Free EMR 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 EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

Looking at EHR Internationally

Posted on August 24, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Today, I’m sitting in my hotel room in Dubai (Check out my full health IT conference schedule) looking out over this incredible city. This is the 3rd time I’ve come to Dubai to teach an EHR workshop and so I’ve had a chance to fall in love with some many things. Not the least of which is the people that come to participate in the workshop. Each time is a unique perspective with people coming from around the middle east including countries like Saudia Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and of course Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the UAE to name a few.

There’s something incredible about coming to a place that is culturally so different and yet when I talk about EHR software it’s more alike than it is different. A great example of this is the often large divide between doctors and EHR implementers. It seems that everyone struggles to get doctors to take enough time to really learn how to use the EHR effectively. Then, despite not doing the training they complain that the EHR doesn’t work properly. If you’ve ever been part of an EHR implementation you know this cycle well.

What I find interesting in the middle east is that they don’t feel suffocated by regulations like we have in the US. There’s much more freedom available to them to innovate. However, there’s not the same drive to innovate here that exists in most US markets. It’s interesting to sense this disconnect between the opportunity to innovate and the desire to innovate.

I think there’s also a bit of a misconception about the region. From the US perspective, we often see these rich middle eastern countries and think that they just have as much money as they want and they can spend lavishly on anything. When you look at some of the amazing buildings or the indoor ski slopes in Dubai it’s easy to see how this perspective is well deserved. However, that’s not the reality that most of these healthcare organizations face. This seems to be particularly true with gas prices being quite low. In many ways, this is a similar to what many doctors experience. Doctors like to drive the Mercedes, but then complain that they aren’t really paid as much as people think. That creates a disconnect between what’s seen and the reality. I think the middle east suffers from this disconnect as well.

What’s most heartening about the experience of talking EHR internationally is that there’s one core thing that seems to exist everywhere. That’s a desire to truly make a difference for the patient. That’s the beautiful part of working in healthcare. We all have a desire to make life better for a patient. It’s amazing how this principle is universal. Now, if we could just all execute it better.

Improving Clinical Workflow Can Boost Health IT Quality

Posted on August 18, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

At this point, the great majority of providers have made very substantial investments in EMRs and ancillary systems. Now, many are struggling to squeeze the most value out of those investments, and they’re not sure how to attack the problem.

However, according to at least one piece of research, there’s a couple of approaches that are likely to pan out. According to a new survey by the American Society for Quality, most healthcare quality experts believe that improving clinical workflow and supporting patients online can make a big diference.

As ASQ noted, providers are spending massive amounts of case on IT, with the North American healthcare IT market forecast to hit $31.3 by 2017, up from $21.9 billion in 2012. But healthcare organizations are struggling to realize a return on their spending. The study data, however, suggests that providers may be able to make progress by looking at internal issues.

Researchers who conducted the survey, an online poll of about 170 ASQ members, said that 78% of respondents said improving workflow efficiency is the top way for healthcare organizations to improve the quality of their technology implementations. Meanwhile, 71% said that providers can strengthen their health IT use by nurturing strong leaders who champion new HIT initiatives.

Meanwhile, survey participants listed a handful of evolving health IT options which could have the most impact on patient experience and care coordination, including:

  • Incorporation of wearables, remote patient monitoring and caregiver collaboration tools (71%)
  • Leveraging smartphones, tablets and apps (69%)
  • Putting online tools in place that touch every step of patient processes like registration and payment (69%)

Despite their promise, there are a number of hurdles healthcare organizations must get over to implement new processes (such as better workflows) or new technologies. According to ASQ, these include:

  • Physician and staff resistance to change due to concerns about the impact on time and workflow, or unwillingness to learn new skills (70%)
  • High cost of rolling out IT infrastructure and services, and unproven ROI (64%)
  • Concerns that integrating complex new devices could lead to poor interfaces between multiple technologies, or that haphazard rollouts of new devices could cause patient errors (61%)

But if providers can get past these issues, there are several types of health IT that can boost ROI or cut cost, the ASQ respondents said. According to these participants, the following HIT tools can have the biggest impact:

