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!

Texas Hospital Association Dashboard Offers Risk, Cost Data

Posted on January 22, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The Texas Hospital Association has agreed to a joint venture with health IT vendor IllumiCare to roll out a new tool for physicians. The new dashboard offers an unusual but powerful mix of risk data and real-time cost information.

According to THA, physician orders represent 87% of hospital expenses, but most know little about the cost of items they order. The new dashboard, Smart Ribbon, gives doctors information on treatment costs and risk of patient harm at the point of care. THA’s assumption is that the data will cause them to order fewer and less costly tests and meds, the group says.

To my mind, the tool sounds neat. IllumiCare’s Smart Ribbon technology doesn’t need to be integrated with the hospital’s EMR. Instead, it works with existing HL-7 feeds and piggybacks onto existing user authorization schemes. In other words, it eliminates the need for creating costly interfaces to EMR data. The dashboard includes patient identification, a timer if the patient is on observational status, a tool for looking up costs and tabs providing wholesale costs for meds, labs and radiology. It also estimates iatrogenic risks resulting from physician decisions.

Unlike some clinical tools I’ve seen, Smart Ribbon doesn’t generate alerts or alarms, which makes it a different beast than many other clinical decision support tools. That doesn’t mean tools that do generate alerts are bad, but that feature does set it apart from others.

We’ve covered many other tools designed to support physicians, and as you’d probably guess, those technologies come in all sizes. For example, last year contributor Andy Oram wrote about a different type of dashboard, PeraHealth, a surveillance system targeting at-risk patients in hospitals.

PeraHealth identifies at-risk patients through analytics and displays them on a dashboard that doctors and nurses can pull up, including trends over several shifts. Its analytical processes pull in nursing assessments in addition to vital signs and other standard data sets. This approach sounds promising.

Ultimately, though, dashboard vendors are still figuring out what physicians need, and it’s hard to tell whether their market will stay alive. In fact, according to one take from Kalorama Information, this year technologies like dashboarding, blockchain and even advanced big data analytics will be integrated into EMRs.

As for me, I think Kalorama’s prediction is too aggressive. While I agree that many freestanding tools will be integrated into the EMR, I don’t think it will happen this or even next year. In the meantime, there’s certainly a place for creating dashboards that accommodate physician workflow and aren’t too intrusive. For the time being, they aren’t going away.

Roche, GE Project Brings New Spin To Clinical Decision Support

Posted on January 10, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The clinical decision support market is certainly crowded, and what’s more, CDS solutions vary in some important ways. On the other hand, one could be forgiven for feeling like they all look the same. Sorting out these technologies is not a job for the faint of heart.

That being said, it’s possible that the following partnership might offer something distinctive. Pharmaceutical giant Roche has signed a long-term partnership deal with GE Healthcare to jointly develop and market clinical decision support technology.

In a prepared statement, the two companies said they were developing a digital platform with a difference. The platform will use analytics to fuel workflow tools and apps and support clinical decisions. The platform will integrate a wide range of data, including patient records, medical best practices and recent research outcomes.

At least at the outset of their project, Roche and GE Healthcare are targeting oncology and critical care. With a pharmaceutical company and healthcare technology firm working together, providing tools for oncology specialists in particular makes a lot of sense.

The partners say that their product will give oncology care teams with multiple specialists a common data dashboard to review, which should help them collaborate on treatment decisions. Meanwhile, they plan to offer critical care physicians a dashboard integrating data from patient’ hospital monitoring equipment with their biomarker, genomic and sequencing data.

The idea of integrating new and possibly relevant information to the CDS platform is intriguing. It’s particularly interesting to imagine physicians leveraging genetic information to make real-time decisions. I think it’s safe to say that we’d all like it if CDS systems could bring the rudiments of precision medicine to thorny day-to-day clinical problems.

But the truth is, if my interactions with doctors mean anything, that few of them like CDS systems. Some have told me flat out that they end up overriding many CDS prompts, which arguably makes these very expensive systems almost irrelevant to hospital-based clinical practice. It’s hard to tell whether they would be willing to trust a new approach.

However, if GE and Roche can pull off what they’re pitching, it might just provide enough value it might convince them. Certainly, creating a more flexible dashboard which integrates data and office workflows is a large step in the right direction. And it’s probably fair to say that nothing like this exists in the market right now (as they claim).

