My very first meeting with a vendor at HIMSS was with NoMoreClipboard. I’d known of them for quite a while, but never really took them seriously before. After meeting with them, I was really impressed with what they’re trying to do in the PHR space. I was particularly interested in them since they have a PHR implementation in a university health center, but they go well beyond that.

In fact, I think the greatest potential for NoMoreClipboard is likely in partnerships with smart EMR vendors that want to integrate with a great PHR rather than putting up some half baked piece of junk software that they call a PHR. Yes, if you’re an EMR vendor you likely know what I’m talking about. It’s really hard to focus on creating a great EMR software and a great PHR software. Oh yes, and you have to do a Practice Management system too. It’s no wonder that PHR often gets set to the side.

That’s why it makes so much sense for smart EMR vendors to become channel partners with someone like NoMoreClipboard. Then, they can offer their users a PHR without having to build all of the features in house. Plus, NoMoreClipboard seems to have a nice set of API’s available so it almost seems like it is your PHR and not a third party PHR.

Sure, this has been around for a while, but I think that it’s taken a while for NoMoreClipboard to really build out the tools and features for doing this type of integration. The other key is that integrating with a PHR like NoMoreClipboard can also satisfy a number of the Meaningful Use requirements if it’s done right.

Of course, I had to also ask them what their take was on their “competitors” Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault. They are the 2 behemoths in the PHR space and so the question was certainly no surprise. What was interesting was NoMoreClipboard’s response to competition. They’ve basically decided to partner with them and integrate NoMoreClipboard with Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault. Yep, that’s right. You can import and export between the three PHR systems. That’s pretty unique if I do say so myself.

Now I’m not saying that NoMoreClipboard is perfect. There’s plenty they still have to work on, but I was impressed how far they’ve come since I last looked at them.

I’d love to here what other EMR vendors are doing as far as providing their users the PHR capability. Are you building your own or integrating with some other PHR vendor?

Another interesting story from EMRUpdate talking about how one EMR vendor, Medtuity EMR, took 3 locations and tied their EMRs together. However, they didn’t just do one centralized database accessed from each location. Instead, they essentially built patient data interoperability between the 3 locations. Check it out:

We just linked 3 sites in October. The docs described what they wanted, including the speed of a separate SQL Server in each facility. They also had a billing office (as the center or hub). They previously used a single server with Remote Desktop as the means of communicating with a central server. They were not entirely happy with that arrangement and so wanted to embark on a SQL Server in each facility. Additionally, they did not want all encounters synched to all facilities daily. Instead, the 3 offices synch to the billing office once daily. Pt demographics get synched from that hub outward to all offices daily just in case a pt should visit another office.

So the underlying theme was speed– each office has its own server; pt encounters originating there are stored there + at the billing office, but pt demographics are synched to the hub and from there back to all 3 facilities. It’s all automated. If a pt visits a different facility than the original, the demographics are already at that alternate site and so the additional encounters can be synch with a button press to insure contemporaneous info.

What they did not want is to have all encounters stored at each site because there is not enough cross visiting among docs to warrant it, but they did want to be able to transfer encounters quickly when the need arose.

Certainly, this problem is much easier since all 3 locations used the same EMR software. However, it seems like there’s something that can be learned from this story in regards to broader interoperability of EMR software.

Healthcare data sharing is one of the hottest topics when talking about the importance of EMR software. Some people call it healthcare data portability. One of the problems I have with these discussions is that everyone has different goals for why they want to share the information. Here’s a partial list of reasons people may want to share healthcare data between various EMR respositories (in no particular order):

• Clinical data sharing for reimbursement purposes
• Quality data sharing for broader research goals
• Quality data sharing to meet ARRA requirements/reimbursement
• Data shared for continuity of care between providers

There are probably other reasons to have EMR software be able to share clinical data. However, you get the basic point. There are a lot of reasons why people want the ability to share healthcare related data from an EMR. One problem in the discussion of EMR data portability is that the conversation often gets convoluted when clear lines aren’t drawn for why the EMR data is being shared. Kind of reminds me of what it’s like to discuss EMR and not differentiate between a hospital EMR and ambulatory EMR. There are important similarities, but there are also important differences which always seem to confuse the discussion.

I’m always sad when I come across an EMR implementation that doesn’t have an interface between their EMR and their lab. I can appreciate someone having just implemented an EMR not having a lab interface. However, it should be one of the first things on your list to implement. It’s such a great compliment to your EMR software.

First thing I must suggest is that you get a bi-directional lab interface if at all possible. One way lab interfaces can work, but do take more management to make it work right.