  • Remote patient monitoring can cut down on the need for office visits, while improving patient outcomes (69%)
  • Patient engagement platforms that encourage patients to get more involved in the long-term management of their own health conditions (68%)
  • EMRs/EHRs that eliminate the need to perform some time-consuming tasks (68%)

Perhaps the most interesting part of the survey report outlined specific strategies to strengthen health IT use recommended by respondents, such as:

  • Embedding a quality expert in every department to learn use needs before deciding what IT tools to implement. This gives users a sense of investment in any changes made.
  • Improving available software with easier navigation, better organization of medical record types, more use of FTP servers for convenience, the ability to upload records to requesting facilities and a universal notification system offering updates on medical record status
  • Creating healthcare apps for professional use, such as medication calculators, med reconciliation tools and easy-to-use mobile apps which offer access to clinical pathways

Of course, most readers of this blog already know about these options, and if they’re not currently taking this advice they’re probably thinking about it. Heck, some of this should already be old hat – FTP servers? But it’s still good to be reminded that progress in boosting the value of health IT investments may be with reach. (To get some here-and-now advice on redesigning EMR workflow, check out this excellent piece by Chuck Webster – he gets it!)

One Example Of Improving Telehealth Documentation 

Posted on August 16, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Over the past year or two, the pressure has risen for providers to better document telehealth encounters, a pressure which has only mounted as the volume of such consults has grown. But until recently, telemedicine notes have been of little value, as they’ve met few of the key criteria that standard notes must meet.

The fact that such consults aren’t integrated with EMRs has made such an evolution even trickier. I guess doctors might be able to squeeze the patient’s video screen into one corner, allowing the clinician to work within the existing EMR display, but that would make both the consult and the note-taking rather inefficient, wouldn’t it?  The bottom line is that if telemedicine is to take its place alongside of other modes of care, this state of affairs is unsustainable.

For one thing, health plans that reimburse for telehealth services won’t be satisfied with vague assurances that such care made a difference – they’ll want some basis for analyzing its impact, which can’t be done without at least some basic diagnostic and care-related information. Also, providers will need similar records, for reasons which include the need to integrate the information into the patient’s larger record and to track the progress of this approach.

All of which is to note that I was happy to stumble across an example of a telemedicine provider that’s making efforts to improve its consult notes. While the provider, Doctor on Demand, hasn’t exactly reinvented the telehealth record, it’s improving those records, and to my way of thinking that deserves a shout-out.

As some readers may know, Doctor on Demand is a consumer-facing telemedicine provider which offers video visits with primary care doctors, counselors and psychiatrists. Its competitors include HealthTap and American Well. Because the company works with my health plan, United Healthcare, I’ve used its services to deal with off-hours issues as they arise.

Just today I had a video visit with a Doctor on Demand doctor to address a mild asthma care issue, after which I reviewed the physician’s notes. When I did so, I was happy to see that those notes included a ICD-10 diagnosis code. The notes also incorporated a consumer-level summary of what the diagnosed condition was, what to do about it, what its prognosis was and how to follow up. Essentially, Doctor on Demand’s notes have evolved from a sentence of two of informal suggestions to a more-structured document not unlike a set of hospital discharge instructions.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly well aware that these are just baby steps. Doctor on Demand will have to move a lot further in this direction before consult documentation offers much to other providers. That being said, adding a formal diagnosis code gives the company a better means for analyzing key patterns of utilization internally by presenting condition, which can help its leaders look at whom they serve. Doctor on Demand can also use this information to pitch deals with potential partners, by sharing data on its population and underscoring its capabilities. In other words, these changes should make an impact.

Ultimately, telehealth documentation will have to meet the same expectations that other healthcare documentation does. And it’s not clear to me how freestanding telemedicine firms like Doctor on Demand will bridge that gap. After all, generating complete documentation takes far more than a few useful gestures. Even if the company threw a high-end EMR at the problem, merging it with the existing workflow is likely to be a huge undertaking. But still, making a bit of progress is worthwhile. I hope Doctor on Demand’s competitors are taking similar steps.

