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!!

The Downside of Interoperability

Posted on May 2, 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.

It’s hard to argue that achieving health data interoperability is not important — but it comes with risks. And I’ve seen little discussion of the fact that interoperability may actually increase the chance that a major attack could hit a wide swath of healthcare providers. It might be extreme to suggest that we put off such efforts until we step up the industry’s security status, but the problem shouldn’t be ignored either.

Sure, data interoperability is a critical goal for healthcare providers of all stripes. While there’s room to argue about how it should be accomplished, particularly over whether providers or patients should drive health data management, there’s no question it needs to get done. There’s little doubt that most efforts to coordinate care will fall flat if providers are operating with incomplete information.

And what’s more, with the demand for interoperability baked into MACRA, we pretty much have no choice but to make it happen anyway. To my knowledge, HHS has proposed neither carrot nor stick to convince providers to come on board – nor has it defined “widespread” interoperability to my knowledge — but the agency has to achieve something by 2018, and that means change will come.

That being said, I’m struck by how little industry concern there seems to be about the extent to which interoperability can multiply the possibility of a breach occurring. Unfortunately, security is only as good is the weakest link in the chain, and data sharing increases the length of the chain exponentially. Of course, the risk varies a great deal depending on who or what the data-sharing intermediary is, but the fact remains that a connected network is a connected network.

The problem only gets worse if interoperability is achieved by integrating applications. I’m no software engineer, but I’m pretty sure that the more integrated providers’ infrastructure is, the more vulnerabilities they share. To be fair, hospitals theoretically vet their partners, but that defeats the purpose of universal data sharing, doesn’t it?

And even if every provider in the universal data sharing network practices good security hygiene, they can still get attacked. So it’s not a matter of requiring participants to comply with some network security standard, or meet some certification criteria. Given the massive incentives these have to steal health data (and lock it up with ransomware), nobody can hold out forever.

The bottom line is that I believe we should discuss the matter of security in a fully-connected health data sharing network more often.

Yes, we almost certainly need to press ahead and simply find a way to contain the risks. We simply can’t afford our fragmented healthcare system, and data interoperability offers perhaps the best possible chance of pulling it back together.

But before we plunge into the fray, it only makes sense to stop and consider all of the risks involved and how they should be addressed. After all, universal interconnection exposes a virtually infinite number of potential points of failure to cybercrooks. Let’s put some solutions on the table before it’s too late.

We Share Health Data with Marketing Companies, Why Not with Healthcare Providers? Answer: $$

Posted on November 20, 2015 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.

For those who don’t realize it, your health data is being shared all over the place. Yes, we like to think that our health care data is being stored and protected and that laws like HIPAA keep them safe, but there are plenty of ways to legally share health care data today. In fact, many EHR vendors sell your health care data for a pretty penny.

Of course, many would argue that it’s shared in a way that complies with all the laws and that it’s done in a way that your health record isn’t individually identified. They’re only sharing your health data in a de-identified manner. Others would argue that you can’t deidentify the health data and that there are ways to reidentify the data. I’ll leave those arguments for another post. We’ll also leave the argument over whether all this sharing of health data (usually to marketing, pharma and insurance companies) is safe or not for a future post as well.

What’s undeniable is that health data for pretty much all of us is being bought and sold all over health care. If you don’t believe it’s so, take a minute to look at the work of Deborah Peel from Patient Privacy Rights and learn about her project theDataMap. She’ll be happy to inform you of all the ways data is currently being bought and sold. It’s a really big business.

Here’s where the irony comes in. We have no trouble sharing health data (Yes, even EHR vendors have no problem sharing data and lets be clear that not all EHR vendors share data with these outside companies but mare are sharing data) with marketing companies, payers and pharma companies that are willing to pay for access to that data. Yet, when we ask EHR vendors to share health data with other EHR vendors or with an HIE, they balk at the idea as if it’s impossible. They follow that up with a bunch of lame excuses about HIPAA privacy or the complexity of health care data.

