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!

Mayo Clinic EMR Install Goes Poorly For Nurses

Posted on June 1, 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.

Ordinarily, snagging a contract to help with an Epic install is a prized opportunity. Anyone involved with this kind of project makes very good money, and the experience burnishes their resume too.

In this case, though, a group of nurse contractors says that the assignment was a nightmare. After being recruited and traveling across the US to work, they say, they were treated horribly by the contractor overseeing the Mayo Clinic’s go-live of its Epic EMR.

According to a recent news story, the Clinic hired a team of seven nurses to help with the final stages of the rollout. The nurses, all of whom were familiar with Epic, were recruited by Mayo vendor the HCI Group. One nurse, Angela Coffaro, was offered $15,000 for her work. However, she found the way she was treated to be so offensive that she quit after only days on the job. Working conditions were “horrendous,” she told the reporter.

Nurse.org reported that another nurse said the contract nurses were verbally abused, intimidated, and even threatened that they would lose their jobs on an “hourly” basis. They also noted being assigned to positions well outside the skill set. For example, Coffaro said, she was sent to the outpatient eye clinic instead of the OR, and an OR nurse to radiology.

What’s more, the HCI Group executives apparently treated the nurses brutally during training sessions. According to some, they were not permitted to leave the training room even to use the restroom during 6 to 8-hour orientation sessions.

Adding insult to injury, the contractor allegedly failed to provide adequate housing. For example, Nurse.org tells the story of Cleveland-based nurse practitioner Kumbi Madiye, who arrived at 9 AM the day before her training was scheduled to begin and found only chaos. Madiye told the publication that she waited 14 hours without a room, only to find out at 11 PM that her assigned room was an hour and a half away.

The story stresses that while the nurses said they were astonished by HCI Group’s attitude and performance, they had no problem with the way they were treated by Mayo Clinic personnel.

That being said, if even half of the allegations are true, Mayo would certainly bear some responsibility for failing to supervise their vendor adequately. Also, my instinct is that one or more of the nurses must have told Mayo what was going on and if the Clinic’s leaders did anything about the problem the nurses never mentioned it.

I’m also very surprised any vendor might have abused IT-savvy nurses with precious Epic experience. As sprawling as the health IT world is, word gets around, and I doubt anyone can afford to alienate a bunch of Epic experts.

In The Aftermath Of Sutter Health EMR Crash, Nurses Raise Safety Questions

Posted on May 24, 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.

In mid-May, Sutter Health’s Epic EMR crashed, accompanied by other technical problems. Officials said the system failures were caused by the activation of the fire suppression system in one of their IT buildings.

As you might expect, employees at locations affected by the downtime weren’t able to access patient medical records. On top of that, they didn’t have access to email or even use their phones. In addition, the system had to contact some patients to reschedule appointments.

On the whole, this sounds like the kind of routine issue which, though embarrassing, can be brought to heel if an organization does the disaster planning and employee training on how to react to the situations.

According to some nurses, however, Sutter Medical Center may not have handled things so well. The nurses, who spoke on condition of anonymity with The Sacrament Bee, told the newspaper that the hospital moved ahead with some forms of care before the outage was completely resolved.

The nurses told that when some patients were admitted after the systems failure, clinicians still didn’t have access to critical patient information. For example, a surgical nurse noted that the surgical team relies upon EMR access to review patient histories and physicals performed within the previous 30 days. According to Sutter protocols, these results need to be certified by the physician as still being valid on the date of surgery.

Instead, patients were arriving with their histories and physical exam records on paper, and those documents didn’t include the doctor’s certification that the patient’s condition hadn’t changed. If something went wrong during elective surgery, the team would’ve had to rely on paper documents to determine the cause, the nurses said.

They argue that Sutter Medical Center shouldn’t have taken those cases until the EMR was fully online. “Other Sutter hospitals canceled elective surgeries,” one nurse told a reporter. “Why did Sutter Medical Center feel like they needed to do elective surgeries?”

Also, they say that at least one surgical procedure was affected by the outage, when a surgeon needed a particular instrument to proceed. Normally, they said, operating room telephones display a directory of numbers to supply rooms or nurse stations, but these weren’t available and it forced the surgical team to break its process. Under standard conditions, the team tries not to leave the operating room because a patient’s condition can deteriorate in seconds. In this case, however, a nurse had to hurry out of the room to get instruments the surgeon needed.

While it’s hard to tell from the outside, this sounds a bit, well, unseemly at best. Let’s hope Sutter’s decision-making in this case was based on thoughtful decisions rather than a need to maintain cash flow.