E-Patient Update:  Registration Can Add Value To Care 

Posted on August 15, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

For those of you who end up seeking care in hospital emergency departments now and again, the following will probably be familiar. You’re spending the precious few minutes you get with the ED doc discussing your situation, having a test done or asking a nurse some rather personal questions, and a hapless man or woman shows up and inserts themselves into the moment. Why? Because they want to collect registration information.

While these clerks are typically pleasant enough, and their errand relatively brief, their interruption has consequences. In my case, their entry into the room has sometimes caused a nurse or doctor to lose their train of thought, or an explanation in progress was never finished. As if that weren’t irritating enough, the registration clerk – at least at my local community hospital – typically asks questions I’ve already answered previously, or asks me to sign forms I could easily have reviewed at an earlier stage in the process.

Not only that, there have been at least a couple of situations in which a nurse or doctor was so distracted by the clerk’s arrival that some reasonably important issues didn’t get handled. Don’t get me wrong, the skilled team at this facility recovered and addressed these issues before they could escalate, but there’s no guarantee that this will always happen, particularly if the patient isn’t used to keeping track of their care process.

Also, given that alarm fatigue is already leading to patient care mistakes and near-misses, it seems odd that this hospital would squeeze yet another distraction into its ED routine. At least the alarms are intended to serve as clinical decision support and avoid needless errors. Collecting my street address a second time doesn’t rise to that level of importance.

Of course, hospitals need the information the clerk collects, for a variety of legal and operational reasons. I have no problem signing a form giving it permission to bill my insurer, affirming that I don’t need disability accommodations or agreeing to a facility’s “no smoking on campus” policy. And I certainly want any provider that treats me to have full and accurate insurance information, as I obviously don’t want to be billed for the care myself!  But is it really necessary to interrupt a vital care process to accomplish this?

As I see it, verifying registration information could be done much more effectively if it took place at a different point in the sequence of care – at the moment when physicians decide whether to discharge or admit that patient.  After all, if the patient is well enough to answer questions and sign forms while lying in an ED bed, they’re likely to remain so through the admissions process, and verify their financial and personal information once they’re settled (or even while they’re waiting to be transported to their bed). Meanwhile, if the patient is being discharged, they could just as easily provide signatures and personal data as they prepare to leave.

But the above would simply make registration less intrusive. What about adding real value to the process, for both the hospital and the patient? Instead of having a clerk gather this information, why not provide the patient with a tablet which presents the needed information, allowing patients to enter or edit their personal details at leisure.

Then, as they digitally sign off on registration, it would be a great time to ask the patient a few details which help the facility understand the patient’s need for support and care coordination. Why not find out, before the patient is discharged, whether they have a primary care doctor or relevant specialist, whether they can afford their medications, whether they can get to post-discharge visits and the like? This improves results for the patient and ties in with a value-based focus on continuity of care.

These days, it’s not enough just to eliminate pointless workflow disruptions. Let’s leverage the amazing consumer IT platforms we have to make things better!

If MACRA Fails, It Will Be a Failure of IT, Not Doctors or Regulators

Posted on August 8, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Steve Daniels, president of Able Health.

There has been a whole lot of mudslinging over the last month between regulators and healthcare providers over MACRA, which shifts Medicare payments further toward pay-for-performance starting January 1. On the one hand, CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt is clear that CMS is ready for change. “We need to get out of the mode of paying physicians just to run tests and prescribe medicines,” he told a Senate Finance Committee hearing. Meanwhile, Dr. Thomas Eppes of the American Medical Association has called MACRA a “quantum shift” and pushed for a delay.

Yes, the Medicare Quality Payment Program instituted by MACRA should—and will—evolve based on comments made on the proposed rule. But the reality is the program provides enormous opportunity for providers to increase bonus payments, while streamlining reporting requirements across a patchwork of outdated and duplicative programs. And it’s worth noting that the potential penalties under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) over the next four years are actually lower than the sum of the penalties of the programs it is replacing.