Why Get a Lab Interface with Your EMR?
Lab interfaces are so seamless. The order is made in the EMR and it’s automatically is sent to the lab. Talk about removing a lot of the possibilities for error. In our case, we have an in house lab and so this saves a ton of time for the lab rat tech as well. No more data entry into the Lab’s LIS system. As a side note, we also use the lab order in our EMR to print out the labels for the specimen. This is an unbelievable time saver and much more accurate. Small things like this are just another hard to calculate benefit to an EMR.

The largest benefit to a lab interface is receiving the results back electronically. Compare this to receiving a paper copy of the lab results. Often this paper copy is sent to a fax machine and then the hunt begins to get that result to the right paper chart/person. The time savings here are apparent. With a lab interface, you no longer have to file the lab results in the paper chart (or scan them into your EMR). The results are automatically available in the EMR and routed to the ordering provider. They can be signed electronically and no one has to then go back and refile the chart.

What’s even more important is that with the lab interface all of those lab results are now stored in discrete values. Storing the lab results this way means that you can graph lab results over time, do studies on lab results across your patient population, and eventually may be needed to satisfy the government and insurance reporting requirements.

Cost of a Lab Interface
Many people are often surprised to find out that there’s sometimes a cost associated with implementing a lab interface. In fact, there could be multiple costs involved.

The costs depend a lot upon your EMR vendor and the lab with which you’d like to interface. Some EMR vendors will offer a lab interface for free (or part of the standard cost of the EMR) while others will charge. The same is true for labs. However, more labs are willing to offer their interface for free. Often that just requires the right negotiating skills. If you’re a large customer of that lab, then if you talk to the right people you can usually get the interface for free. Labs are easier to negotiate with since a lab interface benefits the lab as well. $5,000 seems like the standard charge (from what I’ve seen) for most interfaces. Yes, that’s possibly $5,000 to your EMR vendor and another $5,000 to your lab.

When implementing an EMR you are very likely to also implement an EMR interface. The most common type of EMR interface is with your lab, but you might also have an interface with radiology, pharmacy, vital machines, ekg machines, spirometry machines, etc. The fact is that you are very likely to run into an interface in the process of implementing an EHR.

Interfaces with your EMR software are your very best friends, but also can be incredibly frustrating. Sounds a lot like my children. Here’s a short list of ways that EMR interfaces are like kids:

• Some people just know they want one, but others debate getting one all together. In the end, most people end up with one.
• They often will cost to implement and also cost (time if nothing else) to maintain.
• A lot of time is spent at the beginning taking care of the interface and making sure that it’s working properly.
• Most people love them and can’t imagine life without them.
• When they work your life is wonderful, when they don’t you wonder why you got one in the first place.
• They cause you serious headaches and usually those headaches happen at the very worst times.

Ok, so it’s not a perfect analogy, but I think this feeling about interfaces is shared by most people involved in them.  All of this said, I think our interface with our lab is one of the best reasons to use an EMR.  It’s so seamless and beautiful to see the orders get sent and the results returned with the lab signed off electronically.

If you’ve been reading my blog, then you know that I’ve started a pretty interesting and complicated discussion about EHR and EMR sharing of patient data. I first posted an example of sharing data with an EHR and then followed it up with some challenges associated with sharing of EHR data.

In my interoperability challenges post, Bjorn from Health Xcel posted a lengthy comment discussing some challenges of data sharing and made the case for RHIO (Regional Health Information Organizations) and HIE (Health Information Exchanges) as a means for sharing patient data between hospitals and doctors offices.

His comment was so well done that I’m copying it below for more people to see and read it. I don’t personally agree with everything that was said. I also think he didn’t address the funding challenges of RHIO and the policy problems. Maybe Bjorn will return with some comments on how those might work. Enjoy Bjorn’s take on RHIO and HIE (emphasis added):

I think Google Health and MS HealthVault will be good awareness catalysts for the quiet e-health revolution that is taking place. However, I do not think the defining change we need lies with their business model. A patient-centric model sounds good but we’d be assuming that everyone has an account with one of these systems and that they know how to use them. How will the data about a patient that is stored in a hospital be reconciled with Google Health? Which of course leads to interoperability concerns.

Web 2.0 does not lend itself to creating a reliable e-health solution either as service A is dependent on service B and if service B is down, service A won’t function and has no power to fix it by their own volition.

I think so far the industry, aka hospitals, has been trying to solve the problem by adding a patient interface to large hospital systems so patients can see their records. It’s also a step in the right direction but again it is not the golden calf we are looking for.