Let’s call a spade a spade. We could pretty easily be interoperable in health care if we wanted to be interoperable. We know that’s true because when the money is there from these third party companies, EHR vendors can share data with them. The problem has been that the money has never been there before for EHR vendors to be motivated enough to make interoperability between EHR vendors possible. In fact, you could easily argue that the money was instructing EHR vendors not to be interoperable.

However, times are changing. Certainly the government pressure to be interoperable is out there, but that doesn’t really motivate the industry if there’s not some financial teeth behind it. Luckily the financial teeth are starting to appear in the form of value based reimbursement and the move away from fee for service. That and other trends are pushing healthcare providers to want interoperable health records as an important part of their business. That’s a far cry from where interoperability was seen as bad for their business.

I heard about this shift first hand recently when I was talking with Micky Tripathi, President & CEO of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative. Micky told me that his organization had recently run a few RFPs for healthcare organizations searching for an EHR. As part of the EHR selection process Micky recounted that interoperability of health records was not only included in the RFP, but was one of the deciding factors in the healthcare organizations’ EHR selections. The same thing would have never been said even 3-5 years ago.

No doubt interoperability of health records has a long way to go, but there are signs that times are changing. The economics are starting to make sense for organizations to embrace interoperablity. That’s a great thing since we know they can do it once the right economic motivations are present.

Flow – A Spoken Word HIE Piece by Ross Martin

Posted on August 27, 2015 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.

Want to see brilliance in action? Check out this spoken word piece about HIEs by Ross Martin.

Here’s the background Ross Martin shares about the piece:

On Monday, August 17th, 2015 I begin a new chapter as Program Director for the new Integrated Care Network initiative at CRISP, Maryland’s health information exchange. We will be providing data to healthcare providers to enhance their care coordination efforts and providing additional care coordination tools to some of those providers who don’t already have these capabilities in place.

To mark the transition, I decided to make a video of this spoken word piece I wrote in 2012 (originally entitled “A Man among Millions”) for my last day consulting for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT while I was working at Deloitte Consulting. This piece explains why I am so passionate about making health information exchange work for all of us.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a difference with an amazing team of collaborators and look forward to providing updates on our progress over the coming months and years.

Words: http://rossmartinmd.blogspot.com/2015/08/flow.html

Element-Centric or Document-Centric Interoperability

Posted on February 17, 2015 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.

A recent Chilmark blog post on national healthcare interoperability mentioned two approaches to healthcare interoperability: element-centric interoperability and document-centric exchange.

As I think back on the thousands of discussions I’ve had on interoperability, these two phrases do a great job describing the different approaches to interoperability. Unfortunately, what I’ve seen is that many people get these two approaches to interoperability mixed up. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that meaningful use’s CDA requirement is an attempt to mix these two concepts into one. It’s one part element data and one part document.

Personally, I think we should be attacking one approach or the other. Trying to mix the two causes issues and confusion for those involved. The biggest problem with mixing the two is managing people’s perception. Once doctors get a small slice of cake, they want the rest of it too. So, it’s very unsatisfying to only get part of it.

Document-Centric Exchange
The argument for document-centric exchange of healthcare data is a good one. There are many parts of the patient record that can’t really be slimmed down into a nice element-centric format. Plus, there’s a wide variation in how and what various doctors document. So, the document format provides the ultimate in flexibility when it comes to outputting and sharing this data with another provider.

Those who are against document-centric exchange highlight that this is really just a modernization of the fax machine. If all we’re doing is exchanging documents, then that’s basically replicating what we’ve been doing for years with the fax machine. Plus, they highlight the fact that you can’t incorporate any of the granular data elements from the documents into the chart for any sort of clinical decision support. It might say your allergies on the document, but the EHR won’t know about those allergies if it’s stored on a document you received from another system.

While certainly not ideal, document-centric exchange can still be a nice improvement over the fax machine. In the fax world, there was still a lot of people required to get the documents faxed over to another provider. In the document-centric exchange world this could happen in real time with little to no interaction from the provider or their staff. The fact that this is possible is exciting and worrisome to many people. However, it would facilitate getting the right information (even if in document form) to the right people at the right time.

