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!

Hospital App Helps Patients After Surgery

Posted on March 15, 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.

Patients are very vulnerable after surgery. If they don’t follow post-surgical instructions, they may be readmitted (never a good thing for hospitals these days), and far worse, may suffer real harm.

Unfortunately, many patients don’t retain or follow doctors’ instructions on how to best recover from surgery, particularly if these instructions aren’t documented well.  For example, a 2015 study appearing in Anesthesiology concluded that only 60% of 519 surgery patients who got verbal post-operative instructions or annotated EMR records complied with medication instructions.

In an effort to improve stats like these, Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center has introduced an app designed to support patients in their post-surgical recovery process. The app, SeamlessMD, prompts patients to ask for reminders about their surgeon’s instructions, according to a HIMSS Future Care article.

Anthony Perry, MD, vice president for ambulatory care and population health at Rush, told the publication that his facility had already implemented protocols for enhanced recovery after surgery before the app was created. But the app has potential to move patients’ post-surgical recovery to the next level, Perry said. “It’s not only a neat technology, but a neat technology that’s truly aligned with our own goals,” he noted.

Dr. Perry believes that presenting prompts and reminders via a personal mobile device offers benefits traditional care instructions can’t, particularly when the app is placed on a patient’s phone. “There’s a bridge that a smartphone gives us into a person’s everyday life that we don’t have when they come visit us in the office,” he said.

Rush’s initiative comes as hospitals around the world consider the benefits of rolling out patient-oriented apps. For example, four National Health Services hospitals serving the United Kingdom are testing apps that monitor patient health at home.

The hospitals are testing two apps, one focused on managing gestational diabetes treatment and the other addressing COPD monitoring and care. (As one might expect, the diabetes app collects blood glucose readings and the COPD app oxygen saturation levels.) The pilot, which is still in its initial stages, has already seen some success. For example, the number of office visits by patients with gestational diabetes has fallen 25% since the app was released to such patients.

This may be the dawn of a new age for hospital use of mHealth apps, which has been at best at a trial-and-error stage for several years. While most hospitals and health systems have toyed with apps to some degree, in the past there was neither a clinical nor technical approach for them to adopt. So many initial app projects went nowhere.

But with evidence piling up that at least some approaches work – such as remote patient monitoring for chronic disease management, as described above – hospitals are beginning to see apps as a practical tool for improving outcomes. Meanwhile, as they’ve adopted mobile-friendly infrastructures, hospitals have become more capable of supporting hospital-developed apps effectively.

Of course, there’s probably a number of functions apps can perform which nobody’s pursued just yet. But with some early successes in place, my guess is that hospitals will try lots of new app projects going forward.

ACOs Not Scaling Well, But Health IT Helps

Posted on March 13, 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.

ACOs were billed as the next big thing in healthcare, a model which would create economies of scale and tame rising costs of care. In theory, unifying hospitals and doctors into an overarching entity – and creating shared clinical and financial goals – should improve care and boost efficiency.

Of course, creating them doesn’t come cheap. In fact, creating even a modest ACO typically calls for between $1 million and $3 million in capital investment, according to Michael Deegan, MD, who recently developed a course on ACOs for the University of Texas at Dallas. It also takes 18 to 24 months to launch an ACO, Deegan told an interviewer at UT.

But once all of the Ts have been crossed and the Is dotted, ACOs can meet their stated goals, right? Actually, not so much, though health IT can help things along, according to Indranil Bardham, a colleague of Deegan’s at UT Dallas who serves as professor of information systems.

According to an article in HealthcareITNews, Bardhan recently completed a study on ACO performance which concluded that health IT had a measurable impact on their efficiency. The study, which drew on 2013-2015 data from CMS, reviewed the performance of 400 ACOs.

Among the key takeways Bardhan took from his research was that the larger an ACO was, the more likely it was to be inefficient. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which would suggest that bigger is better when it comes to improving efficiency.