Let this also be an important reminder to every healthcare organization to make sure you have well thought out disaster plans that have been communicated to everyone in your organization. You don’t want to be caught liable when disaster strikes and your staff start free wheeling without having thought through all of the potential consequences.

Hospitals Still Grappling With RCM Tech Infrastructure

Posted on May 18, 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.

While revenue cycle management isn’t the sexiest topic on the block, hospitals need to get it right or they won’t be able to pay their bills. One key element needed to accomplish this goal is a robust tech infrastructure that helps RCM specialists get their job done.

However, it seems that many hospitals are struggling to manage RCM data and pick out the right vendors to support their efforts, according to a report published by Dimensional Insight in collaboration with HIMSS Analytics. To conduct the research, the two organizations reached out to 117 senior-level decision-makers in hospitals and health systems.

According to the survey, more than two-thirds of health systems use more than one vendor for RCM. But that might be a bad idea. The research also found that organizations using more than one RCM vendor seem to face bigger issues with denials than those using only one RCM solution. Regardless, the execs said that denials were the biggest RCM challenge for health systems today.

Pulling together RCM data is a struggle too, respondents said. More than 95% of health systems reported that the way data is collected is a challenge. Also, nearly all respondents said that collecting RCM data from disparate sources is also difficult.

One reason why it’s tough for hospitals to put effective RCM technology in place may be that health information management directors and managers aren’t at the top of the influencer list when it comes to making these decisions.

When asked who the key stakeholders were in RCM. 91.5% said that the CFO was the most important, followed by the head of revenue cycle, who was ranked as important by 62.4% of respondents. Meanwhile, only 48.7% of respondents saw the health IT leaders as key stakeholders in the RCM environment. In other words, it looks like tech leaders aren’t given much clout.

When it came to technical infrastructure for RCM, respondents were all over the map. For example, 34.5% were working with an EMR and 3+ vendors. Another 12.1% used in EMR with one vendor, followed by 11.2% with 3+ vendor solutions, 6.9% using an EMR plus two vendors and 4.3% using two to vendor solutions. Clearly, there’s no single best practice for managing RCM technology in hospitals.

Not only that, some hospitals aren’t doing much to analyze the RCM data they’ve got. According to the survey, 23.9% said that 51 to 75% of the RCM process was automated, which isn’t too bad. However, 36.8% of hospitals reported that less than 25% of the revenue cycle process was driven by analytics. Also, roughly a third of respondents said that collecting data from diverse sources was extremely challenging, which can cripple an analytics initiative.

Taken as a whole, the report data suggests that hospitals need to improve their RCM game dramatically, which includes getting a lot smarter about RCM technology. Unfortunately, it looks like it could be a long time before this happens.

Despite EMR, Revenue Cycle Management Costs Were Still Substantial

Posted on April 26, 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.

While they may not say so out loud, most healthcare organizations bought EMRs largely because they believed they could use them to lower revenue cycle management expenses. If so, they may be somewhat disappointed. A new study has concluded that at least in one case, the presence of a certified EMR didn’t make much of a dent in these costs.

­To conduct the study, researchers conducted interviews with 27 health system administrators and 34 physicians at a large academic medical center. The interviews took place in 2016 and 2017. The research team used the feedback to create a process map charting the path of an insurance claim through the RCM process.

Using this data, the researchers calculated the cost of each major billing and insurance-related activity, as well as a total cost of processing a claim from end to end. The data included costs for five types of patient encounters, including primary care visits, discharge ED visits, general medicine inpatient stays, ambulatory surgical procedures and inpatient surgical procedures.

The team concluded that estimated processing times and total costs for billing and insurance-related activities were 13 minutes and $20.49 for a primary care visit, 32 minutes and $61.54 for a discharged ED visit, 73 minutes and $124.26 for a general inpatient stay, 75 minutes and $170.40 for an ambulatory surgical procedure and 100 minutes and $215.10 for an inpatient surgical procedure.

To put these numbers in perspective, the research team noted that billing costs represented an estimated 14.5% of professional revenue for primary care visits, 25.2% for emergency department visits, 8% for general medicine inpatient stays, 13.4% for ambulatory surgical procedures and 3.1% for inpatient surgical procedures.

There are more than a few unfortunate things to be seen in these numbers.

One is that primary care practices spent a very high percentage of revenue on RCM, which could be crushing given their typically low margins. Given that PCPs are already being squeezed by patients who can’t afford to meet their high deductibles, this is a recipe for financial disaster.

It’s also troubling to see that that the academic medical center in question was spending more than 25% of its ED revenue chasing insurance payments. I found myself wondering whether ED prices might drop to a reasonable level if it was easier for these departments to collect from insurers.

