Showing posts with label Healthcare IT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare IT. Show all posts

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Eventually, Information Technology (IT) May Make Practice of Medicine More Satisfying

Almost every plan to improve health care -- from members of Congress, insurers, employers and President-elect Barack Obama -- contends that new IT, including electronic health records, electronic prescribing and telemedicine, will save time and money.

But will health Information Technology (IT) make practicing medicine more satisfying?

Eventually, but it's going to take a while, and it won't be easy or inexpensive, according to a representative of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society and the president of The Physicians' Foundation, which recently released a national survey measuring doctors' opinions about the profession.

The Physicians' Foundation survey indicates widespread frustration among primary care physicians. They feel overworked and nearly half of them plan to cut back on the number of patients they see or quit medicine entirely, according to the survey.

Neither John Maese, chair of the HIMSS Ambulatory Care Steering Committee and president of Quality Physician Services in Brooklyn, N.Y., nor Lou Goodman, president of The Physicians' Foundation, see health IT as a panacea for all that ails the medical profession, but both agree it can be a valuable tool.

Goodman, however, is worried there soon may not be enough primary care physicians, regardless of new technology.

"Going into this project we generally knew about the shortage of physicians," Goodman said, adding, "What we didn't know is how much worse it could get over the next few years. The bottom line is that the person you've known as your family doctor could be getting ready to disappear -- and there might not be a replacement."

Initial Investment of Time and Money
Maese said that health IT can help make the practice of medicine more rewarding but that it takes an initial investment of time and money.

"Initially, technology slows you down," Maese said, adding, "So in the face of declining reimbursement that requires you to see more patients per hour, it can be very frustrating to start up with technology."

Maese said, "Younger physicians who have grown up with a computer find it easier to transition to technology." He added, "Older physicians who do not have that experience initially have to carve out time to learn basic computer skills and then the new software."

In its survey, mailed to 270,000 primary care doctors and 50,000 specialists, The Physicians' Foundation asked, "Have you already implemented an electronic health record?" Among the almost 12,000 responses, 72% answered "no" and 28% answered "yes."

"Time, money, personnel and expertise are the major barriers to widespread adoption of technology in medical practice," Goodman said.

Of those who said they had not moved to EHRs, 77% cited lack of money, 69% cited lack of expertise or other resources and 61% cited lack of time.

Although the survey did not specifically address physicians' opinions of health IT, Goodman said his sense is that most physicians look forward to the advancement it represents.

"I think many physicians are very interested in adopting new technology and many have already taken the next step," Goodman said.

"There is great interest and continued excitement over the potential improvements technology holds. [Health IT] is clearly on the front burner in the early discussions in the Obama cabinet as part of its proposed health system reform efforts," Goodman noted.

The Physicians' Foundation was founded in 2003 as part of a settlement in an anti-racketeering lawsuit involving insurers, physicians and medical societies. The foundation conducts research and acts as an advocate for physicians and physicians groups.

More Seed Money Needed
Maese and Goodman said increasing payments to help offset investment costs for technology would help make technology spread more rapidly.
"We believe that the large initial investment in technology without the concomitant adjustment in payment rates makes it very difficult for private practice to install an [EHR]," Goodman said, adding, "Even large group practices have seen challenges with questions of interoperability and the significant outlays of time and money required to get a system up and running."

Maese agrees. "There needs to be increased financial support for the EMR, the initial purchase and the ongoing maintenance of the EMR," Maese said, adding, "Currently, small practices, where most health care is delivered, do not have the economic ability to purchase the hardware, the software as well as the additional expense of electrical wiring upgrades and high speed Internet access to make an [EHR] work."

Five Ways Information Technology (IT) Can Help
Once the initial learning curve is negotiated and hardware and software are in place and working, Maese lists the following five ways new technology can make a physician's life more satisfying:

• "The computer may not save them time but there is a feeling that there is a higher quality of care rendered and better patient safety. This is very satisfying to the physician."

• "Reduction of the hassle factor. You are able to deal with insurance or formulary issues at the point of care so you do not have to go back after the patient has left the office and redo the request for a medication or a service."

• "Improved time management or flexible time management. Electronic medical records that can be accessed from home gives the physician more flexibility. The physician can attend meetings and events without having to go back to the office to complete medical records or carry charts back and forth to have them completed."

• "Better access to care for patients in an emergency. Electronic records can be accessed from anywhere."

• "More family time. Once the physician has completed seeing all the patients, the physician can go home, see the family and complete chart documentation remotely. In addition, follow-up care, checking diagnostic tests and X-rays can be done at home, which again allows the physician flexibility to spend more time with the family, which helps increase overall lifestyle satisfaction."

by George Lauer, iHealthBeat Features Editor
Read Original Article.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

PHR: WILL CONSUMERS REALLY HAVE A CHOICE? THE NEW ENTRANTS INTO THE PERSONAL HEALTH RECORDS (PHR) MARKET MAY PROVIDE COMPETITION.