On the other hand, health IT use had the effect its champions might hope for, though modest in scope. The study concluded that a 1 percent increase in HIT usage was associated with an 0.5 percent increase in ACO efficiency.

The thing is, these measures represent just a couple of ways to evaluate ACO performance, making it hard to tell just what is working, Bardhan told HIN. “Healthcare, with respect to ACOs, is fascinating because there is not just one single output measure that you are using to compare performance,” he told the magazine’s Bill Siwicki. “…It is difficult to measure the performance of organizations against each other when you have multiple outputs that cannot easily be transformed into a single dollar number.”

This squares with commentary by other ACO researchers, who seem to agree that the whole ACO evaluation process is a bit mysterious. As health policy analyst David Introcaso notes, in a review of ACO-based Medicare Shared Savings Program, CMS isn’t helping either. “While CMS details financial and quality performance results, the agency does not explain, at least publicly, how results, favorable or unfavorable, were achieved.”

Without knowing more about what we should measure, and why – much less what steps helped in achieving their results – it’s too soon to tell what type of health IT should be deployed in ACOs. But looked at more optimistically, once we have a better idea of what ACO success factors are, it seems likely that health IT tools will help execs address them. (For a look at one completely health IT-based ACO concept, see this piece on the Virtual ACO.)

Cleveland Clinic Works To Eliminate Tech Redundancies

Posted on March 1, 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.

The Cleveland Clinic has relied on its EMR for quite some time. In fact, it adopted Epic in the 1990s, long before most healthcare organizations were ready to make a bet on EMRs. Today, decades later, the Epic EMR is the “central data hub” for the medical center and is central to both its clinical and operational efforts, according to William Morris, MD, the Clinic’s associate chief information officer.

But Morris, who spoke about the Clinic’s health IT with Health Data Management, also knows its limitations. In an interview with the magazine’s Greg Slabodkin, he notes that while the EMR may be necessary, it isn’t sufficient. The Epic EMR is “just a digital repository,” he told Slabodkin. “Ultimately, it’s what you do with the technology in your ecosystem.”

These days, IT leaders at the Clinic are working to streamline the layers of additional technology which have accreted on top of the EMR over the years. “As an early adopter of Epic, we have accumulated quite a bit of what I’ll call technical debt,” said Doug Smith, interim chief information officer. “What I mean by that is multiple enhancements, bolt-ons, or revisions to the core application. We have to unburden ourselves of that.”

It’s not that Clinic leaders are unhappy with their EMR. In fact, they’re finding ways to tap its power to improve care. For example, to better leverage its EMR data, the Cleveland Clinic has developed data-driven “risk scores” designed to let doctors know if patients need intervention. The models, developed by the Clinic’s Quantitative Health Sciences group, offer outcome risk calculators for several conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

(By the way, if predictive analytics interest you, you might want to check out our coverage of such efforts at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, which is developing a platform to predict which patients might develop congestive heart failure and care for patients already diagnosed with the condition more effectively. I’ve also taken a look at a related product being developed by Google’s DeepMind, an app named Streams which will ping clinicians if a patient needs extra attention.)

Ultimately, though, the organization hopes to simplify its larger health IT infrastructure substantially, to the point where 85% of the HIT functionality comes from the core Epic system. This includes keeping a wary eye on Epic upgrades, and implementing new features selectively. “When you take an upgrade in Epic, they are always turning on more features and functions,” Smith notes. “Most are optional.”

Not only will such improvements streamline IT operations, they will make clinicians more efficient, Smith says. “They are adopting standard workflows that also exist in many other organizations—and, we’re more efficient in supporting it because we don’t take as long to validate or support an upgrade.”

As an aside, I’m interested to read that Epic is tossing more features at Cleveland Clinic than it cares to adopt. I wonder if those are what engineers think customers want, or what they’re demanding today?

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.

What If Doctors Owned Part of Hospital EMRs?

Posted on May 19, 2015 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.