Again, while there’s no guaranteed way to build out useful technology, bringing a pharma giant and a health IT giant might give both sides a leg up. I wonder how many users and patients they have involved in their design process. Let’s see if they can back up their promises.

Hospital Mobile Strategy Still In Flux

Posted on January 8, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The following is a look at how hospitals’ use of communication devices has changed since 2011, and what the patterns are now.  You might be surprised to read some of these data points since in some cases they defy conventional wisdom.

The researchers behind the study, communications tech provider Spok, Inc. surveyed about 300 healthcare professionals this year, and have tracked such issues since 2011. The report captures data on the major transitions in hospital mobile communications that have taken place since then.

For example, the report noted that in 2011, 84% of staffers received job-related alerts on pagers. Sixty-two percent are using wireless in-house phones, 61% desk phones, 77% email on their computers, 44% cell phones and 5% other devices.

Since then, mobile device usage in hospitals has changed significantly. For example, 77% of respondents said that their hospital supports smartphone use. The popularity of some devices has come and gone over time, including tablets and Wi-Fi phones (which are nonetheless used by 63% of facilities).

Perhaps the reason this popularity has risen and fallen is that hospitals are still finding it tricky to support mobile devices. The issues include supporting needed infrastructure for Wi-Fi coverage (45%), managing cellular coverage infrastructure (30%), maintaining data security (31%) and offering IT support for users (about 30%). Only 11% of respondents said they were not facing any of these concerns at present.

When the researchers asked the survey panel which channels were best for sharing clinical information in a hospital, not all cited contemporary mobile devices. Yes, smartphones did get the highest reliability rating, at 3.66 out of five points, but pagers, including encrypted pagers, were in second place with a rating of 3.20. Overhead announcements came in third at 2.91 and EHR apps at 2.39.

The data on hospitals and BYOD policies seemed counterintuitive as well. According to Spok, 88% of facilities supported some form of BYOD in 2014, or in other words, roughly 9 out of 10.  That percentage has fallen drastically, however, BYOD support hitting 59% this year.

Not surprisingly, clinicians are getting the most leeway when it comes to using their own devices on campus. In 2017, 90% of respondents said they allowed their clinicians to bring their own devices with them. Another 69% supported BYOD for administrators, 57% for nurses and 56% for IT staffers. Clearly, hospital leaders aren’t thrilled about supporting mobility unless it keeps clinical staff aligned with the facility.

To control this cacophony of devices, 30% said they were using enterprise mobility management solutions, 40% said they were evaluating such solutions and 30% said they had no plans to do so. Apparently, despite some changes in the devices being used, hospitals still aren’t sure who should have mobile tools, how to support them and what infrastructure they need to keep those devices lit up and useful.

Hospitals Puts Off Patient Billing For Several Months During EMR Rollout

Posted on January 6, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Here’s something you don’t see every day. A New Hampshire hospital apparently delayed mailing out roughly 10,000 patient bills going back as far as 11 months ago while it rolled out its new EMR.

According to a report in the Foster’s Daily Democrat,  members of Frisbie Memorial Hospital’s medical staff recently went public with concerns about the hospital’s financial state. Then a flood of delayed patient bills followed, some requesting thousands of dollars, the paper reported.

Hospital officials, for their part, said the delay was planned. Hospital president John Marzinzik said Frisbie needed time to implement its new Meditech EMR and didn’t want to send out incorrect bills during the rollout.

In fact, Marzinzik told Foster’s, under the previous system, records generated during doctor visits weren’t compatible with forms for hospital billing.

Rather than relying further on this patchwork of incompatible systems, Marzinzik and his staff decided to wait until the process was “absolutely clean” for patients. The hospital decided to have a staff member validate every balance shown on a statement before sending them out, he says.

Previously, in December of last year, anonymous Frisbie medical staff members sent Foster’s a letter to share concerns about the hospital and its administrators. The criticisms included skepticism about the over-budget implementation of the $13.5 million Meditech system, which they named as one of the reasons they lack confidence in the hospital administration. The staff members said that this cost overrun, as well as other problems, have undermined the hospital’s financial position.