Sept. 8, 2008 | By Barbara A. Cox and Marysol Imler

Since 2004, the US has been energized in trying to develop and provide personal health records (PHR's) for all consumers. During the last 4 years, many models have emerged. Several of the models have failed for a variety of reasons, including lack of a sustainable funding model. In addition, many of the interoperable health record models have not included the involvement of the individual consumer -- the person for whom these models are intended to be used by.

Over the last year, a new type of solution provider entered the PHR market. Different than the typical vendor that has been known to service the health industry, these solution providers are vendors known for addressing the consumer market. The new entrants (Google Health, Microsoft HealthVault and Revolution Health), may provide the type of competition and consumer controlled model that will help the industry evolve at a more rapid pace than what has been happening to date. With these new vendors, will control be transferred from the care provider to the consumer as it should be if health care is going to transform?

WINDS OF CHANGE
Are these products bringing about a refreshing change to the industry? While these products are much easier to use and implement than the traditional federated or scattered model of clinical data integration that has consumed the nation over the last 4 years, they appear to be in the first generation of product releases. Hopefully, the industry will see better things to come.

Microsoft, Google and Revolution Health are intended to support the consumerism wave in giving the individual a choice about the products they choose to use and the groups or people that can view their information. For an individual to receive full value for these products, they must have interoperability with that person's care providers' clinical systems. Unfortunately, the consumer is still limited by whether or not their own personal physician groups choose to participate with these products. Physicians and hospitals around the country are making choices on which platform to align with, and it is doubtful that an organization will choose to participate with multiple platforms.

Until the platforms achieve interoperability, a consumer will not truly have choice in the matter of determining which set of products they want to use. For instance, if your physician is associated with the Cleveland Clinic, you can receive the full value of having your data transferred into Google and populated with other services participating with Google, or you can choose to populate the data manually. Then, the individual is limited by the functionality provided by Google. Should you want to use a service that is associated with Microsoft HealthVault, you will be out of luck unless you choose to manually load the data yourself, which presents another set of challenges with providers regarding the accuracy of the data.

HOW ARE THE PHR PRODUCTS DIFFERENT?
Microsoft HealthVault is truly a platform. With this solution, business partners provide the application functionality. HealthVault is the keeper of the consumer demographics information and personal profiles to establish security and user identity. The consumer then chooses to use or buy services from a number of different vendors who provide value to the individual.

Google Health has a light-weight PHR embedded with its platform. The platform also has personal demographics and a personal profile for security and personal identity. While Google also has business partners in which an individual can choose to use, there is a limited supply of PHR solutions available.

Revolution Health is a robust PHR with a lot of educational content to add value for the individual. It is positioned as a tool to help employers and their employees. However, when conducting research, it was difficult to view the data integration possibilities with providers due to technical difficulties on the Web site.

CONSUMERS AND CHOICE
What will have to happen for consumers to have choice? The vendors and the care providers must evolve to support a consumer controlled environment. Consumers need to communicate to their care providers about the tools they want to use. The care providers will set up the link in their system and automatically send the clinical, administrative and financial data to the designated choice. For a seamless transmission of data to occur in a cost effective manner, the data transmission will need to follow strict standards that every vendor will adopt. Today's standards are left to the interpretation of the organizations interacting.

When the industry agrees to adopt a consumer control approach, then consumers will have choice. Until that time, the care providers are still in the driver seat, even with the new emerging consumer platforms that Microsoft HealthVault, Google Health and Revolution Health provide.

---
Read original article.
Barbara A. Cox is Senior Principal, Noblis Center for Health Innovation. Marysol Imler is a Consultant for Noblis Center for Health Innovation.

Friday, September 05, 2008

Clinical Portal Vendor MEDSEEK leads in 2008 KLAS® Rankings





MEDSEEK Leads KLAS® Portals Segment as of August 22, 2008.

Birmingham, AL (PRWEB) September 4, 2008 -- MEDSEEK, a leading provider of enterprise portal management solutions, announced today it leads in KLAS® rankings for its Clinical Web Portal software solution.

KLAS® is an independent healthcare market research firm that gathers data about clinical portal solutions from CIO's, Directors, and other healthcare providers about software functionality, solution performance, technical support and service. According to the August 26, 2008 Platinum KLAS ® database, MEDSEEK has the highest current performance ratings, outscoring all other clinical portal solutions.

Peter Kuhn, President of MEDSEEK commented, "MEDSEEK's superior ranking in the KLAS ® report highlights our effort to provide comprehensive eHealth solutions." Kuhn added, "We frequently receive high praise from our clients on our ability to deliver complex installations on time and on budget. The KLAS rating validates our reputation as an organization that consistently delivers on our commitments."

The KLAS® database also reports anonymous comments from providers who are using the eConnect Clinical Portal solution: "The implementation process was very smooth. It was very well planned and organized and was executed according to that plan. The planning was very thorough and there were few surprises and gotchas along the way. The implementation staff MEDSEEK provided was very knowledgeable. They were excellent communicators. We were able to install the system on time and within budget.” (Quoted from a healthcare provider interviewed by KLAS, see KLAS® commentary August 26, 2008.)