After this many years of widespread use, you’d think that physicians would have accepted that EMRs are an inevitable part of practicing medicine — and at least sometimes, a useful tool that helps doctors manage their panel of patients more effectively.  But it seems some hospital administrators have concluded that a significant percentage of doctors loathe EMRs.

I draw this conclusion not from casual conversation with physicians, but from a hospital recruiting advertisement quoted in The New York Times.  The advertisement, which was attempting to attract doctors to a facility in Phoenix, closed its glowing description of state-of-the-art equipment and an attractive location with a single provocative line, all in bold: “No E.M.R.s.”

While EMRs are getting long in the tooth these days, they haven’t won over many doctors. As physician Robert Wachter notes in his NYT piece on the subject, a 2013 RAND survey found physicians most unhappy with EMRs, citing “poor usability, time-consuming data entry, needless alerts and poor work flows.”

I think it’s pretty obvious why EMRs continue to stay user-hostile. While doctors are the end users of  EMRs, hospital IT leaders and other CXOs make the final buying decisions. And he (or she) who writes the check makes the rules.

In theory, it’s strongly in hospital management’s interests to force EMR vendors to clean up their usability act.  After all, not only do hospital leaders want their EMRs used effectively, they want the data to be robust enough to be usable for value-based care delivery. But the truth is that hospital leaders are nowhere near demanding enough of EMR vendors. And because they’re the ones writing the checks, doctors get stuck with the ugly results.

But what if there was a way to involve both doctors and hospitals financially, as partners, in buying EMRs?  Not being the world’s greatest finance wizard, I don’t know how a hospital and a group of physicians could structure a deal that would allow them to jointly own the hospital’s EMR system. And I’m aware, though I don’t know how they would be addressed, that there could be significant legal issues to be resolved if the hospital was a not-for-profit entity.

But at least in theory, if doctors were paying for a percentage of the EMR, they’d have a lot more say as to what level of usability they’d demand, what features were most important to them, and what price they’d be willing to pay for the system. In other words, if doctors had skin in the game, it would put a great deal of pressure on vendors to make EMRs doctors actually liked.

Now, I realize that doctors might have no interest in buying into a technology which has let them down again and again. But there’s a chance that more visionary and tech-friendly physicians might grab the chance to have a substantial say in the EMR-buying process. The idea is worth a look.

CFO Pleads Guilty To Meaningful Use Fraud

Posted on November 24, 2014 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 had to happen eventually — the money is just too good.  The former chief financial officer of a now-closed Texas hospital has plead guilty to charges that he defrauded the meaningful use program, in what may be the first prosecution of its kind.

According to Healthcare IT News the former CFO of Shelby Regional Medical Center in Center, TX, has been indicted on charges that he falsely attested that Shelby Regional met meaningful use requirements for fiscal year 2012. The alleged fraud garnered the medical center $783,655 in payments, according to the indictment.

It’s not that hospitals haven’t wrongly claimed large amounts of meaningful use cash before. In fact, Florida-based Health Management Associates seems to have wrongfully claimed $31 million in meaningful use payments last year prior to its acquisition by Community Health Systems, with 11 of 71 HMA hospitals failing to meet meaningful use criteria.

But it does seem to be unusual, if not unprecedented, for CMS to catch providers in the act of willfully falsifying meaningful use attestations. Either the self-attestation honor system is working or CMS  is failing to catch a great deal of monkey business.

In Shelby Regional’s case, the hospital relied on paper records throughout fiscal year 2012 and only minimally used an EMR, according to the feds. To make sure the facility still captured its meaningful use payout, CFO Joe White instructed the software vendor and employees of the hospital to input data from paper records into the EMR, sometimes months after patients were discharged and after the fiscal year. (If convicted, White faces five years in prison).

What makes the purported fraud at Shelby Regional seem all the more egregious is that it was apparently part of a much larger scheme. Tariq Mahmood, MD, who owned Shelby Regional and five other Texas hospitals, is also being investigated by federal prosecutors for alleged healthcare fraud. The six hospitals owned by Mahmood collected a total of $16.8 million in meaningful use incentives for fiscal 2011 and 2012.