As is always the case in such situations, hospital leaders took the stage to deny these allegations. Frisbie Senior VP Joe Shields told the paper that the hospital is in sound financial condition, and also said that the only reason why the Meditech project went over budget by $1.5 million was that the administrators delayed the implementation by seven weeks to give the staff holiday time off.

Hmmm. I don’t know about you, but to me, some parts of this story look a little bit bogus. For example:

* I appreciate accurate hospital bills as much as anybody, but the staff was going to check them manually anyway, why did it take 10 or 11 months for them to do so?

* The holidays take place at the same time every year.  Did administrators actually forget they were coming to an event that necessitated an almost 10% cost overrun?

Of course, only a small number of people know the answers to these questions, and I’m certainly not one of them. But the whole picture is a little bit odd.

Merged Health Systems Face Major EHR Integration Issues

Posted on January 2, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Pity the IT departments of Advocate Health Care and Aurora Health Care. When the two health systems complete their merger, IT leaders face a lengthy integration process cutting across systems from three different EHR vendors or a forklift upgrade of at least one.

It’s tough enough to integrate different instances of systems from the same vendor, which, despite the common origin are often configured in significantly different ways. In this case, the task is exponentially more difficult. According to Fierce Healthcare, when the two organizations come together, they’ll have to integrate Aurora’s Epic EHR with the Cerner and Allscripts systems used by Advocate.

As part of his research, the reporter asked an Aurora spokesperson whether health systems attempt to pull together three platforms into a single EHR. Of course, as we know, that is unlikely to ever happen. While full interoperability is obviously an elusive thing, getting some decent data flow between two affiliated organizations is probably far more realistic.

Instead, depending on what happens, the new CIO might or might not decide to migrate all three EHRs onto one from a single vendor. While this could turn out to be a hellish job, it certainly is the ideal situation if you can afford to get there. However, that doesn’t mean it’s always the best option. Especially as health system mergers and acquisitions get bigger and bigger.

To me, however, the big question around all of this is how much the two organizations would spend to bring the same platforms to everyone. As we know, acquiring and rolling out Epic for even one health system is fiendishly expensive, to the point where some have been forced to report losses or have had ratings on the bond reduced.

My guess is that the leaders of the two organizations are counting often-cited merger benefits such as organizational synergies, improved efficiency and staff attrition to meet the cost of health IT investments like these. If this academic studies prove this will work, please feel free to slap me with a dead fish, but as for now I doubt it will happen.

No, to me this offers an object lesson in how mergers in the health IT-centered world can be more costly, take longer to achieve, and possibly have a negative impact on patient care if things aren’t done right (which often seems to be the case).

Given the other pressures health systems face, I doubt these new expenses will hold them back from striking merger deals. Generally speaking, most health systems face little choice but to partner and merge as they can. But there’s no point minimizing how much complexity and expense EHRs bring to such agreements today.

Hospitals Excited By Telehealth, Consumers Not So Much

Posted on December 29, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

When telehealth first emerged as a major commercial phenomenon, consumers were the main market targeted by providers, especially direct-to-consumer models like Teladoc and American Well. But if a new research report is right, the dynamics of the telehealth market have changed substantially, with hospitals and health systems investing heavily in telehealth and consumers hanging back.

The study, which was conducted by telehealth solutions provider Avizia, found that while hospitals and health systems are making increasingly large bets on telehealth, including infrastructure, training and process re-engineering, patients aren’t matching their enthusiasm.

Consumers who do access telehealth seem happy by what they find. When Avizia asked them to rate their telehealth experiences on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 rating it as a “great experience,” nearly two-thirds ranked their experiences between 8 and 10. Also, consumers who were using telehealth said that they like the time savings and convenience it could offer (59%), cost savings due to a lack of travel expenses and lower wait times to see clinicians (55%).

That being said, many consumers haven’t gotten on board yet. In fact, roughly eight out of 10 consumers told Avizia that they weren’t well versed in accessing telehealth, nor did they know whether their insurer would pay for it.

Providers, for their part, have ambitious plans for telehealth use. According to the study, the top one was the ability to reach or expand access to patients (72% of respondents). However, they face several obstacles, the study notes, including problems with getting reimbursed by health plans (41%), program expenses (40%) and resistance from clinicians (22%).

