Showing posts with label Cardio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cardio. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

THINKING SYSTEMS WHITEPAPERS

Thinking Systems for Cardiovascular
 PACS (CV-PACS) were the winner of Frost + Sullivan’s Technology Leadership Award for demonstrating “excellence in technology within ones industry”.  The prestigious award further recognizes “excellence in all stages of the technology life cycle – incubation, adaptation, take-up, and maturity – to ensure a continuous flow of improvements, innovation, leading-edge concepts, and pioneering client applications”.  

THINKING SYSTEMS were also the highest rated CVPACS vendor by independent KLAS and are (proudly) some of the industry’s most comprehensive and feature-rich suite of general and specialized PACS and RIS (Radiology Information System) solutions available today.  We encourage you to find out how Thinking Systems technology can help to change the way you manage your practice.  

Thinking Systems WhitepaperS

+ VIEW BROCHURE
+ VIEW REFERENCES


THINKING SYSTEMS solutions are installed at over twenty sites across Canada and are proudly distributed by Alliance Distribution Network (ADN) Canada. For more information please contact your local ADN Canada sales consultant Toll-Free in Canada at 877-434-5311 or e-mail.  Note: Any / all product names mentioned in this document may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies and are hereby acknowledged.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

GOOGLE HEALTH ACCUSED OF INACCURACY IN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS



Google Health, Google's health care IT solution, has been taken to task by physicians who say the billing information it uses for some patients' electronic medical records can give an inaccurate picture of their health conditions. Since rolling out in Feb. 2008, Google Health has been positioned as competition for Microsoft's health care IT offerings, as well as sites such as WebMD.

Google is encountering protests from users who say the information its Google Health beta Website presents has the potential to be inaccurate when it comes to electronic medical records. Much of the online traffic over the issue has stemmed from one particular case, that of kidney cancer survivor Dave deBronkart, who transferred his medical records from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to Google Health, only to find that the latter had taken information from his billing records to incorrectly state that he had chronic lung disease and other conditions.

"I've been discussing this with the docs in the back room here, and they quickly figured out what was going on before I confirmed it: The system transmitted insurance billing codes to Google Health, not doctors' diagnoses," deBronkart wrote on his personal blog on April 4. "And as those in the know are well aware, in our system today, insurance billing codes bear no resemblance to reality."

He also wrote, "I suspect processes for data integrity in health care are largely absent, by ordinary business standards. I suspect there are few, if any, processes in place to prevent wrong data from entering the system, or tracking down the cause when things do go awry." deBronkart took care to say the post was not "a slam on Google Health."

However, the story reached the Boston Globe on April 13 under the title "Electronic Health Records Raise Doubt." The article quotes deBronkart's primary physician, Dr. Daniel Sands, as saying the information from billing records, incorporated into Google Health, should never be used clinically.

When contacted by eWEEK, a Google spokesperson referred to the Globe article's quoting of Dr. Roni Zeiger, product manager for Google Health, as saying having such information available online will benefit users in the long term as the solution's accuracy improves.

"That's something I think we could do better on," the article quotes Zeiger as saying with regard to whether Google Health indicates the source of data for each diagnosis.

A number of online pundits have stated that physicians and other health care providers should be concerned about the importing of insurance billing records into Google Health precisely because of this lack of accuracy. Google has not posted a response on its blogs yet. 

Google upgraded Google Health in March 2009 to allow users to share medical records and other personal health information with doctors and trusted contacts. The announcement was greeted with skepticism by some users, who voiced privacy concerns.

That same month, Google unveiled that it was participating in a pilot program with the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) that would let Medicare beneficiaries in Arizona and Utah import their Medicare claims data into Google Health. First introduced in February 2008, Google Health allows Google to share competitive space with Microsoft's health care IT offerings, as well as Websites such as WebMD.

Read original article.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

CLINICAL INFORMATION ACCESS IMPACTS RADIOLOGY INTERPRETATION




September 18, 2008 | Clinical Studies

The majority of radiologists at eight academic medical centers are dissatisfied with their ability to access clinical patient information at the time of interpretation, according to results from a report published online before print in the Journal of Digital Imaging. The report also indicates that the lack of access to pertinent clinical patient data may be a critical element that limits the accuracy of the radiologist’s diagnostic decision-making process.

“Given the increasing volume of radiological exams, the decreasing frequency of direct communication with the referring provider, and the distribution of patient data over many clinical systems, radiologists often do not have adequate clinical information at the time of interpretation,” the authors wrote.