"MEDSEEK eConnect is the perfect portal solution for our physicians who do not want to learn the complexities of using the PACS and hospital clinical systems. This product is a single sign-on system that helps doctors get to patient information quickly. We have heard nothing negative from the physicians. All of the feedback about using eConnect for pulling results has been good, and the doctors love being able to pull images by using a URL." (From the KLAS ® database, August 26, 2008.)

Michelle Wickham, Research Director for KLAS stated, "KLAS applauds those vendors who utilize KLAS® data to understand and respond to their customers' needs. We are pleased when the data shows that a vendor is performing well, and we plan gather data on an ongoing basis to continuously monitor vendor performance in this segment."

---
About MEDSEEK:
Birmingham, Ala.-based MEDSEEK provides healthcare organizations with Enterprise eHealth solutions to fully engage and strengthen relationships with key constituents - physicians, patients, employees, and consumers. By connecting information and communities to foster an enhanced experience with the organization, hospitals will improve community advocacy, revenue and patient acquisition/retention, physician relations, and clinical decision making.

MEDSEEK's comprehensive technology platform and strategic consulting services create the infrastructure and provide the thought leadership for hospitals to deliver the most powerful Portal solutions. With more than ten years' experience and 600+ hospital customers, MEDSEEK has the experience and expertise to meet the diverse needs of the healthcare community. MEDSEEK also maintains offices in California and Mississippi. In Canada, Medseek is distributed by Agfa HealthCare. For more information, visit MEDSEEK or call 888-MEDSEEK.

About KLAS:
KLAS is a research firm specializing in monitoring and reporting the performance of healthcare vendors. KLAS' mission is to improve delivery, by independently measuring vendor performance for the benefit of our healthcare provider partners, consultants, investors, and vendors. Working together with executives from over 4500 hospitals and over 2500 clinics, KLAS delivers timely reports, trends, and statistics, which provide a solid overview of vendor performance in the industry. KLAS measures performance of software, professional services, and medical equipment vendors. For more information, go to www.KLASresearch.com, email marketing@KLASresearch.com, or call 1-800-920-4109 to speak with a KLAS representative. The data referenced was retrieved Tuesday, August 26, 2008 and fluctuates daily. Copyright 2002-2008 KLAS Enterprises, LLC. All rights reserved.

---
Read Original Article

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Taking e-Health to the next level


Chief executive officers, chief information officers and other senior managers from healthcare provider organizations across Canada, along with representatives of sponsoring supplier firms, shared a diverse set of views and some fascinating insights into healthcare IT implementation challenges at the eighth eHealth Summit, held June 11-13 in Mont Tremblant, Que. The conference is organized annually by Canadian Healthcare Manager http://www.chmonline.ca).

An overview of the current status of eHealth in Canada was provided by Shelagh Maloney, executive director, external liaison, for Canada Health Infoway. Roughly one in three youth and adults in Canada — nine million people — are living with one or more medical conditions, Maloney said. Central to addressing the critical challenge of managing chronic diseases is to get these patients involved in their care.

“If you’re like a growing number of Canadians,” she noted, “you want to take an active role in managing your healthcare.” Maloney cautioned that there’s no quick fix to this problem — a point that was repeated by other speakers at the summit. She referred to the progress that’s being made toward implementation of electronic health records (EHR’s), but also eluded to an area that became a minor theme throughout the conference: health consumerism.

“The health consumerism trend is creating an environment where providers and patients alike want the right information, at the right time, to make the right decisions,” Maloney said, adding that consumer eHealth solutions, many of which deliver a broad range of information to patients, are gaining support.

CANADA’S progress in eHealth was put into a global perspective by Susan Hyatt, president and CEO of the corporate strategy firm HyattDIO Inc., and a former vice-president at Canada Health Infoway. A “global business platform” for the delivery of healthcare is being enabled by eHealth, she said, in which English is the pervasive language, brands are going global and eHealth infrastructures are prevalent, even in poorer countries.

“We’re seeing the emergence of a global healthcare bazaar,” Hyatt said. “And when things go global, everyone is affected.” To stress the point, she showed a map of the world in which such unlikely candidates as India, South Africa and China were identified as having “strong EHR, eHealth activity.”

Common to all national initiatives are a clear and well-articulated vision, a common architecture, and transparent governance and accountability frameworks. In Canada, however, there are some additional factors at work. “The privacy commissioners in Canada are engaged in early dialogue,” said Hyatt. “As well, Canada has portfolio management with targeted investment programs, and a well-defined co-investment strategy to manage risk.” However, there’s one significant area where Canada, along with the United States, lags: the adoption of electronic medical records (EHR/EMR’s) by primary-care physicians. This problem is well-known, yet Hyatt acknowledged that solving it remains something of a conundrum.

IN THE SUMMIT’S keynote presentation, Kevin Leonard returned to the question of technology and the role of the patient in managing chronic diseases more effectively. Leonard is associate professor in the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto, and research scientist at the University Health Network’s Centre for Global eHealth Innovation.