The Avizia results suggest that hospitals are still wrestling with many of the problems they’ve faced over the past few years in implementing telemedicine.

For example, a study by KPMG released in mid-2016 noted that about 25% of the 120 providers it studied had implemented telehealth and telemedicine programs which have achieved financial stability and improved efficiency. Thirty-five percent of KPMG respondents said that they didn’t have a virtual care program in place, though 40% had said they had just implemented a program.

Another study, released earlier this year by Reach Health, notes that 50% of hospitals and health systems are beginning to shift department-based telehealth programs to enterprise-based programs, which suggests that they no longer see virtual care as an experimental technology. They still aren’t rolling out these larger programs yet.

Still, the fact that hospitals are continuing to push ahead with telemedicine, and even make meaningful investments, makes it clear that they’re not going to be put off by current telemedicine obstacles. When the reimbursement tide floods the gates, I’m betting that hospital telemedicine programs will go from “not unusual” to “omnipresent.”

Pennsylvania Health Orgs Agree to Joint $1 Billion Network Dev Effort

Posted on December 27, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

If the essence of deal-making is putting your money where your mouth is, a new agreement between Pennsylvania healthcare giants fit the description. They’ve certainly bitten off a mouthful.

Health organizations, Penn State Health and Highmark Health, have agreed to make a collective investment of more than $1 billion. That is a pretty big number to swallow, even for two large organizations, though it very well may take even more to develop the kind of network they have in mind.

The two are building out what they describe as a “community-based healthcare network,” which they’re designing to foster collaboration with community doctors and keep care local across its service areas.  Makes sense, though the initial press release doesn’t do much to explain how the two are going to make that happen.

The agreement between Penn State and Highmark includes efforts to support population health, the next step in accepting value-based payment. The investors’ plans include the development of population health management capabilities and the use of analytics to manage chronic conditions. Again, pretty much to be expected these days, though their goals are more likely to actually be met given the money being thrown at the problem.

That being said, one possible aspect of interest to this deal is its inclusion of a regionally-focused academic medical center. Penn State plans to focus its plans around teaching hospital Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, a 548-bed hospital affiliated with more than 1,100 clinicians. In my experience, too few agreements take enough advantage of hospital skills in their zeal to spread their arms around large areas, so involving the Medical Center might offer extra benefits to the agreement.

Highmark Health, for its part, is an ACO which encompasses healthcare business serving almost 50 million consumers cutting across all 50 states.  Clearly, an ACO with national reach has every reason in the world to make this kind of investment.

I don’t know what the demographics of the Penn State market are, but one can assume a few things about them, given the the big bucks the pair are throwing at the deal:

  • That there’s a lot of well-insured consumers in the region, which will help pay for a return on the huge investment the players are making
  • That community doctors are substantially independent, but the two allies are hoping to buy a bunch of practices and solidify their network
  • That prospective participants in the network are lacking the IT tools they need to make value-based schemes work, which is why, in part, the two players need to spend so heavily

I know that ACOs and healthcare systems are already striking deals like this one. If you’re part of a health system hoping to survive the next generation of reimbursement, big budgets are necessary, as are new strategies better adapted to value-based reimbursement.

Still, this is a pretty large deal by just about any measure. If it works out, we might end up with new benchmarks for building better-distributed healthcare networks.

Hospital M&A Getting Tough (But Misguided) Scrutiny From Lawmakers

Posted on November 7, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

As us in “the biz” know, the pace of hospital M&A isn’t going to slow down anytime soon. Hospitals are huddling together to scale up for countless reasons.

The reasons for hospital consolidation are just about unstoppable, of course, as they include  a) well-founded fears regarding reform, b) trouble carrying the capital capital costs involved in scaling up health IT infrastructure, c) long-term trends squeezing hospital margins and d) the need to participate effectively  in ACOs, HIEs and other alphabet soup organizations.

Unless the government takes over the entire healthcare system and spends these factors away, they’ll push execs into the arms of their peers regardless of what federal policies roll out.  Yes, the FTC can put mergers on hold, and notably, has gone medieval on a few mergers just to prove it can, but let’s not pretend it has the resources to slow hospital consolidation dealflow much either.