Element-Centric Exchange
We all know that the nirvana of health information exchange is element-centric exchange. In this exchange, your entire health record is available along with a series of meta data which tells the receiving system what each data element represents. This solves the allergy problem mentioned above since in an element-centric exchange the allergy would be stored in a specific field which notes it as an allergy and the receiving system could process that element and include it in their system as if it was entered natively.

This last line scares many people when it comes to element-centric exchange. Their fear is that the information coming from an external system will not be trustworthy enough for them to include in their system. What if they receive the data from an external system and it’s wrong. This could cause them to make an incorrect decision. This fear is important to understand and we need our systems to take this into account. There are a lot of ways to solve this problem starting with special notation about where the information was obtained so that the provider can evaluate that information based on the trustworthiness of the source. As doctors often do today with outside information about a patient, they have to trust but verify the information. If it says No Known Drug Allergy, the doctor or other medical staff can verify that information with the patient.

The other major challenge with element-centric exchange is that medical information is really complex. Trying to narrow a record down to specific elements is a real challenge. It’s taken us this long to get element-centric exchange of prescription information. We’re getting pretty close there and prescriptions are relatively easy in the healthcare information world. We’re still working on labs and lab results and anyone whose worked on those interfaces understand why it’s so hard to do element-centric exchange of health information.

This doesn’t even address the challenge of processing these elements and inputting them into a new system. It’s one thing to export the data out of the source system in an element-centric format. It’s an even bigger challenge to take that outputted document and make sure it imports properly into the destination system. Now we’re talking about not only knowing which element should go where, but also the integrity and format of the data in that field. Take something as simple as a date and see the various formats which all say the same thing: 2/17/15, 2/17/2015, 02/17/2015, February 17 2015, Feb 17 2015, 17/2/2015 etc.

Where Is This Heading?
As I look into the future of interoperability, I think we’ll see both types of exchange. Document-centric exchange will continue with things like Direct Project. I also love these initiatives, because they’re connecting the end points. Regardless of what type of exchange you do, you need to trust and verify who is who in the system so that you’re sending the information to the right place. Even if document exchange using Direct isn’t the end all be all, it’s a step in a good direction. Plus, once you’re able to send your documents using direct, why couldn’t an HIE of sorts receive all of your documents? We’re still very early in the process of what Direct could become in the document-centric exchange world.

I think we have a long ways to go to really do element-centric exchange well. One challenge I see in the current marketplace is that companies, organization, and our government are trying to bite off more than they can chew. They are trying to make the entire patient chart available for an element-centric exchange. Given the current environment, I believe this is a failed strategy as is illustrated by the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government has spent on this goal.

I look forward to the day when I see some more reasonable approaches to element-centric exchange which understand the realities and complexities associated with the challenge. This reminds me of many organizations’ approach to big data. So many organizations have spent millions on these massive enterprise data warehouses which have yet to provide any value to the organization. However, lately we’ve seen a move towards small data that’s tied directly to results. I’d like to see a similar move in the element-centric exchange world. Stop trying to do element based exchange with the entire health record. Instead, let’s focus our efforts on a smaller set of meaningful elements that we can reasonable exchange.

While the idea of document-centric exchange and element-centric exchange simplify the challenge, I think it’s a great framework for understanding healthcare interoperability. Both have their pros and cons so it’s important to understand which approach you want to take. Mixing the two often leaves you with the problems of both worlds.

6 Healthcare Interoperability Myths

Posted on February 9, 2015 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.

With my new fascination with healthcare interoperability, I’m drawn to anything and everything which looks at the successes and challenges associated with it. So, it was no surprised that I was intrigued by this whitepaper that looks at the 6 Healthcare Interoperability Myths.