The truth is, there’s probably a lot more fraud going on in the meaningful use program that hasn’t been caught. After all, a report by the Office of the Inspector General for HHS issued early this year concluded that CMS fraud auditors such as the Recovery Audit Contractors weren’t doing a great job of reviewing EMR records, failing to take basic steps such as reviewing EMR audit logs to verify that medical records support a claim. It’s little wonder they haven’t caught more providers deliberately gaming the meaningful use system.

Hospitals can do more to avoid accidental problems with meaningful use claims, too. Observers have noted that few hospitals have sufficient safeguards in place to catch attestation problems before they happen.

NC Health System Uses Big Data To Improve Care

Posted on November 22, 2013 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.

While everybody talks about the potential for so-called “big data” in healthcare, there seems to be more smoke than fire at this point. To date, health payers have been a lot more engaged with using big data than providers, according to IDC Health Insights.

That being said, there are some providers out there who have been able to get their arms around big data projects which improve careFierceHealthIT reports.

One example is the University of North Carolina Health Care (UNCHC), a health system based in Chapel Hill, N.C., where they’ve begun programs to leverage big data in improving the quality of care and reporting, according to FierceHealthIT.

As the UNCHC system has grown, it’s seen a dramatic increase in the amount of data each facility was holding — and making things even more challenging, 80 percent of the data was unstructured, according to Carlton Moore, MD, associate professor of medicine at UNCHC.

As Dr. Moore notes, it’s difficult to use unstructured data to meet accountable care objectives. For example, when patients get cancer screenings at another institution, physicians write that in the unstructured notes, but don’t check off that they’ve  had the study because it wasn’t done there.

But UNCHC has taken on the mass of data under its roof. It’s developed a unique algorithm inserted into a natural language processing plan which allows researchers to find and address abnormal results on pap smears and mammography screenings.

While this is just a beginning, UNCHC has bigger plans. It intends to take next steps in analyzing and using its mass of data such as analyzing medication compliance and determining the number of clinic visits associated with bad health outcomes.

Kudos to UNHCH on their progress. But I don’t expect to see a ton of these projects showing up in the public arena; there’s just too much involved, particularly with ICD-10 and Meaningful Use draining resources like crazy.

In the mean time, though, providers may want to embrace “skinny” healthcare data, argues my colleague John Lynn.  The concept:  instead of creating a huge enterprise data warehouse for all purposes, why not focus on smaller problems?  That might be a faster path to results, and a decent preparation for the big data future, no?

EMR Med Reconciliation Works, But Doesn’t Come Easy

Posted on August 19, 2013 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.

Medication reconciliation is a complex process which could always stand to be improved — so how about leveraging your EMR?

Editor Maria Durben Hirsch of FierceEMR recently talked with a handful of health IT execs about how it’s working out to use EMRs as part of their med reconciliation process, and learned that while health leaders are enthusiastic about med reconciliation in the EMR, they’re still working out kinks in the process.

Health IT leaders do seem enthusiastic about the possibilities for using EMR med functions.

For example, Texas Health Resources, a 25-hospital health system in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, has found that using EMRs improves the accuracy of the process by providing tools to capture the patient’s previous med history, better managing new med orders and generating instructions for patients, CMIO Ferdinand Velasco, MD, told FEMR.

And at Naperville, Ill.-based Edward Hospital,  staff are happily using a “pretty robust” functionality for med reconciliation, CIO Bobbie Byrne told Durben Hirsch. Their EMR offers several useful features , including a home medication list, tools to convert meds to inpatient orders or provide substitutions, and features to continue meds after discharge and generate prescriptions.

But there are still issues with using this technology, Byrne told FEMR.  For one thing, she notes, a transaction that takes no time at all in a physician’s mind takes longer, and is more complicated. What’s more, med reconciliation itself is more difficult these days, given that many patients have chronic diseases and are on 10 to 15 meds before coming to the hospital.

