Welcome to EMR and HIPAA

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.

Some people have asked me how I rate the EMR I work with every day. I can’t bring myself to do it. It’s unfair to me and the people I work with. It’s not that I don’t have strong feelings about my EMR. I really do. I know the pros and cons, the ins the outs, and everything in between. However, it’s just hard rating my EMR and hopefully I can help you understand why.

My job is to implement this EMR the best way possible. That’s what I do. It doesn’t matter if it’s good bad or ugly. It’s counter productive for me to rate how good my EMR is. It is what it is. I haven’t been assigned the task of selecting an EMR. I’m not paid right now to see what other EMR vendors might be better than the one I have. I’m paid to do my very best at implementing the EMR that was chosen.

I don’t want to sound harsh here, but I think that many of the EMR failures are due to people worrying too much about what other EMR software can do and not enough about what their EMR software can do. The question shouldn’t ever be, can our EMR software do this? Instead you should ask, “how can we do this with the EMR software we’ve chosen?” This is two very different perspectives that reap very different results.

I’m not talking about someone who is in the process of selecting an EMR. I’m talking about someone who has already selected an EMR. It reminds me about one of my favorite quotes about marriage that says, “When you’re dating keep both eyes wide open, when you get married keep them closed.” You could just as easily say, “When selecting an EMR keep both eyes wide open, but once you’ve chosen an EMR keep both eyes closed and make the most of it.”

Of course, one thing I can’t help doing is answering people’s questions about EMR. I’ve had dozens of people call me about my EMR and I just love talking to them about the benefits, challenges and hassles of my EMR.

Recently I’ve been reading a fair amount about the movement that many are calling Health 2.0. I think the most simple description of Health 2.0 is applying many of the Web 2.0 concepts to health care. My question is whether EMR fits into Health 2.0. My personal feeling is that most of them don’t. Most Web 2.0 projects are consumer facing projects that allow people to interact, collaborate and participate in the process. EMR software is more about facilitating a doctor’s charting.

Certainly you could make a good case that a patient portal or EHR is more Health 2.0. In fact, that really seems to cut to the heart of Health 2.0. Creating a powerful interface between doctors and patients so that patients are a part of the process. However, I think that most EMR in their current state don’t benefit from this type of interaction.

Of course, this begs the question of whether an EMR should have this type of interaction. My short answer is that it should, but until the payment systems catch up with the technology that creates these interactions we won’t see broad Health 2.0 application to EMR software.

A little while back I got an email asking me if I was interested in writing an article for Medscape about “Choosing an EMR.” I figured that might be a fun experience considering I’d written so much about the topic of choosing an EMR on this blog that it would be pretty easy to do.

Luckily, all went well and they accepted the article that I wrote and published it to their site. I think the article turned out pretty good and offers some decent insight for someone interested in selecting an EMR. I think the selection process is probably the EMR industries biggest barrier to adoption right now. The technology is certainly there now, but there are just too many choices right now that it is really hard for a doctor to know which EMR is best for them. Unfortunately, many just choose to not make a decision and just continue on with paper charts. Hopefully this article will help a few doctors offices get on the right track and implement an EMR successfully.

In the end, it was a really fun experience going through the process of writing an article that’s going to be published. It’s much more difficult than writing about EMR on this blog. It took hours of work for me to write that article. I wanted to make sure that I provided significant value to the readers of the article and that I didn’t leave anything important out. By comparison, this post that I’m writing now won’t take more than 10 minutes. Blogging is better that way, because I know that my insightful readers will correct me if I post something that’s way off kilter.

At the end of the day, it’s really fun to see my writing published and my name alongside a contribution to the medical community. I also got a big kick the other day when I was helping one of my PA’s with something and I saw he subscribed to Medscape. Made me feel good that I was being published in what he considered to be a credible medical source.

One final thought, I’d love to hear people’s feedback on my article “Choosing an EMR.” Leave all your thoughts, good and bad, in the comments.

Just the other day I saw an old link to an EMR Jobs website. Of course, I’m always interested in seeing what type of EMR jobs are out there. I’m not currently looking for a new job, but I do finish my masters degree in May and so I may be looking for a new job in the EMR, EHR, Healthcare or possibly IT area soon. However, I was a little bit saddened by the list of jobs on that EMR job website. I even took a look at EMR jobs on Indeed.com to see what they had to offer. Looks like there is some decent potential there. A search on Monster for EMR jobs left me less enthusiastic.