For those who don’t want to download the whitepaper for all the nitty gritty details, here are the 6 myths:

  1. One Size Fits All
  2. There Is One Standard to Live By
  3. I Can Only “Talk” to Providers on the Same EHR as Mine
  4. If I Give Up Control of My Data, I’ll Lose Patients
  5. Hospitals Lead in Interoperability
  6. Interoperability Doesn’t Really “Do” Anything. It’s Just a Fad like HMOs in the 90s

You can read the whole whitepaper if you want to read all the details about each myth.

The first two hit home to me and remind me of my post about achieving continuous healthcare interoperability. I really think that the idea of every health IT vendor “interpreting” the standard differently is an important concept that needs to be dealt with if we want to see healthcare interoperability happen.

Another concept I’ve been chewing on is whether everyone believes that healthcare interoperability is the right path forward. The above mentioned whitepaper starts off with a strong statement that, “It’s no tall tale. Yes. We need interoperability.” While this is something I believe strongly, I’m not sure that everyone in healthcare agrees.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Do we all want healthcare interoperability or are there are a lot of people out there that aren’t sure if healthcare interoperability is the right way forward?

The Many Faces and Facets of EHR Interoperability

Posted on December 5, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Thanh Tran, CEO, Zoeticx, Inc.
Thanh Tran, CEO, Zoeticx
Interoperability is the ability to make sub-systems and organizations work together (inter-operate) for attainment of a common goal. In healthcare, implementation and connection of EHR systems and the data they collect allows for us to impact patient care to become a value-driven one for all patients.

The opposite of interoperability is not the lack of connecting EHR systems, but instead the failure of healthcare systems and organizations to collaborate in an efficient, effective, safe and consistent way to support patient care. To better understand the ecosystem of healthcare, we need to look at this redefined concept of interoperability in greater depth while also considering the needs of various stakeholders and their views of the system.

Care Providers Want Care Continuum

Care Providers are not a single entity whose needs can be fulfilled with a single solution. The focus of all providers is on the patient care continuum and their role in it. The lack of EHR interoperability is fundamentally defined as the inability to share patient medical records across this continuum.

Each provider brings a unique view and delivers specialized, customized care to the patient over different time periods. The care delivered by each provider is interdependent on other providers taking care of the patient for a current encounter. To deliver care, healthcare providers must have the ability to access not only summary information about a patient, or the outcome of a prior intervention, but also be able to drill down into the specific data where they can provide meaning and insight for the patient and the rest of the care team.

Collaborative healthcare, care delivered by specialized and focus teams of providers, has become standard in medicine. Access to the information and meaning provided by various providers is essential. It must be delivered in near time, to the proper provider on the team.

For care providers it is about the ability to see the whole care spectrum; to drill into details with on-demand and near time access.

IT Pros Need Information Flow

With healthcare IT pros, interoperability begins with patient medical information flow.  As the patient transits through healthcare facilities, they are treated by different care providers using different systems. Care providers depend on the above medical flow to ensure effective and quality care delivery. Proprietary patient medical records from diverse EHR systems prohibit that flow, leaving healthcare IT crippled, along with care providers, in enabling a seamless workflow across the system.

Healthcare IT organizations impacted by merger and acquisition face the lack of EHR interoperability under another major challenge, IT integration of disparate EHR systems. Rip and replace is a costly solution to achieving integration and overcoming EHR interoperability among diverse EHR systems.

Furthermore, healthcare IT faces the continued demand for solutions to patient care effectiveness, efficiency and improving patient care quality. However, healthcare IT application developers have been bogged down by the lack of EHR interoperability as well. The EHR agnostic environment is required to seal off applications from the EHR infrastructure. Without this layer, the development would be focused on addressing infrastructure challenges instead of innovative solutions for care providers.

As any other IT organization, healthcare IT faces the challenge of doing more with less. EHR systems share a number of characteristics as its siblings, enterprise applications from other IT industries. EHR systems form the backbone of healthcare systems, but they are also complex, slow to react to care providers’ requirements and costly to maintain. That cost is already in place, leaving healthcare IT with a smaller budget to address the lack of interoperability. Any solutions to EHR interoperability must be low total cost of ownership, lightweight to deploy and portable to a variety of healthcare IT applications.