And Mary Beth Mitchell, chief nursing information officer at Texas Health Resources, points out that the EMR-based med reconciliation process requires patience and thoroughness: “This process is dependent on the nurse or physician going to the medication reconciliation activity and identifying the current status of each med, every time the patient moves throughout the system,” she told Durben Hirsch.

The bottom line seems to be that while EMRs have made a lot of progress in the med reconciliation arena, few if any EMRs offer the simple process we all know it should be. Getting medication reconciliation right is critical, though. Let’s hope vendors get the kinks out soon.

ACOs Need Population Health Help From EMRs

Posted on February 13, 2013 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’s hard to argue that without an EMR, Accountable Care Organizations would be somewhat adrift. After all, any structure that demands a high level of coordination between multiple organizations benefits from a shared EMR backbone.

But do EMRs do a good job of managing population health, the other key responsibility of ACO clinicians?  Let’s take a look at the criteria suggested by David Nash, MD, MBA, who’s Founding Dean of the Jefferson School of Population Health at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Nash notes that primary care physicians in an ACO need the following:

  • A registry to monitor and evaluate my patients – not just individually but as a population
  • Relevant data on my patients who share a specific diagnosis such as hypertension or asthma
  • Information on how my medical management and patient outcomes compare with other local practices
  • Information on where my practice stands in comparison with national benchmarks

Let’s see.  Do leading EMRS offer a registry to monitor patients as a group?  Automatically serve up data on patients who share a specific diagnosis?  Offer means of benchmarking outcomes with other local practices or national standards? No, no and no.

I can hear EMR vendors out there saying, “Hey, wait a minute. That stuff is not our problem!”  And historically, they’d probably be right.  After all, it’s a formidable enough job creating usable, flexible, reliable medical record analogues in digital form.

The truth is, however, that population health measures are central to the medical home, ACOs and the future of medicine generally.

My guess is that for the next few years, hospitals and large medical practices — even those who have launched an ACO — will be preoccupied enough with meeting Meaningful Use  measures that they won’t be demanding more extensive population measures soon.

Still, enterprise EMR vendors will need to offer tools that meet broad population health goals eventually, as the large organizations that buy their products will soon be demanding these types of functions.  The only question is when.

Massachusetts HIE Kicks Off With Golden Spikes

Posted on October 25, 2012 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.

If you’re a history buff, you may know of the Golden Spike connecting the eastgoing and westgoing tracks of the First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. It’s hard to overestimate how important that day was in the history of U.S. industry and transportation, despite the fact that it didn’t actually mark the day a seamless coast-to-coast rail network was completed.

This week, another big link-up was celebrated with ceremonial golden spikes, with some comparably high hopes attached. This one, however, was between disparate EMRs in Massachusetts, writes John Halamka, MD in Life As A Healthcare CIO:

Today we made history in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.   At 11:35am Governor Deval and his physician sent the Governor’s healthcare record from Massachusetts General Hospital to Baystate Medical Center.   It arrived and was integrated into Baystate’s Cerner medical record.

Lots of other demonstrations followed, pingponging data from hospitals to payers to physicians to the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative (which measures quality and performs data analytics).

Among the most interesting facts Dr. Halamka noted was the list of varied EMRs that shared data, including Partners Healthcare’s LMR, eClinicalWorks, a custom payer system and self-built analytics applications.

What took place was no less than a revolutionary event, suggested Dr. Halamka:

Within seconds, we broke down silos, demonstrating that care coordination, population health, and quality analytics based on healthcare information exchange is now possible in Massachusetts.  

By the way, for those who haven’t crossed paths with the indefatigable Dr. Halamka, he’s Chief Information Officer of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. So his institution is central to this new effort (of which he’s quite justifiably proud).

My question is just how this trick was pulled off. Did the participants use the CCD format, Direct Project protocols, discrete data or something else?  Regardless of how the data’s being exchanged, it seems to me that the rest of the country should consider following suit.