It’s scary to think that these numbers might’ve been higher before the academic medical center installed its EMR. As things stand, if the EMR is lowering RCM costs, it doesn’t seem to be having a major impact. But I’m just guessing here — what do you think?

Are We Going About Population Health The Wrong Way?

Posted on March 29, 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.

For most of us, the essence population health management is focusing on patients who have already experienced serious adverse health events. But what if that doesn’t work? At least one writer suggests that though it may seem counterintuitive, the best way to reduce needless admissions and other costly problems is to focus on patients identified by predictive health data rather than “gut feelings” or chasing frequent flyers.

Shantanu Phatakwala, managing director of research and development for Evolent Health, argues that focusing on particularly sick patients won’t reduce costs nearly as much as hospital leaders expect, as their assumptions don’t withstand statistical scrutiny.

Today, physicians and care management teams typically target patients with a standard set of characteristics, including recent acute events, signs of health and stability such as recent inpatient admissions and chronic conditions such as diabetes, COPD and heart disease. These metrics come from a treatment mindset rather than a predictive one, according to Phatakwala.

This approach may make sense intellectually, but in reality, it may not have the desired effect. “The reality is that patients who have already had major acute events tend to stabilize, and their future utilization is not as high,” he writes. Meanwhile, health leaders are missing the chance to prevent serious illness in an almost completely different cohort of patients.

To illustrate his point, he tells the story of a commercial entity managing 19,000 lives which began a population health management project. In the beginning, health leaders worked with the data science team, which identified 353 people whose behavior suggested that they were headed for trouble.

The entity then focused its efforts on 253 of the targeted cohort for short-term personal attention, including both personal goals (such as walking their daughter down the aisle at her wedding later that year) and health goals (such as losing 25 pounds). Care managers and nurses helped them develop plans to achieve these goals through self-management.

Meanwhile, the care team overrode data analytics recommendations regarding the remaining 100 patients and did not offer them specialized care interventions during the six-month program.  Lo and behold, care for the patients who didn’t get enrolled in health management programs cost 75% more than for patients who were targeted, at a total cost of $1.4 million. Whew!

None of this is to suggest that intuition is useless. However, this case illustrates the need for trusting data over intuition in some situations. As Phatakwala notes, this can call for a leap of faith, as on the surface it makes more sense to focus on patients who are already sick. But until clinicians feel comfortable working with predictive analytics data, health systems may never achieve the population health management results they seek, he contends. And he seems to have a good point.

Intermountain Creates Virtual Hospital

Posted on March 16, 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.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an item describing the Mercy Virtual Care Center, a four-story, $54 million venture which describes itself as a “hospital without beds.” The Center, which launched in October 2015, has more than 300 staffers. After one year of operation, the Virtual Care program had cut emergency department visits and hospitalizations by an impressive 33%.

Now, Intermountain Healthcare is following in Mercy’s footsteps. Last month, Intermountain announced a launch of its virtual hospital service, Connect Care Pro, which brings together 35 telehealth programs and more than 500 clinicians. Its goals are to supplement existing staff and provide specialized services in rural communities where some types of care are not available.

Unlike Mercy’s offering, Connect Care Pro’s services aren’t located in a single building, but according to Intermountain, it can still provide much of the care that you find at a large, sophisticated hospital. It describes its approach as clinically integrated and digitally enabled. (I’m not sure what clinical integration looks like in telehealth, so I’d love to hear more about that in the future.)

In explaining why Connect Care Pro matters, Intermountain tells the story of an infant admitted to a southern Utah hospital which needed intensive services. Because the infant was supported via Connect Care Pro, it received a remote critical care consultation rather than having to be transferred to a different ICU in Salt Lake City. Avoiding the transfer saved over $18,000 and allowed the baby’s parents to remain in their community.

Now, all Intermountain Healthcare hospitals, including 10 of its rural hospitals, use the virtual hospital’s services to build on their existing offerings. Also, nine hospitals outside of the Intermountain system have signed up to use Connect Care Pro.

While I might’ve missed something in my searches, from what I can tell few hospitals systems have gone to the trouble of creating a fully-fledged virtual hospital service, though many are offering telemedicine options to support rural hospitals and clinics.

Part of the reason may be financial. After all, as noted above, Mercy did spend more than $50 million to create its hospital without walls. However, I’d argue that the main reason for hospitals haven’t created similar centers is that they simply don’t understand their benefits, and to some extent may be in denial about the extent to which medical care is becoming decentralized.