Administrators Require Compliance and Data Protection

Healthcare administration is charged with complying with patient privacy requirements (HIPAA). Solutions for EHR interoperability with additional copies of patient medical records are not optimal since they represent additional compliance activities and agreements (such as Data Service Agreement) between the data source and destination. These additional compliance activities represent complexity, cost and risk of non-compliance that would result in potential penalties, legal and IT maintenance costs. For healthcare administration, simplicity and practicability of the solution are critical.

Patients Suffer Most

The greatest impact to all stakeholders in EHR interoperability is on the patient. Being at the center of the healthcare delivery model, patients must be brought into the interoperability equation. A vital component for gaining control of increasing healthcare expenditures is engagement of patients.

Not only do we need patient engagement, but patients are demanding security and control over who accesses their medical data. These two are not independent, but are intimately connected. Without control and understanding of who accesses the data, patients will lose trust in the system leading to disengagement and disempowerment.

Patient control over medical record access must be dynamic, secure and able to occur in near time. Above all, patients have full control of who has the full access of their medical records. Current concepts of Opt-In or Opt-Out choice for medical data duplication does not address these dynamic and secure requirements and give patients the control of who has access.

The Optimal EHR Interoperability Solution

EHR systems are database oriented. To address EHR interoperability by creating an additional centralized database layer is not an optimal approach, let alone the failure to satisfy the stakeholders impacted.

The next wave of healthcare challenges needs to be addressed by innovative applications aimed at supporting care providers. The best approach is a middleware infrastructure, supporting open architecture for healthcare, capable of performing data switching and value added data redistribution capabilities from various EHR systems. The middleware solution must be lightweight, embedded as part of healthcare applications supporting on-demand, near time access to diverse EHR systems. It is where interoperability must be implemented.

Thanh Tran is CEO of Zoeticx, Inc., a medical software company located in San Jose, CA. He is a 20 year veteran of Silicon Valley’s IT industry and has held executive positions at many leading software companies. Zoeticx offers a middleware infrastructure supporting on-demand, near time access to diverse EHR systems.

Healthcare Interoperability Series Outline

Posted on November 7, 2014 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.

Interoperability is one of the major priorities of ONC. Plus, I hear many doctors complaining that their EHR doesn’t live up to its potential because the EHR is not interoperable. I personally believe that healthcare would benefit immeasurably from interoperable healthcare records. The problem is that healthcare interoperability is a really hard nut to crack

With that in mind, I’ve decided to do a series of blog posts highlighting some of the many challenges and issues with healthcare interoperability. Hopefully this will provide a deeper dive into what’s really happening with healthcare interoperability, what’s holding us back from interoperability and some ideas for how we can finally achieve interoperable healthcare records.

As I started thinking through the subject of Healthcare Interoperability, here are some of the topics, challenges, issues, discussions, that are worth including in the series:

  • Interoperability Benefits
  • Interoperability Risks
  • Unique Identifier (Patient Identification)
  • Data Standards
  • Government vs Vendor vs Healthcare Organization Efforts and Motivations
  • When Should You Share The Data and When Not?
  • Major Complexities (Minors, Mental Health, etc)
  • Business Model

I think this is a good start, but I’m pretty sure this list is not comprehensive. I’d love to hear from readers about other issues, topics, questions, discussion points, barriers, etc to healthcare interoperability that I should include in this discussion. If you have some insights into any of these topics, I’d love to hear it as well. Hopefully we can contribute to a real understanding of healthcare interoperability.

Eyes Wide Shut – Patient Engagement Pitfalls Prior to Meaningful Use Reporting Period

Posted on June 30, 2014 I Written By

Mandi Bishop is a hardcore health data geek with a Master's in English and a passion for big data analytics, which she brings to her role as Dell Health’s Analytics Solutions Lead. She fell in love with her PCjr at 9 when she learned to program in BASIC. Individual accountability zealot, patient engagement advocate, innovation lover and ceaseless dreamer. Relentless in pursuit of answers to the question: "How do we GET there from here?" More byte-sized commentary on Twitter: @MandiBPro.