So what is the ideal system of the future?
A patient should be able to enter any hospital in the world, conscious or unconscious, and the hospital should have all the information they need about the patient to administer correct treatment and to notify the right people.

How do we do this?
I am a believer in the HIE / RHIO model. In the [not too distant] future, hospitals should concern themselves with healing people and not how to spend their IT budget. Hospitals, insurance agencies, smaller providers and patients will all be connected to an RHIO (Region Health Information Organization) where they will have a wealth of services; either to enter sensitive data or to discover data about one patient or the entire population. RHIOs will be connected to a larger e-health backbone consisting of HIEs that are the great data aggregators of the world. RHIOs would be responsible for conforming to regional regulations. This model is similar to how we connect to the Internet today. We don’t jack directly into one of the main Internet hubs of the world but go through an ISP that can provide us with an email address, a web page AND connect us to the rest of the world.

HIEs and RHIOs run on a software platform where health IT vendors can deploy their software applications. Some required components:

- User discovery
o Any one node on the system should be able to query the other nodes to find a user and her data
- Portable user
o This goes with the first bullet point in that a user should be able to log in to the system anywhere in the world and even though the user does not have an account with the RHIO she is directly interfacing with, RHIO should know how to authenticate her correctly
- Interoperability / Standards / Data aggregation and discovery
o The key to any successful e-health venture. Services need to be able to talk to each other. It shouldn’t matter whether the services reside within the same application or in different parts of the world. I believe the semantic web (web 3.0) will be a key facilitator of making this possible.
- Federated security
o If we take the previous examples of Google Health and MS HealthVault, they would all have to have their own security scheme and user authentication and access control. Multiply that by a dozen and suddenly a lot of money is being spent on recreating the wheel over and over. We need a unified system for this.
- Updates
o All applications should reside server side and users should have thin-client access only. When the applications are being updated, it should happen across the board overnight. If something goes wrong, there should be a way to undo the upgrade without hospitals or anyone else having to do anything.
- Data sharing
o The patient-centric network will definitely happen as users become more educated. But hospitals still need to be able to have access to patient data even though they have not been granted access, in case of emergency.

Ok, this suddenly got really long ;-) There is a lot of work to do for everyone in order to get true e-health solutions to work. The biggest obstacles aren’t technical but political and also the willingness to adopt a new way of interfacing with your health.

Cheers
bjorn

In my recent post about hosted EHR versus client server EHR Dr. Rowley commented on the various scenarios that could occur for sharing a patient record. The comment was so worthwhile that I wanted to make it it’s own blog post and add a few comments of my own. Here’s Dr. Rowley’s comments on data sharing scenarios with various EHR:

Whether you are an enthusiast of free, hosted, web-based EMRs, or an enthusiast of local client/server installations (or a wait-and-see skeptic), the question of data sharing is one that is important to us all.

Maybe the discussion can be best moved forward by considering a real-life scenario and examining how data sharing can occur in different situations. Let’s say that I am the Family Practitioner taking care of Mr. Chest-Hurts, who just was released from the hospital after a heart attack, and you are the cardiologist who saw him there. Mr. Chest-Hurts is in my office for post-hospital follow up, wants a referral to see you as an outpatient, had numerous tests done (which I don’t have in my records when I see him), states that you changed several of his medications on discharge and is confused as to which ones to take (and did not bring them with him for his visit). I just did some lab test and found his cholesterol to be not-quite-at-target. Let us assume that the referral is a simple administrative matter that happens anyway. What is important for patient care here is for us to share our records with each other – we need to reconcile his meds lists, you need the labs I just got, I need the cath report from the hospitalization, etc. Now let’s explore how we share data, given different scenarios:

1. Neither of us have EMRs; we both use paper charts. In this case (the traditional one in medicine), we copy and fax information to each other from our charts. We take each other’s faxes and make them permanent parts of our own separate charts.
2. I have a client/server EMR and you use paper charts. I generate a fax to you from my EMR, which you place in your paper record. You fax records to me, which I scan and import into my EMR.
3. I have Practice Fusion, and you use paper charts. Several options exist here: (a) I can generate a fax to you, like scenario #2 above; or (b) you sign in to Practice Fusion (after all, it’s free, and with “Live in Five” provisioning, you will be able to have access almost immediately). You can then print out what you might need, for inclusion into your own paper chart.
4. We each have client/server EMRs (maybe the same one, or maybe different). Like with paper, we each have separate chart records, and there is no unified patient identifier. A few options exist here: (a) we each have our systems fax out the desired records to each other, and import the data as scanned documents into our separate charts; (b) we each output a Continuity of Care Record (CCR), and somehow push it to each other. There are some efforts (like Relay Health, for example) who are trying to build an infrastructure to be an intermediary for CCRs – I push out a CCR and post it to Relay Health, and you look there and import the CCR directly into your EMR. This need to build a connection between local installs is a challenge (weakness, in my view) of local client/server systems, and will take effort and money to build. There is a lot of activity here.
5. I have Practice Fusion and you have a local client/server EMR. Several options can take place: (a) we each fax our information to each other; (b) we exchange CCRs (like #4 above); (c) I give you access to Mr. Chest-Hurts’ chart (like #3 above), so that you can see the record, and copy-and-paste between the systems if desired.
6. We each have Practice Fusion. We can share the same record on the same patient, and with the right permissions, can see each other’s notes, shared lab values, meds lists, etc. No uploading or downloading of CCRs required. No faxing needed. This is the most compelling scenario.