To meet MACRA goals, it will take a well-prepared team of providers and administrators—empowered by data and well-designed tools. Doctors can’t be solely responsible for achieving patient outcomes, reducing costs and documenting it all for CMS as they go. Unfortunately, the history of health IT has not been kind—or affordable—to doctors. And today, the health IT stack has a new challenge—keeping pace with the proliferation of value-based programs, from accessing data all the way through enabling new clinical practice.

We must move from a mindset of meeting Meaningful Use checkboxes toward supporting a more effective way of operating. And in the modern world of software-as-as-service, there’s no good reason left that IT needs to cost providers millions of dollars. We can do better. As things stand, if MACRA fails, it will be a failure of IT, not doctors or regulators.

Gathering all the data

For value-based care to work, patient data needs to be made available for providers to coordinate with each other, as well as to payers, to properly evaluate performance based on all known information. Those still blocking or jacking up prices for data access are complicit in obstructing the vision of a learning value-based system.

It is time to remove technical barriers through modern and open data standards like FHIR, as well as rules and unreasonable fees that prevent parties from accessing data when they need it. Thankfully, the Advancing Care Information performance category will reflect the emphasis on information exchange set forth in Meaningful Use Stage 3.

Calculating performance flexibly

The new era of performance-based pay requires continuous monitoring of quality and cost, with the ability to track progress across multiple programs on an ongoing basis. To measure quality today, we often use static algorithms hard-coded by EHRs vendors and health system IT departments, conforming to standards set by NCQA or CMS.

But providers need tools that are tailored not just to one or two programs like Meaningful Use and PQRS, but across the organization’s full range of value-based programs as these program continue to expand, evolve, and proliferate. With efforts to standardize IT for quality measures stalling, vendors need to focus less on one-size-fits-all quality measure calculations and more on flexible systems that enable measures to be rapidly constructed and customized to move with the trends. Expect change to be the norm.

Informing new behaviors

With so many health IT professionals focused on gathering and reporting data, it is not surprising that design has taken a back seat so far. But this year, not a single population health vendor earned an “A” rating from Chilmark, due to poor user engagement and clinical workflow. This is no longer acceptable. The challenge of enabling the new clinical and administrative behaviors associated with value-based care is too vast. User experience must be top of mind for any IT implementation, with representative users involved from the start. We have seen the impact of poor user experience in the fee-for-service system, from frustrated clinicians to alarming patient safety issues.

Design is even more important when the challenge is not just documenting billing codes but also achieving health outcomes for patients across a care team. Don’t bombard clinicians with notifications and force clumsy form-filling. Instead, employ best practices from cognitive psychology to inform professionals with lightweight and intelligent touchpoints. Automate documentation and interpretation of data wherever possible.

A new era of health IT

Whether or not it’s delayed, the Quality Payment Program is coming. And the healthcare industry is moving inexorably toward value-based care. Will health IT step up to the challenge of building toward a value-based future that is accessible to all providers? Or will we sit back and wait for the next list of requirements?

About Steve Daniels
Steve Daniels is the President of Able Health, which helps providers succeed under MACRA and value-based programs. Formerly the design lead for IBM Watson for healthcare and a lifelong patient advocate, he is passionate about the role of open data exchange and intuitive experience design in fostering a continuously improving healthcare system. Find him on Twitter and LinkedIn.

ONC Announces Winners Of FHIR App Challenge

Posted on August 3, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

The ONC has announced the first wave of winners of two app challenges, both of which called for competitors to use FHIR standards and open APIs.

As I’ve noted previously, I’m skeptical that market forces can solve our industry’s broad interoperability problems, even if they’re supported and channeled by a neutral intermediary like ONC. But there’s little doubt that FHIR has the potential to provide some of the benefits of interoperability, as we’ll see below.