July 1, 2015 – the start of the Meaningful Use Stage 1 Year 2 reporting period for the hospital facilities within this provider integrated delivery network (IDN). The day the 50% online access measure gets real. The day the inpatient summary CCDA MUST be made available online within 36 hours of discharge. The day we must overcome a steady 65% patient portal decline rate.

A quick recap for those who haven’t followed this series (and refresher for those who have): this IDN has multiple hospital facilities, primary care, and specialty practices, on disparate EMRs, all connecting to an HIE and one enterprise patient portal. There are 8 primary EMRs and more than 20 distinct patient identification (MRN) pools. And many entities within this IDN are attempting to attest to Meaningful Use Stage 2 this year.

For the purposes of this post, I’m ignoring CMS and the ONC’s new proposed rule that would, if adopted, allow entities to attest to Meaningful Use Stage 1 OR 2 measures, using 2011 OR 2014 CEHRT (or some combination thereof). Even if the proposed rule were sensible, it came too late for the hospitals which must start their reporting period in the third calendar quarter of 2014 in order to complete before the start of the fiscal year on October 1. For this IDN, the proposed rule isn’t changing anything.

Believe me, I would have welcomed change.

The purpose of the so-called “patient engagement” core measures is just that: engage patients in their healthcare, and liberate the data so that patients are empowered to have meaningful conversations with their providers, and to make informed health decisions. The intent is a good one. The result of releasing the EMR’s compilation of chart data to recently-discharged patients may not be.

I answered the phone on a Saturday, while standing in the middle of a shopping mall with my 12 year-old daughter, to discover a distraught man and one of my help desk representatives on the line. The man’s wife had been recently released from the hospital; they had been provided patient portal access to receive and review her records, and they were bewildered by the information given. The medications listed on the document were not the same as those his wife regularly takes, the lab section did not have any context provided for why the tests were ordered or what the results mean, there were a number of lab results missing that he knew had been performed, and the problems list did not seem to have any correlation to the diagnoses provided for the encounter.

Just the kind of call an IT geek wants to receive.

How do you explain to an 84 year-old man that his wife’s inpatient summary record contains only a snapshot of the information that was captured during that specific hospital encounter, by resources at each point in the patient experience, with widely-varied roles and educational backgrounds, with varied attention to detail, and only a vague awareness of how that information would then be pulled together and presented by technology that was built to meet the bare minimum standards for perfect-world test scenarios required by government mandates?

How do you tell him that the lab results are only what was available at time of discharge, not the pathology reports that had to be sent out for analysis and would not come back in time to meet the 36-hour deadline?

How do you tell him that the reasons there are so many discrepancies between what he sees on the document and what is available on the full chart are data entry errors, new workflow processes that have not yet been widely adopted by each member of the care team, and technical differences between EMRs in the interpretation of the IHE’s XML standards for how these CCDA documents were to be created?

EMR vendors have responded to that last question with, “If you use our tethered portal, you won’t have that problem. Our portal can present the data from our CCDA just fine.” But this doesn’t take into account the patient experience. As a consumer, I ask you: would you use online banking if you had to sign on to a different website, with a different username and password, for each account within the same bank? Why should it be acceptable for managing health information online to be less convenient than managing financial information?

How do hospital clinical and IT staff navigate this increasingly-frequent scenario that is occurring: explaining the data that patients now see?

I’m working hard to establish a clear delineation between answering technical and clinical questions, because I am not – by any stretch of the imagination – a clinician. I can explain deviations in the records presentation, I can explain the data that is and is not available – and why (which is NOT generally well-received), and I can explain the logical processes for patients to get their clinical questions answered.

Solving the other half of this equation – clinicians who understand the technical nuances which have become patient-facing, and who incorporate that knowledge into regular patient engagement to insure patients understand the limitations of their newly-liberated data – proves more challenging. In order to engage patients in the way the CMS Meaningful Use program mandates, have we effectively created a new hybrid role requirement for our healthcare providers?

