverage strikes me as ludicrous, but it’s a topic for another column.)

As part of the prep, staff let my mother know that the procedure was typically done without general anesthesia. At the time, my mother made clear that while Joey was calm now, he might very well get too anxious to proceed without being knocked out. She thought the hospital team understood and were planning accordingly.

Apparently, though, the common-sense notion that some people freak out and need to be medicated during this kind of procedure never entered their mind, didn’t fit with their processes or both. Even brother’s obvious impairment doesn’t seem to have raised any red flags.

“I don’t have his records!”

I wasn’t there for the rest of the story, but my mother filled me in later. When Joey arrived in the procedure room, staff had no idea that he might need special accommodations and canceled the implantation when he wouldn’t hold still. Mom tells me one doctor yelled: “But I don’t have his records!” Because the procedure didn’t go down that day, he didn’t get his implant until Monday.

This kind of fumbling isn’t appropriate under any circumstances, but it’s even worse when it’s predictable.  Apparently, my brother had the misfortune to show up on the first day of the hospital’s EMR go-live process, and clinicians were sweating it. Not only were they overtaxed, and rushing, they were struggling to keep up with the information flow.

Of course, I understand that going live on an EMR can be stressful and difficult. But in this case, and probably many others, things wouldn’t have fallen apart if their process worked in the first place prior to the implementation. Shouldn’t they have had protocols in place for road bumps like skittish patients or missing chart information even before the EMR was switched on?

Not the same

Within days of getting Joey back home, my mom saw that things were not the same with him. He no longer pulls his soda can from the fridge or dresses himself independently. He won’t even go to the bathroom on his own anymore. My mother tells me that there’s the old Joe (sweet and funny) and the new Joe (often combative and confused).  Within weeks of the pacemaker implantation, he had a seizure.

Neither my parents nor I know whether the delay in getting the pacemaker put in led to his loss of functioning. We’re aware that the episode he had at home prior to treatment could’ve led to injuries that affect his functioning today.  We also know that adults with Down’s Syndrome slip into dementia at a far younger age than is typical for people without the condition. But these new deficits only seemed to set in after he came home.

My mother still simmers over the weekend he spent without much-needed care, seemingly due to a procedural roadblock that just about anyone could’ve anticipated. She thinks about the time spent between Friday and Monday, during which she assumes his heart was struggling to work “His heart was starting and stopping, Anne,” she said. “Starting and stopping. All because they couldn’t get it right the first time.”

Achieve MU3: Measure 3 with these 5 MEDITECH Clinical Decision Support Interventions (CDSi)

Posted on August 11, 2017 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Kelly Del Gaudio, Principal Consultant at Galen Healthcare Solutions.

Over the past several years, there has been significant investment and effort to attest to the various stages of meaningful use, with the goal of achieving better clinical outcomes. One area of MU3 that directly contributes to improved clinical outcomes is implementation of Clinical Decision Support Interventions (CDSi). Medicaid hospitals must implement 5 CDSi and enable drug-drug and/or drug-allergy checking.

From looking at this measure it seems like a walk in the park, but how does your organization fair when it comes to CDS?

Thanks to First Databank, users of EMR’s have been accomplishing drug to drug and drug to allergy checking for over a decade, but what about the edge cases you think will be covered but aren’t? Take a patient that is allergic to contrast for example. Since imaging studies requiring contrast are not drugs, what happens when they are ordered? Are they checking for allergies? In most cases, additional configuration is required to get that flag to pop. This is usually where we come in.

Let’s take a look at a simple CDSi definition provided by CMS.gov

“CDS intervention interaction. Interventions provided to a user must occur when a user is interacting with technology. These interventions should be based on the following data:  Problem list; Medication list; Medication allergy list; Laboratory tests; and Vital signs. “

Without a decent rule writer on staff, there are limitations within MEDITECH for accomplishing full CDSi. The primary reason we started recording these discrete data elements in the first place is the glimmer of hope that they would someday prove themselves useful. That day is here, friends. (If you don’t believe me, check out IBM’s Watson diagnosing cancer on YouTube. . .you might want to block off your schedule.)