The economic logic for patient involvement is compelling, Leonard said: “Out of a total healthcare spend of $146 billion in Canada; about $90 billion is for chronic diseases. And it’s estimated that of this, $50 billion is spent on providing information such as test results, care advice and repeat prescriptions.”

Just as customers having access to their personal financial information has reduced the banking industry’s costs, great savings will also be gained in the healthcare system, as more patients bypass the “hands-on” personal method and obtain personal health information for themselves. Consequently, a tremendous amount of strain will be removed from the healthcare system. Consumers from all types of industries are playing larger roles in both purchasing and developing products and services. The growth of social networking websites such as YouTube and Facebook are prime examples. In healthcare, however, such grass-roots contributions have been slower to come to the fore, although recent initiatives like Google Health, Microsoft Health Vault and Patients are emerging as alternatives to the status quo.

Healthcare has been slow off the mark in this area, Leonard suggested, because the system uses language and jargon that’s not accessible to the average consumer, and because patients may not yet appreciate the benefits to be gained from better access to their information. As well, there are no “information access” points to facilitate communication between patients and the healthcare system.

Ultimately, patients lack the encouragement, the education and the means to gain the information they need. To get patients more involved in an effective way, Leonard argued that more research is needed to determine how to do it properly. This research might help answer several questions, for example:
• How should patient access to EHR’s be supported?
• Who should control access?
• Does this lead to improved patient outcomes?
• How does increased record ownership address privacy issues?


He proposed that for these and other questions to be answered effectively, patients need representation by a formal organization. “This organization must represent both the ill (chronic and otherwise) and recognized, and invited to the table with other organized stakeholders.”

ONE OF THE KEY challenges in eHealth implementation is that of leadership, an issue that was addressed at the summit by John Hylton, president and CEO of John Hylton & Associates, and Canadian Healthcare Manager’s regular leadership columnist. Hylton presented some startling statistics: 90% of healthcare organizations run without a plan, and of the 10% that do have a plan, 90% fail to execute their strategies successfully. As well, 95% of a typical workforce doesn’t understand its organization’s strategy, and 60% of organizations don’t link strategy to budgeting. To the extent that eHealth and technology fit into an organization’s strategy, this lack of foresight can lead to some big problems.

“It needs to be recognized that different stakeholders want different things from health reform and from health technology,” said Hylton. “Unless we can agree on what we’re hoping to achieve, the wheel-spinning will continue.”

It’s also important to realize that technology is not a panacea. “Many expect way too much too soon from technology, while others harbor disappointment and even resentment about failed technology projects,” he said. “The truth is somewhere in between.” Hylton warned that if we consider all of healthcare’s many technology needs together — not only eHealth and information and communication technologies — then its apparent our current ability to assess, deploy and pay for innovation is inadequate.

“It’s also helpful to remember that there are many healthcare issues that preoccupy funders, administrators and trustees,” he said. “Technology is just one. Constant change and shifting priorities have created a planning environment that frustrates intelligent planning and decision-making, and there’s no doubt this impacts technology planning and decisions as well.

“As the OHA, for example, recently observed, ‘the current funding environment does not effectively support the adoption, collaboration and integration necessary to enable the realization of eHealth’s true value.’” Hylton said improvements in the use of technology will only come about when healthcare leaders, particularly system leaders, start to be much more intentional about the path they want to follow. Moreover, in every healthcare system, some individual or team has to “own” this priority. Budgets and personnel must be aligned to ensure success, and incentives need to be put in place that are directly tied to achieving measurable improvements in the uptake and effective use of technology.

“Strategy-focused organizations work through competing challenges and interests to identify the key strategic priorities that are most important for achieving improved performance,” he said. “The bottom line is that we need more strategy-focused organizations in healthcare. You might say all this is Management 101, but the fact of the matter is that our health system needs more Management 101.”

THE LEGAL risks involved in the implementation of EHR’s were the subject of a presentation by Richard Corley, partner with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, who described his perspective as that of a “deal lawyer specializing in complex IT and outsourcing transactions in the healthcare field.”

The development of eHealth in Canada has seen a rapid increase in complex IT health system deals, Corley said, and recently the deal structures have tended towards more integrated multi-vendor environments, smaller and shorter deals, more onshore/offshore combinations, and a greater emphasis on better governance. There are expanding legal requirements around privacy, security, record disposal, medical device regulation and liabilities for claims. The laws and regulations that apply most directly to healthcare providers are the requirements under federal and provincial privacy laws in Canada, including the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the more directive requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) in the United States, whose security rules apply to the storage, maintenance or transmission of electronic protected health information by health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and healthcare providers.

There are numerous requirements for security in EHRs, Corley noted, including subcontractors’ breaches and the losses and thefts of storage devices. Another concern, which has made the news on too many occasions in Canada, is the improper destruction of paper-based records and EHR’s. He also discussed the risks posed by projects that integrate and implement new eHealth information systems with existing systems and/or outsource the provision of such services to a third-party service provider. Integration and outsourcing projects are notoriously difficult to implement effectively and many have proven unsatisfactory, he said.