And what fresh new hell have we created for some patients who seek wisdom from all this information they’ve been given?

Caveat – if you’re reading this, it’s likely you’re not the kind of patient who needs much explaining. You’re likely to do your own research on the data that’s presented on your CCDA outputs, and you have the context of the entire Meaningful Use initiative to understand why information is presented the way it is. But think – can your grandma read it and understand it on HER own?

This Geek Girl’s Singing: HIMSS 14 Social Media Finale

Posted on March 14, 2014 I Written By

Mandi Bishop is a hardcore health data geek with a Master's in English and a passion for big data analytics, which she brings to her role as Dell Health’s Analytics Solutions Lead. She fell in love with her PCjr at 9 when she learned to program in BASIC. Individual accountability zealot, patient engagement advocate, innovation lover and ceaseless dreamer. Relentless in pursuit of answers to the question: "How do we GET there from here?" More byte-sized commentary on Twitter: @MandiBPro.

As one of the inaugural crop of HIMSS Social Media Ambassadors, a second-generation native Floridian, and a former Orlando resident, it is my sworn duty to summarize, recap, and perhaps satirize the last group of Blog Carnival posts, to metaphorically sing the HIMSS opera finale. And you folks submitted some doozies! I’m very grateful to the HIMSS (@HIMSS) and SHIFT Communications (@SHIFTComm) team for providing me with links to all entries. Y’all have been BUSY!

A man after my own heart, and a frequent #HITsm participant who weathers harsh criticism with witty aplomb: Dan Haley’s (from athenahealth, @DanHaley5) piece on 3 Takeaways From HIMSS – Policy And Otherwise caught my attention with the line, “Regulators are from Mars…” He stole my favorite blog entry prize with the line: “Orlando is magical when you are a kid. Kids don’t attend HIMSS.”

First-time attendee Jeffrey Ting (from Systems Made Simple) outlined his experiences with some of my favorite topics in his piece, HIMSS Reflections By A First-Time Attendee: HIEs and interoperability. I agree with him: the Interoperability Showcase’s “Health Story” exhibit was one of the best presentations of the whole conference.

Dr. Geeta Nayyar’s perspective as a board member of HIMSS and CMIO for PatientPoint gave her a unique vantage point for her post, HIMSS 14: A Truly Inspiring Event. Take note, HIMSS conference planners – your monumental efforts were recognized, as was the monumental spirit of the closing keynote speaker, Erik Weihenmayer.

HIMSS Twitter recaps permeated the blogosphere, with my favorite being the inimitable Chuck Webster’s (@wareflo) HIMSS14 Turned It Up To 11 On And Off-Line!. Chuck also periodically provided trend analysis results of year-over-year #HIMSS hashtag traffic for each period of the conference, complete with memes for particular shapes: Loch Ness monster humped-back, familiar faces of frequent tweeters.

Health IT guru Brian Ahier’s (@ahier) wrapped up the “Best In Show” of HIMSS Blog Carnival , complete with Slideshare visuals awarding Ed Parks of Athenahealth “Best Presentation” and providing an excellent summation of must-read posts.

Interoperability was one of the most prevalent themes of HIMSS, and a plethora of posts discussing the healthcare industry’s progress on the path to Dr. Doug Fridsma’s (@Fridsma) High Jump Of Interoperability (Semantic-Level) were submitted to the Blog Carnival. Notable standouts included: Shifting to a Culture of Interoperability by Rick Swanson from Deloitte, and Dr. Summarlan Kahlon’s (of Relay Health), Diagnosis: A Productive HIMSS 2014, which posited that, “this year’s conference was the first one which convinced me that real, seamless patient-level interoperability is beginning to happen at scale.”

And who could forget about patient engagement, the belle of the HIMSS ball? Telehealth encounters, mobile health apps and implications, patient portals, and the Connected Patient Gallery dominated the social media conversation. Carolyn Fishman from DICOM Grid called it, HIMSS 2014: The Year of the Patient, and discussed trepidation patients feel about portal technologies infringing on face-time.