Winners of Phase 1 of the agency’s Consumer Health Data Aggregator Challenge, each of whom will receive a $15,000 award, included the following:

  • Green Circle Health’s platform is designed to provide a comprehensive family health dashboard covering the Common Clinical Data Set, using FHIR to transfer patient information. This app will also integrate patient-generated health data from connected devices such as wearables and sensors.
  • The Prevvy Family Health Assistant by HealthCentrix offers tools for managing a family’s health and wellness, as well as targeted data exchange. Prevvy uses both FHIR and Direct messaging with EMRs certified for Meaningful Use Stage 2.
  • Medyear’s mobile app uses FHIR to merge patient records from multiple sources, making them accessible through a single interface. It displays real-time EMR updates via a social media-style feed, as well as functions intended to make it simple to message or call clinicians.
  • The Locket app by MetroStar Systems pulls patient data from different EMRs together onto a single mobile device. Other Locket capabilities include paper-free check in and appointment scheduling and reminders.

ONC also announced winners of the Provider User Experience Challenge, each of whom will also get a $15,000 award. This part of the contest was dedicated to promoting the use of FHIR as well, but participants were asked to show how they could enhance providers’ EMR experience, specifically by making clinical workflows more intuitive, specific to clinical specialty and actionable, by making data accessible to apps through APIs. Winners include the following:

  • The Herald platform by Herald Health uses FHIR to highlight patient information most needed by clinicians. By integrating FHIT, Herald will offer alerts based on real-time EMR data.
  • PHRASE (Population Health Risk Assessment Support Engine) Health is creating a clinical decision support platform designed to better manage emerging illnesses, integrating more external data sources into the process of identifying at-risk patients and enabling the two-way exchange of information between providers and public health entities.
  • A partnership between the University of Utah Health Care, Intermountain Healthcare and Duke Health System is providing clinical decision support for timely diagnosis and management of newborn bilirubin according to evidence-based practice. The partners will integrate the app across each member’s EMR.
  • WellSheet has created a web application using machine learning and natural language processing to prioritize important information during a patient visit. Its algorithm simplifies workflows incorporating multiple data sources, including those enabled by FHIR. It then presents information in a single screen.

As I see it, the two contests don’t necessarily need to be run on separate tracks. After all, providers need aggregate data and consumers need prioritized, easy-to-navigate platforms. But either way, this effort seems to have been productive. I’m eager to see the winners of the next phase.

E-Patient Update: Is It Appropriate to Trash “Dr. Google”?

Posted on August 1, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Apparently, a lot of professionals have gotten a bit defensive about working with Google-using customers. In fact, when I searched Google recently for the phrase “Don’t confuse your Google search with my” it returned results that finished the phrase with “law degree,” “veterinary degree,” “nursing degree” and even “library degree.” And as you might guess, it also included “medical degree” among its list of professions with a Google grudge.

I first ran across this anti-Dr.-Google sentiment about a year ago, when a physician posted a picture of a coffee mug bearing this slogan on LinkedIn. He defended having the mug on his desk as a joke. But honestly, doc, I don’t think it’s funny. Let me explain.

First, I want to concede a couple of points. Yes, humor means different things to different people, and a joke doesn’t necessarily define a doctor’s character. And to be as fair as possible, I’m sure there are patients who use Web-based materials as an excuse to second-guess medical judgment in ways which are counterproductive and even inappropriate. Knowledge is a good thing, but not everyone has good knowledge filters in place.

That being said, I have, hmmm, perhaps a few questions for clinicians who are amused by this “joke,” including:

  • Wouldn’t people’s health improve if they considered themselves responsible for learning as much as possible about health trends, wellness and/or any conditions they might have?
  • Don’t we want patients to be as engaged as possible when they are talking with their doctors (as well as other clinicians)? And doesn’t that mean being informed about key issues?
  • Does this slogan suggest that patients shouldn’t challenge physicians to explain discrepancies between what they read and what they’re being told?
  • Does this attitude bleed over to a dislike of all consumer-generated health data, even if it’s being generated by an FDA-approved device? If so, have you got a nuanced understanding of these technologies and a well-informed opinion on their merits?

Please understand, I am in no way anti-doctor. The truth is, I trust, admire and rely upon the clinicians who keep my chronic illnesses at bay. I have a sense of the pressures they confront, and have immense respect for their dedication and empathy.

That being said, I need clinicians to collaborate with me and help me learn what I need to know, not discourage and mock my efforts. And I need them to be open to the benefits of new technologies – be they the web-based medical content that didn’t exist when you were in med school, remote monitoring, wearables, sensor-laden t-shirts, mobile apps, artificial intelligence or flying cars.