In collaboration with 9 hospitals as part of a MEDITECH Rules focus group – Project Claire[IT] – we researched and designed intuitive tools to address Clinical Quality Measures (eCQM’s) and incorporated them into a content package. If your organization is struggling to meet these measures or you are interested in improving the patient and provider experience, but don’t have the resources to dedicate to months of research and development, Project Claire[IT]’s accelerated deployment schedule (less than 1 month) can help you meet that mark. Below are just some examples of the eCQM’s and CDS delivered by Project Claire[IT].

CMS131v5     Diabetes Eye Exam
CMS123v5     Diabetes: Foot Exam
CMS22v5       Screening for High Blood Pressure and Follow-Up Documented

Synopsis: The chronic disease management template will only display questions relevant to the Problem List (or other documented confirmed problems since we know not everyone uses the problem list). Popup suggestions trigger orders reminding the provider to complete these chronic condition follow-up items before letting the patient out of their sights. Our goal was to save providers time by ordering all orders in 1 click.

CMS71v7     Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter
CMS102v6   Assessed for Rehabilitation

“The Framingham Heart Study noted a dramatic increase in stroke risk associated with atrial fibrillation with advancing age, from 1.5% for those 50 to 59 years of age to 23.5% for those 80 to 89 years of age. Furthermore, a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are among a limited number of predictors of high stroke risk within the population of patients with atrial fibrillation. Therefore, much emphasis has been placed on identifying methods for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke as well as preventing first stroke. Prevention strategies focus on the modifiable risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, and atrial fibrillation.” – CMS71v7

The above quote is taken directly from this measure indicating the use of the Framingham Heart Study we used to identify and risk stratify stroke. Claire[IT] content comes complete with three Framingham Scoring tools:

                Framingham Risk for Stroke
                Framingham Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
                Framingham Risk for Heart Attack

These calculators use all the aforementioned data elements to drive the score, interpretation and recommendations and the best part is they only require one click.

*User adds BP. BP mean auto calculates. Diabetes and Smoking Status update from the Problem List. Total Cholesterol and HDL update from last lab values.
Ten year and comparative risk by age auto calculates.

*User adds BP. BP mean auto calculates. Diabetes, Smoking Status, CVD, Afib and LVH update from the Problem List. On Hypertension meds looks to Ambulatory Orders.
Ten year risk auto calculates.

*User adds BP. BP mean auto calculates. Diabetes and Smoking Status update from the Problem List. Hypertension meds looks to Ambulatory Orders. Total Cholesterol and HDL update from lab values.
Ten year risk auto calculates.

CMS149v5      Dementia: Cognitive Assessment

Synopsis: Not only is this tool built specifically as a conversational assessment, it screens for 4 tiers of mental status within one tool (Mental Status, Education, Cognitive Function and Dementia). The utilization of popup messages allows us to overcome the barrier of character limits and makes for a really smooth display on a tablet or hybrid. Our popups are driven by the primary language field in registration and our content currently consists of English and Spanish translations.

CMS108v6     VTE Prophylaxis
CMS190v6     VTE Prophylaxis is the ICU

Synopsis: Patients that have an acute or suspected VTE problem with no orders placed for coumadin (acute/ambulatory or both) receive clinical decision support flags. Clicking the acknowledge tracks the user mnemonic and date/time stamp in an audit trail. Hard stops are also in place if NONE is chosen as a contraindication. The discharge order cannot be filed unless coumadin is ordered or a contraindication is defined. These rules evaluate the problem list and compare it to the medication list to present the provider with the right message.

Learn more about the work of our focus group and Project Claire[IT] by viewing our MEDITECH Clinical Optimization Toolkit.