Quantified-self wearable-tech offered engagement opportunities, as well. Having won one such gadget herself, Jennifer Dennard (@SmyrnaGirl) gave props to organizations like Patientco and Nuance for their use (and planned use) of wearable tech in support of employee wellness programs, and posited on the applications of such tech in the monitoring and treatment of chronic disease in her piece, Watching for Wearables at HIMSS14.

Finally, if you’re able to read Lisa Reichard’s (from Billians Health Data) @billians) highlights piece,Top 10 Tales and Takeaways, without busting out into Beatles tunes, you probably wouldn’t have had nearly as much fun as she and I did at HISTalkapalooza, dancing to Ross Martin’s smooth parodies. You also probably don’t have your co-workers frantically purchasing noise-canceling headphones.

I did say I’d be singing to bring HIMSS to a virtual close.

Can’t wait to get back to the metaphorical microphone for HIMSS 2015 in Chicago!

#HIMSS14 Day 1 – Interoperability, HIE and Social Media

Posted on February 24, 2014 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.

Well, this is technically my second or third day, but this is the first official day of HIMSS. It’s a mad house like you can imagine and the vendor hall is as big as you’d expect. You need about 3 weeks to go through it. I actually decided to do a walking meeting with someone and we basically walked the whole exhibit floor twice. Luckily, the conversation was good and we dove into some interesting topics. I also told them about my future mobile strategy for Healthcare Scene. She liked it. Hopefully I can roll it out in the next few months.

My day happened to start off with a lot of discussion on interoperability and HIE with MAeHC and then Orion Health. I think it’s really interesting to see the progress we’ve made when it comes to interoperability and HIE, but I also found it interesting that Micky Tripathi from MAeHC still described healthcare interoperability as being in its infancy. I largely agree with him and it’s really too bad. Although, it was also interesting to compare that to Orion Health talking about how they’ve proven that HIE can work. Plus, they also noted something I’ve written multiple times: Private HIEs are growing faster than the Public HIEs.

I’m still really torn on the business model for interoperability and HIEs. I don’t see a clear model in most situations. I even saw one tweet yesterday that talked about taxing on a per patient basis to pay for the HIE. I heard that in NY they’re actually literally working on a tax to fund it. However, I really think that calling it a per patient tax is a really bad way to describe the funding. I’ll certainly be covering more of my interoperability and HIE discussions in the future. Watch for those blog posts in the coming weeks.

I also did a lot of social media talk today. Together with Shahid Shah and Cari McLean we had a discussion about Social Media and Influence. It was great to see so many friendly faces in the audience. I feel lucky every chance I get to hear Shahid talk. He’s really good at reframing things in interesting ways. Plus, Cari has a unique perspective to offer from her perch on top of the HIMSS Social Media tower. I previously noted that social media has just become an integral part of HIMSS. What’s interesting is that most of the companies at HIMSS haven’t created it as an integral part of their company. Many are still learning, but it’s great to see them learn. I hope many will attend the Health IT Marketing and PR Conference where we dive in a lot deeper on these topics.

As I said to someone today, social media can provide value to every company, but not every company should do social media. Some companies aren’t ready to commit to doing social media the right way. Other companies aren’t ready to be that open and transparent. Social media is just one tool in the kit. Although, it’s a really powerful one if used properly. I’ve also been touched by the power of social media to help individuals. Social media has connected me to people that would have no doubt been back at their rooms or in the corner of the event wondering why they were there, but instead they’re out having a good time and connecting with other interesting people.

There you go. I talked about a number of other things today, but I’ll cover that over the weeks and months ahead. For now I’m calling my day today HIMSS HIE, Interoperability and Social Media day.

Be sure to also check out my #HIMSS14 Twitter Roundup and my post on Hospital EMR and EHR about the real cause of hospital readmissions. I think the later post will be a post I reference over and over as people continue to talk about solutions that reduce hospital readmissions.