Despite the costs and effort involved, I do think we’ll see more virtual hospitals emerge over the next few years. I just don’t think most hospital systems are ready to move ahead just yet.

E-Patient Update:  Patients And Families Need Reassurance During EMR Rollouts

Posted on March 5, 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.

Sure, EMR rollouts are stressful for hospital staffers and clinicians. No matter how well you plan, there will still be some gritted teeth and slammed keyboards as they get used to the new system. Some will afraid that they can’t get their job done right and live in fear of making a clinical mistake. All that said, if your rollout is gradual and careful, and your training process is thorough, it’s likely everyone will adjust to the new platform quickly.

The thing is, these preparations leave out two very important groups: patients and their families. What’s more, the problem is widespread. As a chronically ill patient, I visit more hospitals than most people, and I’ve never seen any effective communication that educates patients about the role of the EMR in their care. I particularly remember one otherwise excellent hospital that decorated its walls with asinine posters reading “Epic is here!” I can’t see how that could possibly help staff members make the transition, much less patients and family members.

This has got to change. Hospital IT will always be evolving, but when patients are swept up in and confused by these changes, it distorts everything that’s important in healthcare.

Needless fear

A recent experience my mother had exemplifies this problem. She has been keeping watch over my brother Joseph, who is critically ill with the flu and in an induced coma. For the first few days, as my brother gradually improved, my mother felt very satisfied with the way the clinical staff was handling his case.

Not long after, however, someone informed her that the hospital’s new Epic system was being deployed that day. Apparently, nobody explained what that really meant for her or my brother, and she felt that the ICU nurses and doctors were moving a bit more slowly during the first day or two of the launch. I wasn’t there, but I suspect that she was right.

Of course, if things go well, over the long run the Epic system will fade into the background and have no importance to patients and their families. But that day or two when the rollout came and staff seemed a bit preoccupied, it scared the heck out of her.

Keeping patients in the loop

Don’t get me wrong: I understand why this hospital didn’t do more to educate and reassure my mother. I suspect administrators wouldn’t know how to go about it, and probably feel they don’t they have time to do it. The idea is foreign. After all, communicating with patients about enterprise health IT certainly isn’t standard operating procedure.

But isn’t it time to involve patients in the game? I’m not just talking about consumer-facing technology, but any technology that could reasonably affect their experience and sense of comfort with the care they’re receiving.

Yes, educating patients and families about enterprise IT changes that affect them is probably out of most health IT leaders’ comfort zones. But truthfully, that’s no excuse for inaction. Launching an Epic system isn’t inside-baseball process — it affects everyone who visits the hospital. Come on, folks, let’s get this right.

Are Biometrics Tools Practical For Hospital Use?

Posted on February 21, 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.

In theory, using biometrics tools could solve some of the hospitals’ biggest data management problems.

For example, if the patient had to register for treatment when seeking care at a hospital emergency department (something I saw in place at my local hospital), it would presumably cut down medical identity fraud substantially. Also, doing patient matching using biometric data could make the process far more precise and far less error-ridden. When implemented correct it can achieve these goals.

In addition, requiring hospital employees to use biometric data to access patient records would lock down those records more tightly, and would certainly make credential sharing between employees far more difficult.

Unfortunately, hospitals that want to use biometric technology have to overcome some major obstacles. According to an article by Dan Cidon, CTO of NextGate, those obstacles include the following:

  • Biometric solutions need to be integrated with primary hospital systems, and that process can be difficult.
  • Most biometric solutions can only manage a subset of patients, which makes it difficult to scale biometrics at an enterprise level.
  • Standard biometric solutions like palm vein and iris scanners demand highly-specialized standalone hardware.
  • Bringing biometrics in-house demands significant server-side hardware and internal infrastructure, bringing the total cost to one that even major health systems might balk at.

On the other hand, Cidon notes, some of these issues can be minimized.

Take the problem of acquiring and maintaining specialized devices. To bypass this issue, Cidon recommends that hospitals try using lower-impact solutions like facial recognition, commodity technology built into patient smartphones. By relying on patient smartphones, hospitals can offload enrollment and registration to patient-owned devices, which not only simplifies deployment but also increases user comfort levels.

He also notes that by using a cloud-based approach, hospitals can avoid allocating a high level of server-side hardware and infrastructure to biometrics, as well as getting added flexibility and affordability, especially if they leverage commodity hardware to do the job.

Even if hospitals act on Cidon’s recommendations, going biometric for patient matching, security and medical identity theft protection will be a major project. After all, hospitals’ existing IT infrastructure almost certainly wasn’t designed to support these solutions and putting them in place effectively will probably take a few iterations.