Honestly, most of the jobs listed required specific knowledge of an EMR software. This really surprised me. Seriously, the EMR systems aren’t that different and an intense 2 days of training/playing on an EMR system and you’ll get a pretty good idea of that EMR. Certainly it makes sense to put that knowledge of the EMR is preferred, but often I think that someone without the cultural baggage of poor implementations or other biases might be better than someone with previous experience with the EMR. In fact, from a product perspective having a fresh set of eyes to give new feedback and suggestions could be incredibly valuable to a company.

In the end, I have a feeling that searching any of these job boards won’t be nearly as valuable as connecting to people you know. I guess that’s why I think this EMR and HIPAA blog could be very valuable for my career. Anyone else have advice for those looking to work in the EMR field?

I think that Google is confused about my blog. I don’t think it knows if it should categorize me as an EMR blog or as a HIPAA blog. In fact, sometimes it even thinks I’m an EHR blog which is perfectly fine by me. Right now I think that Google thinks that I’m a HIPAA blog, but quite honestly I think I’d rather be an EMR blog. Sure, I cover HIPAA and some of the various HIPAA related news on here. In fact, it’s kind of hard to cover EMR and not cover certain aspects of HIPAA. However, I think at the end of the day I’m more interested in EMR and EHR and I really don’t care about HIPAA. It’s a necessary evil.

I guess I’ll have to focus more of my posts on EMR and EHR and stop using that naughty H word since Google seems to like to classify with that H word when I want to show up for EMR and EHR. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter too much, but as a tech person I always think it’s fun to see what the Google bots see in my content. It’s kind of a way to justify myself that the bots are happy and classify me as an authority on a subject.

Are you listening Google bots? I’m an EHR and EMR blog. Make sure I make it to the top of searches related to EMR and EHR. That’s really where I’m meant to be. I can feel it in my bones. Well, at least that’s who I want to be.

Think about how wonderful the ability to send a discharge summary by email to a patient straight from your EMR. I think it’s pretty easy to see the tremendous benefits of this type of communication. Send the patient information to one place they probably visit every day and where they can read and process the information away from the hustle and bustle of the clinic. Certainly many doctors have been doing this with little pamphlets or handout sheets with clinical information. Unfortunately, too many of these sheets never get read. Certainly that same thing could happen with an email, but at least the next generation of patients are going to want this information in their email box.

Of course, the problem with sending this information in an email is that email is not secure. Email encryption hasn’t taken hold fast enough to make it encrypted. Is a user’s email box really a secure location where they want their health information? I personally don’t have a problem with it, but I would expect that many people wouldn’t want their health information in their email any more than their regular mailbox. Either way, without the encryption it wouldn’t be difficult for someone to sniff out what’s being sent in an Email containing for example a patient’s discharge. It would be going across the internet in basically plain text.

This situation actually happened in Austrailia a little while back in an article I read called “Unsecured email sparks dispute.” I know I wouldn’t be happy if a clinic just decided to send these unsecured emails. Not so much because I was personally worried about my information being lost. I personally have nothing to hide (yet anyway). However, I would feel uncomfortable patronizing an organization that would deal so flippantly with my information.

I’m sure that someone will chime in that this is the whole purpose of a Patient Portal or EHR interface that allows people a secure method to receive and send protected health information. This is all well and good, but from what I’ve seen this usually requires the doctor’s EMR company to support this type of interaction. Plus, even more serious of an issue is that you’re giving your patients one more login and password that they’ll need to remember. Certainly not a deal breaker, but one more inconvenience for our users and the staff that have to support our users when they forget their password. Unfortunately, I think that this is the future of secured messaging, but I can always hope that there’s something better that we’re just missing.

We should also realize that this isn’t going to get any easier. In fact, I think we can reasonably say that this is going to get harder and harder. Don’t be surprised if soon some patient would like their health information somehow incorporated into some site like Facebook. It’s really only a matter of time until some developer creates a health interface into Facebook.

It might not make sense to most people, but the next generation of patients are going to grow up living and breathing their online life in some sort of social network (Facebook is just one example of these). They are very comfortable with transparency and will be interested in being able to track and compare health information with other people. Not to mention interact in a social network with other people who have similar conditions. It seems like this isn’t a question of if, but when this type of interaction will happen.

Even if you think that health information on a social network like Facebook is far fetched, we are already seeing health information propagating to the web in Microsoft’s HealthVault and Google Health. Is this going to be ok? Will it become as synonymous as online banking has become to the banking world? It’s not that far of a stretch to think that Google Health could easily be tied into Google’s OpenSocial platform which would allow a patient’s health information to do all sorts of cool things.