Best practices for IT integration include: clarifying objectives and gaining executive support for the project; clearly documenting requirements, scope and costs; securing expert help and internal support; good governance before, during and after implementation; allowing enough time for due diligence; avoiding unnecessary complexity; maintaining required flexibility; planning transition and repatriation; ensuring that required expertise is maintained; and having a contract to address contingencies.

WHERE WILL eHealth be by 2015?
Offering answers to that question at the eHealth Summit was an expert panel that took out its crystal ball and peered into the future. The panelists were David Cowperthwaite, project manager for Panorama; George Eisler, CEO of the BC Academic Health Council; Michael Lauber, chair of Ontario’s Smart Systems for Health Agency; and Judy Middleton, CIO of the William Osler Health Centre.

The panel was by no means filled with wide-eyed optimism, but it did express confidence that by 2015 EHR’s would be in place for the majority of Canada’s population. However, there was consensus, albeit from varied viewpoints, that achieving that end will produce further resourcing and funding challenges: once the eHealth infrastructure is built out, how will it be maintained?

“There’s a big difference between implementation and adoption, and usage for benefits,” said Cowperthwaite. “I worry that a lot of people will still not be getting good care in 2015, and there will remain an enormous gap with First Nations.”

Lauber was more optimistic that technology could be delivered to rural areas, and that enhanced broadband delivery will ensure the viability of initiatives such as telehealth. Eisler, however, worried that Canada won’t have enough people trained in technology to maintain the system.

From a hospital perspective, Middleton echoed this concern, because advanced facilities will require both predictable funding and access to highly qualified personnel.

The ninth annual eHealth Summit will be held June 10-12, 2009, in Montebello,
Quebec.

------
The eHealth Summit http://www.hfconferences.ca/ehealthsummit/ Series is an annual forum (organized by Canadian Healthcare Manager Magazine http://www.chmonline.ca) for Canadian healthcare executives to exchange ideas, find out about innovations, share common challenges and discuss the strides that have been made in eHealth implementation across the healthcare continuum. The spirit of the conference is purely educational and 'think-tank' oriented.

Friday, November 30, 2007

U.S. Poll: Most Adults Say EHR Benefits Outweigh Privacy Risks

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that the benefits of electronic health records outweigh the privacy risks, according to a new Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive poll, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Three-quarters of the survey's 2,153 respondents said they agree that patients would receive better care if doctors and researchers were able to share information more easily through electronic systems. Similarly, 63% said that using EHRs could reduce medical errors, and 55% said EHR sharing could reduce health care costs. However, about 25% of respondents said they are unsure if EHRs can provide these benefits.

The survey, which was conducted between Nov. 12 and 14, also found that about 25% of respondents said they currently use some form of EHR. Of those, 23% said the EHR is maintained by their physician, while 2% said they created and maintain their own personal health record on their computer. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they do not have an EHR, while 17% said they are unsure if they have an EHR.

The poll indicates that privacy concerns still remain among health care consumers. Half of those surveyed said EHRs make patient privacy more difficult to ensure, down from 61% in 2006. Twenty-five percent of those surveyed said EHRs would not make it more difficult to ensure patients' privacy, while another 25% said they were unsure.

November 29, 2007 from iHealthbeat

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Age and culture as impediments to the adoption of healthcare IT

by Bill Crounse, MD | Worldwide Health Director, Microsoft

A friend sent me a link to an article written for SearchCIO.com by senior editor, Kate Evans-Corriea. Ms. Evans-Corriea's article entitled "Age Does Matter" reflects on what she says was a common theme at Gartner's recent Symposium ITxpo. That theme is perhaps best captured in a quote from Gartner analyst, Tom Bittman, who says, "It's not the technology; It's not the process that's holding us back. It's the culture".

As I read the article, I couldn't help but think about a conversation I had just had with a colleague who currently serves as a hospital CIO. He expressed to me his total frustration with hospital culture and healthcare providers. In fact, he is so frustrated that after ten years on the job he is looking for another position; this time likely in another industry.

His hospital had recently purchased a very advanced surgical management system that included anesthesia scheduling and work-flow automation. The anesthesiologists at first welcomed these new tools, although one of the docs had initially pushed back because he had designed his own solution that he thought was a lot better than the vendor solution selected by the hospital. Even so, after a few weeks using the new system, several of the older and most influential members of the anesthesia group simply proclaimed that they didn’t like what the hospital had purchased and would be going back to using their old paper processes. And, as my colleague noted, "that was that".