Pardon my long-windedness here, but my belief is that the discussion of data sharing is very important, and vital to unlocking the true potential of e-tools in improving health care in this country.

I’ll be posting my comments on these scenarios in my next entry.

Today I came across the HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt’s blog. To be honest, I saw Mike Leavitt’s picture on the blog and I felt like I was meeting an old friend. No, I don’t really know Mike Leavitt from the next person on the street. We have never met before and the closest I’ve been to him is probably when I watched him pass by in numerous 24th of July parades in Utah. However, he was the governor of Utah for many of the years I lived in Utah and so I feel like I kind of know the man.

Reminiscing aside, I find Mike Leavitt’s blog completely captivating. He currently has been writing about his trip to China. For some reason I’ve always had an inner itch whenever I heard about China. I don’t know what it is, but I find the place completely fascinating. So, you can imagine my fascination with the HHS secretary’s interaction with the Chinese government. Plus, these posts about HHS and China give Mike a real personal quality that I find real and interesting.

Of course, I couldn’t begin to read the HHS Secretary’s blog without making sure to find some post about EHR or EMR. I quickly found a post entitled Value-Driven Health Care Interoperability which I think could more aptly be entitled “Electronic Health Records (EHR) Progress Report.” Of course, he is in government so that explains the title.

I’m grateful that the HHS Secretary is willing to engage the public in a discussion about EHR and EHR adoption, but unfortunately the post I found is so filled with political rhetoric. It sounds really good, but really has very little substance.

First, I’ll start with the good.

Three years ago, there were 200 vendors selling electronic health record systems but there was no assurance that the systems would ever be able to share privacy protected data in interoperable formats.

I think the concept of a certification for interoperability is good. It just makes sense that every EMR software vendor should be able to interact with another. Establishing a quality standard for this interoperability is valuable and even worth certifying.

Unfortunately, I think the HHS Secretary has been getting bad information when he says the following:

Since then, we have made remarkable progress.

An EHR standards process is now in place, and we are marching steadily towards interoperability. We created the CCHIT process to certify products using the national standards and it is functioning well. More than 75% of the products being sold today carry the certification.

Where to begin? First, Mike has suggested that there were 200 vendors selling EHR systems 3 years ago (It’s probably a few more than 200 EHR, but we’ll let this one slide). Mike asserts that “75% of the products being sold today carry the certification.” If that’s the case, then simple math tells us that there should be 150 certified EHR software, no?

If you look at the 2006 CCHIT Certified Ambulatory EHR list I count 92 EHR software products. Let’s see, that’s only 46% of EHR products that are certified. Plus, my count of 92 EHR counts some of the software multiple times since a number of the EHR software vendors certified multiple versions of their product. That sounds like less than 75% of EHR products sold to me.

Of course, Mike Leavitt certainly could say that 75% represents a percentage of actual products sold. Certainly the certified eMD’s has a lot more installs than any of the free open source EMR products out there. However, I think it’s a bit deceptive to say 200 EHR and then 75% of products sold if they aren’t the same thing.

I also love how it says 75% of products sold. I think we’re all aware of the outrageous failure rates of so many of the EHR products out there. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have a percentage of products installed. Then, you’d have a much better idea of how many doctor’s offices really have the possibility of interoperability.

Wait a minute! I was being extra generous above when I said that there were 92 Ambulatory EHR CCHIT certified. Why? Because it was 92 EHR certified with the 2006 CCHIT Certification. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that interoperability was taken out of the 2006 CCHIT Certification (along with the joke of the pediatric requirements). I’m pretty confident about this, because I work on one of the 2006 CCHIT Certified EHR and I have no way of sending a chart to another clinic other than manually going through the product and printing out the chart.