So, I hope you understand now why I’m offended by that coffee mug. If a doctor dislikes something so elementary as a desire to learn, I doubt we’ll get along.

Attackers Try To Sell 600K Patient Records

Posted on July 22, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

New research has concluded that attackers recently infiltrated U.S. healthcare institutions and stole at least 600,000 patient records, then attempted to sell more than 3 TB of associated data. The attacks, which were discovered by security firm InfoArmor, targeted not only hospitals, but also private clinics and vendors of medical equipment and supplies such as orthopedics, eWeek reports.

According to InfoArmor, the attacker gained access to the patient data by exploiting weak user credentials, and hacked Remote Desktop Protocol connections on some servers with static external IP addresses. The data thief also used a local privilege escalation exploit to access system files for added patching and backdooring, InfoArmor chief intelligence officer Andrew Komarov told eWeek.

And sadly, some healthcare institutions made it pretty easy for intruders. In some cases, data thieves were able to exfiltrate data stored in Microsoft Access desktop databases without any special user access segregation or rights control in place, Komarov told the magazine.

Future exploits may emerge through medical device connections, as many institutions aren’t paying enough attention to device security, he warns.”[Providers] think that the medical device is just a device for their specific function and sometimes they don’t [have] knowledge of misconfigured devices in their networks,” Komarov said.

So what will become of the data?  Many things, and none of them good. Some cyber criminals will sell Social Security numbers and other scammers will use to sell fraudulent healthcare services,. Cyber-grifters who steal a patient’s history of illness and their biography can use them to take advantage of consumers, he pointed out. And to sharpen their con, such criminals can even buy select data focused on geographic regions, Komarov noted in a follow-up chat with me.

To address exploits engineered by remote access sessions, one consulting firm is pitching technology allowing administrators to go over remote sessions with a fine-toothed comb.

Balazs Scheidler, CTO of security vendor BalaBit, notes that while remote access to internal IT resources is common, using protocols such as Microsoft Remote Desktop or Citrix ICA, IT managers don’t always have enough visibility into who’s accessing systems, when they are logging in and from where systems are being accessed. BalaBit is pitching a system which offers “CCTV-like” recording of user sessions, including screen contents, mouse movements, clicks and keystrokes.

But the truth is, regardless of what approach providers take, they simply have to step up security measures across the board. If attackers can access your data through a vulnerable Microsoft Access database, clearly something is out of order. And in fact many cases, it’s just that easy for attackers to get into your network.

Lessons Learned from Practice Fusion’s FTC Charges and Settlement

Posted on July 21, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Almost 3 years ago I wrote an article about Practice Fusion violating some physicians’ trust in sending millions of emails to their patients. It’s still shocking to me to read through the physicians’ reaction to having emails unknowingly sent out in their name to their patients. I spent about a month researching that story. That’s longer than I’ve done for any other article by a significant margin. What I discovered was just that compelling.

When I first was told about the story, it seemed possible that each of those emails (we estimated 9 million) was a HIPAA violation. However, as we researched the story more and talked with multiple experts, it seemed like only a small subset could have possibly been considered a HIPAA violation. Practice Fusion had done a pretty reasonable job on the HIPAA front in our opinion. We all learned a lot about HIPAA and patient emails from the experience. Not to mention the importance of physician trust in your EHR product.

With that said, Forbes read my articles and decided to write an article that extended on the research that I’d done for the story along with a follow up article that looked at some of the things patients were posting publicly in these physician reviews. Forbes didn’t link to my article since I was pretty cautious with the whole thing after Practice Fusion had threatened sending their lawyers my way. I didn’t have a bevy of lawyers behind me like Forbes. Plus, some other crazy things happened like people trying to discredit me in the comments from the same IP address in San Francisco and a fabricated blog post to try and discredit what I’d written. Needless to say, it was quite the experience.

There were some people encouraging me to take it much further and to expose some of the crazy things that went down. That wasn’t my interest. I’d told an important story that needed to be told in what I believed was a fair an accurate way. I didn’t have any other goals despite some people insinuating that I might have other intentions.