A similar scenario had recently played out in the radiology department. The mammography unit was asked to start using the hospital's digital PACS system. They prepared the docs for the fact that their productivity could initially fall by as much as 30 percent until they got used to the new tools and work-flow. The docs agreed to give it a try, but as soon as their productivity actually did take a nose-dive, they rebelled and refused to use the new system. I know what you may be thinking. Screw the doctors! Tell them they have no choice but to use the new systems. As a doctor and a former hospital VP/CIO and CMIO, I know it's not that easy. Those doctors are the life blood of the hospital. It took years to recruit the physicians who run the mammography unit. And the anesthesiologists? They along with their powerful surgeon allies are responsible for most of the hospital’s profit margin.

The CIO also told me about his hospital's struggle to implement an electronic charting system in nursing. He said the VP of Nursing gives the initiative good lip service, but her first in command is a 50 year old nurse who has never worked anywhere else, and there’s a lot of passive-aggressive behavior going on in the rank and file. Since the nurses are all employees, you might think administrators could just lay down the law and mandate the use of the nursing documentation system. But you would be naïve to think that. The average age of nurses working at the hospital, especially as managers and unit leads, is 50-plus. There’s a huge nursing shortage with lots of vacancies in posted positions. They have a powerful union. It’s hard to tell them what to do.

I share this because it is so typical of the culture in healthcare, and not only here in America. It speaks volumes on the issue that Gartner is drawing to our attention; it isn’t so much about the technology as it is about the culture, and the need for more carefully orchestrated change management. Of course some of these hassles will resolve as the “dinosaurs” retire. But based on what Gartner is saying the age and culture issue won't go away. Instead of “why must I use this computer instead of my paper” the argument will become “why must I use this (fill in the blank) instead of my computer"?

Posted by Bill Crounse, MD | Worldwide Health Director, Microsoft
http://on10.net/Blogs/bcrounse/age-and-culture-as-impediments-to-the-adoption-of-healthcare-it/

Monday, August 20, 2007

The Healthcare Enterprise | Making a case for eHealth Investment


Many healthcare executives look at technology as a cost of doing business. However, investment in strategically chosen technology can enhance revenue while lowering operational costs. Labour, as an example, is the most expensive and valuable resource in a hospital. Therefore, any measurable improvement in the use and efficiency of labour can improve a hospital’s bottom line considerably.

Whether business office staff processing claims information, nurses performing patient assessments, or physicians diagnosing and treating patients, with the current disarray of disparate information databases (and wireless and remote technologies;) users are constantly striving to gather the information required in order to perform and optimize their job function. Strategic implementation of new Technology can significantly improve efficiency in:
• Clinical Operations (ex: Nursing, Physicians and ER)
• Financial Operations (ex: Contract Management, Administration and Registration and Accounts Payables and Material Management)
• IT Operations (ex: Training, Help desk, Network, etc.)

----------------------------------
CLINICAL OPERATIONS
----------------------------------
1. Nursing:
This is the primary area for patient care improvement and enhanced patient revenue. All aspects of technology must perform smoothly – and be transparent to the end user – or nursing will not use it for patient care. When this area is not supported by IT effectively, nurses and other clinicians will revert to paper as the only reliable way to record information regarding patient interventions and notes on the patient’s status. When this happens it significantly lengthens the process, potentially up to two hours per patient per shift. Furthermore it results in duplicate processes and redundant data capture – so much so the caregiver spends too much time managing the clerical tasks, and the patient care process is inhibited. Accurate and timely charging for patient procedures, tests and supplies do not always occur resulting in lost revenue for the hospital. The key technology elements that must all be operating effectively are:
• Robust Clinical Application System including Case Management and Scheduling
• System reliability (99.9% availability)
• System performance (instant response time)
• Easy to use and accessible system devices (e.g., wireless, PDA’s, tablets, printers, etc.)

2. Physicians:
Physicians’ have two main concerns
• time to see patients and
• the timely availability of accurate patient information.


Therefore, creating a way for physicians – no matter where they may be – to continuously receive updated information on their patients addresses both of their primary concerns. Providing this technology is a key contributor to recruiting and retaining satisfied physicians, as well as providing high-quality patient care. The key technology elements that must all be operating effectively are:
• Physician-oriented presentation of patient results information
• Easy-to-Use computerized physician order entry system
• Online access to patient’s diagnostic x-ray and ultrasound information (PACS)
• System reliability
• System performance
• Support for multiple input and output devices (e.g., wireless, PDA’s, tablets, printers, etc.) from in-hospital as well as remote locations
• Integration to their office practice management and EMR systems

3. EMR:
The ultimate goal of most healthcare organizations is a paperless electronic medical record to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the enterprise workflow process and enhance the revenue generation process. Healthcare management understands, at a conceptual level, that having an automated digital hospital would improve the entire patient care workflow process, and thus, patient satisfaction and staff productivity. The successful automation of previously paper-based processes requires a robust IT infrastructure, and careful planning among all the affected stakeholders.

4. PACS:
A PACS system not only has proven to produce positive bottom-line results, but also is often considered a necessary precursor to the EMR. A wise investment that often pays for itself within 3-5 years, it allows the “reading” of images from all modalities from a workstation that is either in the hospital, or in a remote office. The biggest benefit however is the ability to transmit and view the image to wherever it is needed, and removes all of the barriers to access that exist with traditional film. To achieve all the available benefits, the network bandwidth must be in place to support very large image files, and again, careful planning among all the affected stakeholders is critical to a successful implementation.