So, I must say I was sort of amused to learn that members of the  House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health took a  stern look at hospital dealmaking and consolidation last month.  You know, to me it’s like standing in a flooded basement in a rainstorm and focusing on a few cracks in the wall — but I digress.

At the hearing, an economics and health policy professor named Martin Gaynor testified that consolidation was picking up speed. He also asserted that studies show hospital prices going up meaningfully whenever hospital markets consolidate.

Geez, Professor Gaynor, you say that like it’s a bad thing! Doesn’t classical economics allow for the supply side folks to work together too, without breaking the system? Whoops, I digress again.

The hearing, which took place in September, also included data from a Rand Corp. study noting that health plans were consolidating dramatically, and that these mergers were giving health plans too much power.  (Wow, imagine that — health plans having too much power?)

Oh, Lord, why does all of this seem beside the point?  Well, probably because it’s not going to help anyone.  Sure, knowing  what impact hospital M&A is having is part of a well-informed Health Subcommittee’s job description.  And I appreciate that the Subcommittee is trying to look at the bigger picture, one which includes both health insurers and hospitals.

But hearings like this, which assume that pricing indicators are the best way to decide whether the public good is being served, strike me as painfully uninformed. While I’m no economist, I have seen a few deals come and go, and some ill-considered attempts to control dealflow too. After following the health market for decades, I’m convinced that playing Whack-A-Mole and slapping down those “bad guys” who are overcharging/underpaying gets us nowhere.

 

Hospital EMR actually works

Posted on June 4, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

As some of you may know — if you read the EMRandEHR.com blog — I recently had an experience which set a fine example as to how much health IT can help hospitals when deployed well and supported by smart training. In short, a family member just had an effective, focused trip through a hugely busy ED, largely due, I believe to the technology it uses.

The hospital has deployed the Picis electronic document management system, along, seemingly, with traffic control modules, to strip much of the fat away from a patient’s trip through the ED.

With staff clicking away happily, patients moving in and out promptly and physicians having easy access to patient histories, med lists test results and more in one easy-to-access place, I saw a pretty neat ballet in place.

The truth is, however, that this seems to be an exception rather than the rule. Far more  hospitals I’ve visited seem to have taken a heavy-handed, training-light approach to introducing their EMR.  (One facility had installed screensavers on staff desktops that read “Cerner is coming.” I can’t imagine this gave any employees a big thrill, or helped them get prepared.)

Actually, when I passed through the same facility later, I saw flustered-looking nurses trying desperately to get simple transactions done, forming an insecure cluster together as they tried to help a colleague enter some observations. Thaaaat didn’t give me a nice, secure feeling about the hospital’s odds of making clinical mistakes.

I hate to say this, but I think the odds of a hospital IT department changing its culture enough to truly support EMR users is pretty darned small. My guess is that it will take several years before hospitals have a clue as to how to handle the big, huge change management process their EMR produces. Good luck, guys.

 

So many blank spots on the clinical data map!

Posted on November 21, 2010 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Emergency medical technicians evacuating an in...

Image via Wikipedia

EMTs collect a lot of data on their trip to the emergency department — and usually, data treating ED physicians will want pretty badly when they see the patient. But in virtually every case, most of that critical info transfer takes place on paper or in a hurried conversation amidst much noise and distraction.

Community medical centers collect as much data on patients as private primary care practices do,  but how often are they connected with hospitals — even those that have done a big ambulatory EMR rollout?

And what about blood banks?   Independent clinical labs like LabCorp.?  School medical offices?  Is anyone paying attention to their data, or is it just being ignored?

Look, I don’t mean to be a dunce here. It’s not as though hospitals and medical practices are sitting around buffing their nails and waiting for something to happen, data-connection wise.

But it’s worth remembering, despite the labor involved in hooking up hospitals and primary care practices, that there are data leakage everywhere.  Until we look the flow of data more wholistically, whole workflows will be designed as though such relationships didn’t even exist — and that’s a Bad Thing.

I say, start with the EMT data, as it’s the closest to the point of care, but regardless of how you expand your clinical data source map, expand it. Otherwise, you’ll be left with a nasty information design problem and finding a workaround will be a nighmare.  Think about it.

(This editorial’s content draws on a speech given by Vivian Funkhouser of  Motorola at a trade show held last week by Everything Channel.)

Related Articles