The convergence of Health Care and IT is going to be really interesting. It’s taken health care a while to get going with IT, but I think almost everyone agrees that IT could do amazing things to better the health care a person receives.

Today I found a really interesting article in Utah’s local paper the Deseret Morning News. In the story, a box of medical charts was lost by UPS after being sent from a Hospital to somewhere in Las Vegas for a medicare audit. You can read the article for all the facts, but essentially the box somehow got misdirected and ended up being bought by a Utah school teacher purchasing some “scrap” paper.

I was kind of surprised by how long it took the hospital to get in touch with UPS after the box was lost. Ok, so I’m not really surprised that the hospital is not watching all of the HIPAA information they sent out to make sure that it arrives safely, but maybe it should. UPS has some pretty incredible tracking tools these days that really aren’t that hard to use.

The other interesting thing to consider is how these types of audits/information transfer happens in an electronic world. I know that we transfer eligibility lists to insurance companies using Secure FTP and that works quite well. We’ve worked with a scanning company who is scanning our old paper charts and when we need to access one of those old records, they send us an encrypted file through email. That works pretty smoothly.

Unfortunately, I think if a patient wants a record right now or if we needed to send some health information out for an audit (not sure why we would need to) then we’d have to pretty much just print out the electronic record like we do when a patient makes a . In fact, we’ve even made a request to our EMR software company to give us a one click method that will allow us to print the entire chart. It’s a pain to print out everything in the paper chart from what’s scanned in, to prescriptions, to lab results, to referrals, etc etc etc. Any EMR companies have a better way to do this?

I’ve been pretty outspoken about my love for biometrics in healthcare. In particular I couldn’t imagine my computer without facial recognition, but I’ve also enjoyed playing around with biometric fingerprint readers and proximity readers too. Sorry, no retina scans yet. Anyone willing to send me one?

Today I came across a new biometric authentication method that recognizes a person’s typing behavior. Techcrunch described it as folows:

It’s a Flash-based interface that compares your typing style against a list of known styles and logs you in based on your individual typing fingerprint. To enroll you simply type a sentence nine times and then the system senses the pauses, mistakes, and speed of your hunting and pecking. Obviously, this doesn’t work if you have a broken hand or, presumably, you’re under duress so it’s fairly hard to crack a system using physical coercion. A cool way to add biometrics to web-based forms.

They have a test on their site, but the registration process seemed a bit onerous. Haven’t they realized the first key to a website is to let me test the product with no registration. Then, let me register when I like it? Maybe if I have some free time later I’ll register and try it out.

I wonder if something like this could merge with the OpenID movement and make this one other method of authenticating yourself to an open id enabled site. Could be pretty interesting I think.

Well, my prediction that Eric Schmidt would announce Google Health at the HIMSS08 conference were pretty close. From what I’ve read so far, that’s all he really talked about. I’m still waiting to see my contact that was able to attend HIMSS to see his thoughts on what was said. Sounds like he mostly reiterated what we already knew. A few interesting points:

-Google Health will not contain ads (although I bet that won’t stop them from using the information to target the ads it shows you other places)
-Eric Schmidt repeatedly said no data would be shared without the consumer’s consent (unless of course some hacker finds a way around Google’s security measures)
-1,370 volunteers at the Cleveland Clinic are beta testing the application
-Portability is the key (we heard that this was a form of CCR, but if it requires consent are people going to go to the effort to make it portable?)

Despite certain privacy questions and fears around Google Health I think that Eric Schmidt made a very good point about the way Google will protect your information from legal cases when he said:

“In the Google implementation, your personal health information will not be given to anyone without their explicit permission, which is not true completely for HIPAA-compliant systems. If we get a subpoena, we always check our judgment as to whether the subpoena is narrow enough. If we think it’s a fishing expedition, we will fight it in court. That has worked well for us so far.”

The battle of PHRs by Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault have begun. While I love to see the big players participating in healthcare, I’m not sure they’ve figured out the right motivational drivers that will make this a smashing success. It wouldn’t surprise me if in a few years we hear stories about a life being saved because of proper information and how even one saved life is worth it.

The biggest disappointment: No announcement about when we can get in and try it out ourselves.

UPDATE: Techcrunch think that whoever cracks the healthcare nut will have a huge new market. I don’t see it ever cracking. Marissa Mayer talks about Google Health on the Official Google Blog.