5. ER:
Increasingly hospitals are realizing that their ER is a major entry point for patients and should not be overlooked as a revenue source. Providing comprehensive computerized systems that are optimized for the ER’s workflow are mandatory if the hospital desires to realize the potential benefits available. The key technology elements that must all be operating effectively are:
• Emergency Room Patient Tracking System
• System reliability
• System performance
• Easy to access and use input and output devices (e.g., wireless, PDA’s, tablets, printers, etc.)
• Seamless Integration to a hospital’s Master Patient Index to retrieve patient information and provide billing data
• Integration with the EMR to maintain a comprehensive clinical record.

6. Laboratory:
Laboratory orders are processed promptly because of the need of the patient. However, in a paper-based environment, charges can be overlooked because of the multiple steps required to process a patient chart and the extra work involved in capturing charges. A comprehensive Laboratory Information System (LIS) that is fully integrated with the HIS will alleviate this problem, as well as improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Laboratory staff. The key technology elements that must all be operating effectively are:
• Robust Laboratory Information System including integration with all laboratory instruments
• Integration with hospital’s EMR and/or order entry system
• Integration with any external reference laboratory used to enable a complete view of patient’s lab results
• System reliability
• System performance

----------------------------------
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS:
----------------------------------
The key to strategic gains in the Financial/Administrative area is to invest in the newest technology that enables business processes to function more efficiently, and ensures the most accurate billing practices for the organization. Even small procedural changes can create more effective billing and substantially improve the bottom line. Likewise, the implementation of comprehensive scheduling systems can improve turnaround times and help ensure the optimal use of expensive fixed assets throughout the hospital. Other areas suitable for increased investment are described below.

1. Contract Management:
Many hospital billing operations submit claims based upon the personal knowledge of staff billers. Billers often overlook minute and incremental charge optimization opportunities simply because of the volume of bills and claims that must be generated and submitted. The computerization of code optimization and the underpayment analysis of payer reimbursement will have an ongoing and profound impact on a hospital’s bottom line. Whereas these billers are very knowledgeable, their true value is in the management and adjudication of claims denials. The loss of revenue per claim may be small, yet the total volume of claims equates to a substantial loss. Computerization of the claims submission and denial process quickly pays for itself and can immediately increase the hospital’s cash. The key technology elements that must all be operating seamlessly:
• Contract Management Application System
• System reliability (minimal downtime)
• System performance (immediate response time)
• Adequate storage (retrieve discharged patient’s complete information)
• Electronic interface to primary payors
• Integration with hospital’s patient accounting system

Hospitals will vary on the impact of automating these areas of operation. The cumulative effect can be quite surprising. As PriceWaterhouseCoopers and HIMSS analytics reported in their study of cardiac care in 36 hospitals in March 2005, there was an “85% reduction in medical errors and a 65% reduction in inappropriate denials from payors…” in the hospitals studied.

2. Admissions and registration:
This area requires system speed and a reduction in the complexity of screen layouts. There is typically a lot of turnover in this area. Yet Admissions is the first location for revenue enhancement and the primary source of errors and inaccurate data for billers to deal with claims denials. The key technology elements that must all be operating effectively are:
• Comprehensive admission-discharge-transfer system
• Integration with payors to confirm patient coverage
• Integration with patient scheduling system
• System reliability (no downtime)
• System performance (immediate response time)
• Easy to access and use input and output devices

3. Accounts Payable/Materials Management:
The goal of automating the replenishment of the hospital supplies (using just-in-time processes), while taking maximum advantage of the hospital’s contracts, in an effective and efficient process, has a significant impact on the hospital’s profitability. Accurate, ongoing, and continuous inventory, minimal loss of stock, and maximum chargeability are the key components. Taking advantage of discounts by being able to pay vendor’s invoices within the discount can benefit the hospital’s bottom line. The key technology elements that must all be operating
effectively are:
• Comprehensive Accounts Payable System
• Comprehensive Materials Management System
• Integration between Accounts Payable and Materials Management
• System performance (immediate response time)
• Easy to access and use
• Adequate storage

4. Barcoding:
It has been shown that barcoding data at the bedside, from the pharmacy, and through materials management reduces medical errors tremendously, as well as, improves the automation of input of data into the patient chart. It holds the ability to speed and integrate the purchasing, distribution, administration, charting, and billing for pharmaceutical and other supplies. An effective barcoding strategy not only provides more accurate and timely information, but also saves time and improves the work lives of clinicians, managers, and staffers by making things run more smoothly and simply. To realize the full benefits of a barcoding implementation, attention must be paid to the workflow changes necessary to get maximum returns. When combined with supply chain automation, the entire process of acquiring the correct supplies, packaged and correctly prepared for patient delivery, are made available to the care-giver when needed – and the documentation for billing, inventory reordering, and the patient chart, is captured as a by-product of the patient care process.