Three years after I wrote that story it’s interesting to see that the FTC finally published the complaint against Practice Fusion (they also shared an analysis) and the Settlement agreement. I guess our government does work as slow as we all imagine.

I’m not going to dive into the details of the settlement here, but I did discuss the lessons we can learn from Practice Fusion’s FTC complaint and settlement with Shahid Shah and from our discussion I came up with these important lessons that apply to any company working in healthcare IT.

Healthcare Needs to Worry About More Than HIPAA and OCR
I think that many healthcare IT organizations only worried about HIPAA and OCR (which enforces HIPAA) when developing their products and implementing them in healthcare. This example clearly illustrates that the FTC is interested in what you do in healthcare and they’re not just going to defer to OCR to ensure that things are going right. This is particularly true as healthcare becomes more and more consumer oriented. This advice is also timely given ONC’s report to congress about health data oversight beyond HIPAA.

Healthcare Interoperability and Public Disclosure Might Be Worse
One challenge with the FTC settlement is that it could cause many other healthcare IT vendors to use it as an excuse not to take the next step in engaging patients, sharing health information where it’s needed, and other things that will help to improve healthcare. The fear of government condemnation could cause many to balk at progressive initiatives that would benefit patients.

While I do think healthcare IT companies should be cautious, fear of the FTC shouldn’t be used as an excuse to do nothing. The reality of the Practice Fusion case wasn’t that they shouldn’t have built the product they did, it was just that they needed to better communicate what they were doing to both doctors and patients. If they had done so I wouldn’t have had an article to write and the FTC wouldn’t have had any issue with what they were doing.

Communicate Properly to Patients
Reading the FTC claim was interesting to me. In the month I spent researching the story, I felt that Practice Fusion had done a great job in their privacy notice saying that the patient’s review would be posted publicly. It stated as much in their policy and I found no fault in their posting the patient reviews in public. That’s why I didn’t write about them in my articles. Certainly they could have made it more clear to patients, but I put the responsibility on the patient to read the privacy policy. If the patient chooses not to read the privacy policy when sharing really intimate personal details in an online form, then I don’t have much sympathy for them.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer and the FTC found very different. The FTC thought that the disclosure to the patient should have reached out and grabbed consumers and that the key facts shouldn’t be buried in a hard-to-understand privacy policy. A good lawyer can help an organization find the balance of effectively meeting the FTC requirements, but also not scaring patients away from participating. Although, it can certainly be a challenge.

If You Can Identify Private Information You Should
There are some obvious things that we all know shouldn’t be posted publicly. These days with technologies like NLP (natural language processing), you can identify many of these obvious pieces of private data and ensure they’re hidden and never go public. These technologies aren’t perfect, but having them in place will show that you’ve made a best effort to ensure that consumers health data is kept as private as possible.

Communicate Better with Doctors
This might be the biggest thing I learned from the experience. I find it interesting that the FTC complaint barely even talks about it (maybe it’s not under the FTC’s purview?). However, what came through loud and clear from this experience is that you need to effectively communicate what you’re doing to the doctor. This is particularly true if you’re doing something in the doctors name. If not, you’re going to lose the trust of doctors.

The FTC has a blog post up which has more lessons for those of us in the healthcare industry. They’re worthy of consideration if you’re a health IT company that’s working with patients (yes, that’s pretty much all of you).

P.S. I find it interesting that the Patient Fusion website still lists 30,061 doctors on patient fusion, 181,818 appointments today, 1,844718 reviews, and 98% doctors recommended. The same numbers that were listed back in 2013:

I guess that page isn’t a real time feed. I also looked at the Patient Fusion website today to see how they showed reviews now. I didn’t scour the whole website, but it appears that they now only show the quantitative review score and not the qualitative review.