What does all this mean? That means that instead of 92 interoperable CCHIT certified EHR, there are only 31 EHR CCHIT certified in 2007. That represents 15.5% (not 75%) of the 200 EHR products on the market today are interoperable according to number of certified EHR.

I’m not really blaming Mike Leavitt for this. I’m sure him or his office was given a nice executive report with a bunch of data and they made it look as nice as possible. Reminds me a lot of what I call EMR sales miscommunications. Sometimes the data just gets lost in translation. Let’s just hope my trackback to Mike Leavitt’s blog gets read.

You thought I was done. Nope. Still plenty more to say and I’m just hitting the major points.

In addition, a National Health Information Network will start testing data exchange by the end of the year and go into production with real data transmission the year after.

This concept I really find intriguing. I look forward to seeing this go public and I’m glad it’s on the agenda. However, I fear that this isn’t more than political hyperbole. I’d love to see how they plan to address any of the following: unique identifier, the ultimate hacker’s health information paradise, economic model, motivational model and that’s just the list off the top of my head.

The primary reasons for low adoption rates among small practices are predictable: economics and the burden of change.

I’m glad you pointed out the obvious. If this was so obvious, then why did you support the implementation of a certification that costs so much money that EHR will inevitably raise the cost a small practice pays for an EHR? That doesn’t make much economic sense. Not to mention you missed what I think is the biggest factor in lack of implementation: fear. Not fear of change. Not fear of the expense. Certainly those are two major factors, but I believe that adoption rates by small practices are so low because most doctors have seen too many of their colleagues fail at implementing an EHR.

Let’s start waving the CCHIT certification flag again. Many will be willing to make the case that CCHIT certification helps supplant a doctor’s fear that their EHR implementation will fail. It may even supplant some fear, but what it doesn’t do is decrease the number of failed EHR implementations. It’s a problem I’ve discussed many times on this blog. Certifications don’t certify usability. They never have and never will.

I actually have a thought about what should have been done instead of CCHIT, but I think I’ll save that for a future post.

Thanks Mike for opening up the lines of communication with your blog. Now it will be interesting to see if Mike Leavitt and HHS have really embraced new social media and participate in the discussion they started. I’m certain that Mike’s blog is going to become one of my favorite reads.

I’ve been following the Google Health announcements for quite a while now and today Google Health finally went live.

It’s been a long time coming and so it will be interesting to finally take a look under the hood. I haven’t personally had enough time to do a full analysis of Google Health myself, but techcrunch posted the announcement live and an initial review.

I think that techcrunch summed up a major part of Google Health and its meaning for EHR software in the following:

Google is planning to open up APIs to Google health to make it easy for other partners to tap into its health platform. And make no mistake about it. That is what this is: a platform. Health apps anyone?

Sure does make for some interesting thinking about how an EMR or EHR could integrate with Google Health. Depending on how my next couple days go, I may see if Google Health has given any sort of specifications for importing a patient record into Google Health from an EMR or EHR software program. In my previous posts it was said to use some form of CCR to integrate Google Health with EMR and EHR software. I hope this is the case. If it is, I think I’ll try to be the first to integrate Google Health with my EMR. I don’t think most of it would be that difficult.

My guess is that many of you are using an HL7 interface between your EMR and your lab. How does your EMR handle the signing of lab results?

We worked for an entire year testing, making requests, testing, more requests and more testing before we were able to launch an interface between our lab and EMR, but it’s been one of the best things we’ve done. The reason it took so long is the topic of another post, but it was for good reason.

One of the best advantages to a lab interface with your EMR is that you don’t have to worry about what to do with all those paper labs that you’ve signed. Inevitably all those signed paper labs will have to be scanned and attached to a patient in your EMR.

Really, that’s why a lab interface is so much better. The interface inserts the lab info right into your EMR so you don’t have to worry about:
1. Losing your lab results (before or after you sign it)
2. No need to scan your signed lab results into your EMR
3. You can run really cool reports on the data from those labs in your EMR (ie. blood sugar change over time)
4. Most EMR will notify you that there are lab results to read, so there’s no more waiting for the paper to somehow make it to you

In our EMR, a lab result gets easily signed off with the click of a check mark. Actually our labs our grouped into batches according to labs that were ordered at the same time. This makes it so all our lab results appear on one nice lab report as opposed to one lab report per lab. All doctors have to do is highlight all the labs and click “Mark as Read” and that whole batch of lab results are signed electronically in the EMR.

Of course, many of you will probably ask how we handle abnormal results. Well, I guess you’ll just have to wait to learn about that.