VIEW THE TOOLKIT TO ACCESS:

  • Deliverable Package of Complex Rules, Assessments, CDS’s and Workflows
    • Problem List Evaluation
    • Total Parenteral Nutrition
    • Manage Transfer Guidance
  • Surveillance Dashboard Setup Guide
    • Dictionary Setup & Validation
  • 6.x Rules Setup Guide
    • Basic Rules for Assessments, Documents & Orders
  • IV Charge Capture Setup Guide

About Kelly Del Gaudio
Kelly is Principal Consultant at Galen Healthcare Solutions, and has been optimizing MEDITECH systems for over 10 years. She worked for MEDITECH on an elite 4-person team (the MEDITECH SWAT Team), whose sole concentration was clinical optimization, ROI analysis, MU certification, and achievement of HIMSS EMRAM Stage 6/7. Kelly currently leads Galen’s MEDITECH practice, and championed a focus group, which led to the delivery of Project Claire[IT], a MEDITECH content package of complex rules, assessments, CDS’s, and workflows that evaluate, suggest, and support documentation of chronic and acute problems. Learn more about Kelly in the #IAmGalen series.

About Galen Healthcare Solutions

Galen Healthcare Solutions is an award-winning, #1 in KLAS healthcare IT technical & professional services and solutions company providing high-skilled, cross-platform expertise and proud sponsor of the EMR Clinical Optimization Series. For over a decade, Galen has partnered with more than 300 specialty practices, hospitals, health information exchanges, health systems and integrated delivery networks to provide high-quality, expert level IT consulting services including strategy, optimization, data migration, project management, and interoperability. Galen also delivers a suite of fully integrated products that enhance, automate, and simplify the access and use of clinical patient data within those systems to improve cost-efficiency and quality outcomes. For more information, visit www.galenhealthcare.com. Connect with us on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Is It Time To Put FHIR-Based Development Front And Center?

Posted on August 9, 2017 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.

I like to look at questions other people in the #HIT world wonder about, and see whether I have a different way of looking at the subject, or something to contribute to the discussion. This time I was provoked by one asked by Chad Johnson (@OchoTex), editor of HealthStandards.com and senior marketing manager with Corepoint Health.

In a recent HealthStandards.com article, Chad asks: “What do CIOs need to know about the future of data exchange?” I thought it was an interesting question; after all, everyone in HIT, including CIOs, would like to know the answer!

In his discussion, Chad argues that #FHIR could create significant change in healthcare infrastructure. He notes that if vendors like Cerner or Epic publish a capabilities-based API, providers’ technical, clinical and workflow teams will be able to develop custom solutions that connect to those systems.

As he rightfully points out, today IT departments have to invest a lot of time doing rework. Without an interface like FHIR in place, IT staffers need to develop workflows for one application at a time, rather than creating them once and moving on. That’s just nuts. It’s hard to argue that if FHIR APIs offer uniform data access, everyone wins.

Far be it from me to argue with a good man like @OchoTex. He makes a good point about FHIR, one which can’t be emphasized enough – that FHIR has the potential to make vendor-specific workflow rewrites a thing of the past. Without a doubt, healthcare CIOs need to keep that in mind.

As for me, I have a couple of responses to bring to the table, and some additional questions of my own.

Since I’m an HIT trend analyst rather than actual tech pro, I can’t say whether FHIR APIs can or can’t do what Chat is describing, though I have little doubt that Chad is right about their potential uses.

Still, I’d contend out that since none other than FHIR project director Grahame Grieve has cautioned us about its current limitations, we probably want to temper our enthusiasm a bit. (I know I’ve made this point a few times here, perhaps ad nauseum, but I still think it bears repeating.)

So, given that FHIR hasn’t reached its full potential, it may be that health IT leaders should invest added time on solving other important interoperability problems.

One example that leaps to mind immediately is solving patient matching problems. This is a big deal: After all, If you can’t match patient records accurately across providers, it’s likely to lead to wrong-patient related medical errors.

In fact, according to a study released by AHIMA last year, 72 percent of HIM professional who responded work on mitigating possible patient record duplicates every week. I have no reason to think things have gotten better. We must find an approach that will scale if we want interoperable data to be worth using.

And patient data matching is just one item on a long list of health data interoperability concerns. I’m sure you’re aware of other pressing problems which could undercut the value of sharing patient records. The question is, are we going to address those problems before we began full-scale health data exchange? Or does it make more sense to pave the road to data exchange and address bumps in the road later?