----------------------------------
IT OPERATIONS:
----------------------------------
The common thread in improving IT Operations in healthcare is to achieve maximum leverage of the staff resources to implement and support an ever-increasing array of emerging hardware and applications. Through continual centralization of the environment, more ROI is squeezed out of fixed assets and the staff becomes more efficient by giving them the tools to do their job more effectively. Whether it’s server administration, network management, application support, or user provisioning, the innovative investment in the IT infrastructure can improve service levels and ensure optimum utilization of expensive staff resources. Practical examples include:

1. Training:
As the general workflow process is automated, the need for personnel to understand how to use the tools at hand becomes paramount. Training is needed in two distinct areas; the IT staff and the users:
• The IT staff must be trained to understand how to use the servers, switches, software and network to maximize the users’ capabilities. Each IT staff member has a “multiplier effect” upon the user community’s effectiveness. Most should therefore be certified in their area of expertise.
• The automation process is for the benefit of the user and the organization. Therefore, the user must be trained in the optimal usage of the system and the tasks they perform. This means that an ongoing training program should be implemented to ensure employees are accomplished on the system(s) they use and fully understand the implication of their actions when using automated systems to perform their jobs.

2. Help Desk/ Service Level Management:
IT departments may have a phone number for users to call in case of need, however most facilities do not have an automated structured process to monitor
technology, diagnose problems, administer support, and measure performance by automated reporting. It is imperative to be able to understand the source of help desk calls in order to properly plan for the improvements needed to improve customer service.

3. Network:
The network is the nervous system of an organization’s information flow. There are a number of components of a network that must be able to transport data at a guaranteed minimum volume.

4. Switches, bridges, and routers:
The switches, bridges and routers are the devices that route data from one part of the network to another. Considering that a fully automated healthcare workflow process will have a minimum of 25 major applications that will route data for 30 departments, the switches need to be configured to handle the volume of traffic anticipated.

5. Backplane:
A backplane acts as a “traffic cop” for the data that comes from all of the different switches within the network. Therefore, it must handle the accumulated burstable volume of the network. For a fully integrated and automated workflow process, a backplane may need to burst to 4 Gigabytes/sec. of volume.

6. Network Management Software:
Many of the major network vendors have the ability to continuously “ping” the network through a technology called SNMP. This allows IT to proactively monitor the “health” status of switches, PCs and servers. The same software now also keeps an inventory of hardware and software, as well as version control, so that the network can now distribute patches, updates, and fixes to the users quickly. Finally, most of these network vendors now have integrated help desk and service level management automation into their support process. Therefore, IT can now receive a request for assistance, log it, prioritize it, and escalate it automatically. They can then diagnose and fix (either remotely or by the system dispatching a person) user’s hardware and software. Finally, the IT tools can then print out a report that shows the amount of time systems were up for the month, how many service calls were responded to by prioritized need, who was serviced and when, as well as the outcome of that service call.

7. Wireless and Remote Capabilities:
Wireless PDAs, tablet PCs, smartphones and laptops are transforming the way information is gathered and processed. Systems can now be structured so that physicians may plug their device into the hospital system and be uploaded with what happened to their patients overnight. Additionally, caregivers and hospital staff can now work from home.

8. VoIP:
Currently the dual networks and dual support staffs to run a network and a PBX system are costly. Time and again, the return on investment (ROI) to move the phone system onto the network, department by department over a period of time, has shown to be a good investment. There is no charge for moves, adds and changes (MACs) now, the administration of two systems can be handled internally by one group, and future cabling costs are minimized.

9. Cabling:
Cabling is an infrastructure issue and often its importance is overlooked. But, it is foundation of the information highway for a hospital. In addition, as hospitals are adding increasing computerization, cabling installed two years ago may soon be outdated. Cabling should be an integral part of a hospital’s computer plan.

10. Standardization:
Standardization means that the technical components of servers, switches, and PCs should have the same memory, cache, and storage. The reason for this is that servicing a few standards reduces the complexity of support, which has shown time and again to be the best way to reduce the cost of operations.

11. Servers:
Most servers are currently purchased as individual standalone machines. This creates two problems: first, it means that each server is a single point of failure for its own data and there is no failover capability from one server to another; and second, the storage usage of each machine is usually less than 50% of capability. Therefore, the architecture of servers should be configured into a storage array network (SAN) of blade servers configured to backup each other.

Conclusion:
The implementation and continued automation of the healthcare workflow process is analogous to building a house. All departments run their own operation, but are interconnected and dependent upon each other to provide a complete workflow environment. The foundation of said “digital house” however, is the technological infrastructure. Any weak points in the infrastructure will create bottlenecks in the workflow process. The demand for quick and accurate patient information in hospitals is continuously on the increase. Hospitals have to improve their technological infrastructure in order to meet the needs of caregivers and to enhance their revenue. Healthcare workflow process improvement will take time to accomplish in a coordinated, synergistic manner that will improve patient care and hospital revenue.