William W. Boonn, MD, and Curtis P. Langlotz, MD, PhD, of the department of radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, designed the survey. Among its 27 questions were an assessment of the IT environment in which the respondent practiced, including how radiology orders were typically processed and how images were displayed for interpretation. In addition, opinions about acquisition and access to relevant clinical patient information, both at the time of the examination and in follow-up, were obtained.

A total of 139 radiologists responded to the survey, with the vast majority (90 percent) practicing in an academic setting. Slightly more than half (54 percent) were attending radiologists; the remainder of the survey cohort was comprised of radiology fellows and residents.

The survey found that 72 percent of the respondents reported that they frequently needed more clinical information about their patients than was available at the time of study interpretation. More importantly, 87 percent acknowledged that additional clinical information was significant and that this information could change or modify the interpretive report.

“Of the available sources of information, radiologists reported that outside radiology reports, admission notes and progress notes typically yielded their preferred clinical information,” the authors stated. “However, despite their desire for these information sources, they reported using them less than 15 percent of the time.”

More than half (53 percent) of the respondents indicated that their reasons for not seeking access to additional clinical information was that such efforts were too time consuming.

Obtaining follow-up data on patients proved to be equally problematic for radiologists. The authors reported that clinical follow-up information was predominantly obtained either through discussions with the referring clinician or through subsequent imaging or pathology reports.

“Our findings demonstrate that most radiologists want more clinical information when interpreting images and that this information would impact their report, but they are discouraged by the time it takes to access this information,” the authors noted. “In addition, current mechanisms for monitoring necessary patient follow-up are inadequate.”

Boonn and Langlotz observed that many hospitals have multiple different systems used to access clinical data, which presents challenges to radiologists through multiple logins and user interfaces. In addition, legacy systems may not be fully integrated throughout the healthcare enterprise due to nonstandard, proprietary interfaces.

The pair believes that their survey indicates the critical need for an integrated application for the automatic identification, selection, retrieval and display of pertinent patient information at the time of interpretation. In addition, this application needs to provide alerts and reminders for patient follow-up.

“Together, these applications would have a significant impact on the satisfaction of radiologists, the quality of radiology interpretations, and thereby on the quality of care,” they wrote.

Read Original Article

Monday, June 25, 2007

"Canadian Implementation of e-Health projects increases by 39 per cent"

Initiatives benefiting patients in every province and territory.

Toronto, ON 06/25/2007: -- Canadian patients are benefiting from a 39 per cent increase in electronic health initiatives that are modernizing the way clinicians deliver health care, announced Richard Alvarez, President and CEO, Canada Health Infoway (Infoway).

"In the past year, we've seen tremendous growth in the number of electronic health record initiatives that are delivering enhanced patient care, shorter wait times and a more productive health care system for Canadians," said Alvarez, who recently released Infoway's annual report. "While this growth is encouraging, momentum must be maintained so we can capitalize on the efficiencies generated through electronic health initiatives as our population continues to age and grow."

In 2006-07, Infoway approved investments of $518.9 million in EHR initiatives across Canada, surpassing its target of $335 million. The digitization of diagnostic imaging, Drug and Laboratory Information Systems projects and the interoperable electronic health record made significant progress. With 227 projects complete or underway across Canada, Infoway and its partners are investing in modern health information systems that are uncovering efficiencies in healthcare settings across Canada. The result is better patient care and outcomes, reduced wait times and cost savings. Infoway's plan for further electronic health progress is outlined in 2015 -- Advancing Canada's next generation of health care, its long-term strategic vision document. The document is available at www.infoway-inforoute.ca.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

What is EHR?

The Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters in any care delivery setting. Included in this information are patient demographics, progress notes, problems, medications, vital signs, past medical history, immunizations, laboratory data and radiology reports. The EHR automates and streamlines the clinician's workflow. The EHR has the ability to generate a complete record of a clinical patient encounter, as well as supporting other care-related activities directly or indirectly via interface - including evidence-based decision support, quality management, and outcomes reporting. Other areas that fall within the EHR also include Auto ID and Bar Coding, e-Prescribing, Patient Safety and Quality/Outcomes, and Clinical Decision Support.

(More: http://www.himss.org/content/mindmaps/EHR/index.htm )

Saturday, May 20, 2006

e-HEALTH 2007 - May 27th-30th - QUÉBEC CITY
The 2007 conference will be held at the Québec Convention Centre, Québec City, May 27-30, 2007.

(More at http://www.e-healthconference.com/)