Is Your Organization Ready for EHR Adoption? – Breakaway Thinking

Posted on July 20, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Heather Haugen, PhD, Managing Director and CEO at The Breakaway Group (A Xerox Company). Check out all of the blog posts in the Breakaway Thinking series.
Heather Haugen
What is the most significant barrier to Electronic Health Record (EHR) adoption for clinicians?  This question was the foundation of our research published in Beyond Implementation: A Prescription for Lasting EMR Adoption in 2010. The answer wasn’t surprising then and won’t surprise you now, but let’s consider how your leaders are doing in the face of enormous change in healthcare (think telemedicine, high pharmaceutical costs, rising medical costs, medical ID theft). It’s more important than ever to focus on technology adoption in today’s healthcare climate.

The one factor that formed a pattern across every organization struggling with EHR adoption was a lack of engagement by those leading the effort, and this still holds true today. For many reasons, this is a hard pill to swallow. First, it places responsibility back on the earliest champions: those who decided to fund and move the entire organization into an EHR implementation or upgrade. Second, it requires already overworked executive and clinical leaders to make adoption a daily priority. Effective leadership is an antecedent to adoption.

There is no greater barrier to the adoption of a complex IT application in an ever-changing healthcare environment than believing we can simply pile this effort on top of the other priorities and expect success. Organizations with disengaged, part-time, and/or overworked leaders at the helm of an EHR effort will struggle and may never achieve full adoption. In contrast, organizations with leaders who are fully invested in the daily march toward adoption will not only reach the early stages of adoption, but will enjoy a reinforced cycle of meaningful clinical and financial outcomes. Leadership must take five steps to succeed in moving their organization toward EHR adoption.

Develop a “stop doing” list: Establishing a new leadership agenda requires freeing up time for those leading and working on the effort. Without reprioritizing daily tasks, EHR adoption receives inadequate time and attention. Leaders currently in charge of EHR adoption need to understand what they are going to stop doing and focus on maintaining the courage to follow through on their decision.

Create a positive tone at the top of the organization: One of the most challenging aspects of leading an EHR adoption is transforming the project into a compelling and meaningful effort for everyone. When people, especially clinicians, believe in a cause, they will go to extraordinary lengths to ensure a successful outcome. Creating a common message with purpose and constancy is not easy, and sustaining the message is even more difficult. But when leaders create the right tone for the EHR adoption message, it will be powerful and help maintain momentum to create change.

Connect to clinical leadership: The key to provider adoption of EHRs is engagement. A governance system will engage clinicians through responsibilities and accountabilities and create clinician champions – the most highly-respected and well-networked clinicians. A high level of provider engagement can ameliorate or even overcome the common barriers to adoption, including resistance to abandoning the previous charting method, the investment of time required to learn the new system and the initial drop in productivity until users attain proficiency.

Empower decision-makers and reinforce their spheres of influence: Implementing or upgrading an EHR requires thoughtful consideration of the policies and procedures that will govern the use of the system.  There are many stakeholders with a myriad of opinions and often competing interests that can dramatically slow adoption of the EHR. Adhering to a well-defined governance process ensures that the right people are involved at the right time with the right information. The lack of governance allows the wrong people to endlessly debate decisions, ignore standards and often conclude by making the wrong decisions. Leaders must establish strong governance processes that define expectations around adoption of the EHR, involve the right stakeholders to make decisions, establish policies and best practices and ultimately evaluate performance against expectations. Governance must also be flexible enough to evolve over time.

Relentlessly pursue meaningful clinical and financial metrics: The payoff for adopting an EHR comes in the form of clinical and financial outcomes. If results are neither tracked nor realized, the effort is truly a waste of time and money. Our expectations need to be realistic, but it really is the leaders who are accountable for the relentless pursuit of positive outcomes. Leaders must incent the right people to collect, analyze, and report on the data. Similar to engaging clinicians, this requires some finesse. The good news is that clinicians are generally interested in these metrics and may find the numbers compelling enough to change processes enough to impact the outcomes. Identify several key metrics that are easy to collect, work to improve them and then measure again.

Now is the time to create a new leadership agenda to drive EHR adoption and ultimately improve patient care – which is the goal we all share!

Xerox is a sponsor of the Breakaway Thinking series of blog posts. The Breakaway Group is a leader in EHR and Health IT training.