Still, if putting biometric solutions in place can address critical safety and operational issues, especially dangerous patient record mismatches, it’s probably worth a try.

Pilot Effort Improves EHR Documentation

Posted on February 9, 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.

Though EHRs were intended to improve medical documentation, in many cases they seem to have made documentation quality worse. Despite their best intentions, bogged-down physicians may resort to practices — notably excessive copy-and-paste usage — that turn patient records into bloated, unfocused data masses that don’t help their peers much.

However, a pilot program conducted by a group of academic medical centers suggests using a set of best practice guidelines and templates for progress notes can improve note quality dramatically. The pilot involved intern physicians on inpatient internal medicine rotations at UCLA, the University of California San Francisco, the University of California San Diego and the University of Iowa.

According to a related story in HealthData Management, researchers rated the quality of the notes created by the participating interns using a competency questionnaire, a general impression score and the validated Physician Documentation Quality Instrument 9-item version (PDQI-9).

The researchers behind the study, which was published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, found that the interns’ documentation quality improved substantially over the course of the pilot. “Significant improvements were seen in the general impression score, all domains of the PDQI-9, and multiple competency items, including documentation of only relevant data, discussion of a discharge plan, and being concise while adequately complete,” the authors reported. Even better, researchers said notes generated by the participating interns had about 25% fewer lines and were signed 1.3 hours earlier in the day on average.

One side note: despite the encouragement provided by the pilot, the extent to which interns used templates varied dramatically between institutions. For example, 92% of interns at UCSF used the templates, compared to 90% at UCLA, 79% at Iowa and only 21% at UCSD. Nonetheless, UCSD intern notes still seemed to improve during the study period, the research report concluded. (All four institutions were using an Epic EHR.)

It’s hard to tell how generalizable these results are. After all, it’s one thing to try and train interns in a certain manner, and another entirely to try and bring experienced clinicians into the fold. It’s just common sense that physicians in training are more likely to absorb guidance on how they should document care than active clinicians with existing habits in place. And unfortunately, to make a real dent in documentation improvement we’ll need to bring those experienced clinicians on board with schemes such as this.

Regardless, it’s certainly a good idea to look at ways to standardize documentation improvement. Let’s hope more research and experimentation in this area is underway.

Yale New Haven Hospital Partners With Epic On Centralized Operations Center

Posted on February 5, 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.

Info, info, all around, and not a place to manage it all. That’s the dilemma faced by most hospitals as they work to leverage the massive data stores they’re accumulating in their health IT systems.

Yale New Haven Hospital’s solution to the problem is to create a centralized operations center which connects the right people to real-time data analytics. Its Capacity Command Center (nifty alliteration, folks!) was created by YNHH, Epic and the YNHH Clinical Redesign Initiative.

The Command Center project comes five years into YNHH’s long-term High Reliability project, which is designed to prepare the institution for future challenges. These efforts are focused not only on care quality and patient safety but also managing what YNHH says are the highest patient volumes in Connecticut. Its statement also notes that with transfers from other hospitals increasing, the hospital is seeing a growth in patient acuity, which is obviously another challenge it must address.

The Capacity Command Center’s functions are fairly straightforward, though they have to have been a beast to develop.

On the one hand, the Center offers technology which sorts through the flood of operational data generated by and stored in its Epic system, generating dashboards which change in real time and drive process changes. These dashboards present real-time metrics such as bed capacity, delays for procedures and tests and ambulatory utilization, which are made available on Center screens as well as within Epic.

In addition, YNHH has brought representatives from all of the relevant operational areas into a single physical location, including bed management, the Emergency Department, nursing staffing, environmental services and patient transport. Not only is this a good approach overall, it’s particularly helpful when patient admissions levels climb precipitously, the hospital notes.

This model is already having a positive impact on the care process, according to YNHH’s statement. For example, it notes, infection prevention staffers can now identify all patients with Foley catheters and review their charts. With this knowledge in hand, these staffers can discuss whether the patient is ready to have the catheter removed and avoid related urinary tract infections associated with prolonged use.

I don’t know about you, but I was excited to read about this initiative. It sounds like YNHH is doing exactly what it should do to get more out of patient data. For example, I was glad to read that the dashboard offered real-time analytics options rather than one-off projections from old data. Bringing key operational players together in one place makes great sense as well.

Of course, not all hospitals will have the resources to pull something off something like this. YNHH is a 1,541-bed giant which had the cash to take on a command center project. Few community hospitals would have the staff or money to make such a thing happen. Still, it’s good to see somebody at the cutting edge.