I recently started to think about some of the implications associated with multiple languages in an EHR. One of my readers asked me how EHR vendors correlated data from those charting in Spanish and those charting in English. My first response to this question was, “How many doctors chart in Spanish?” Yes, this was a very US centric response since obviously I know that almost all of the doctors in Latin America and other Spanish speaking countries chart in Spanish, but I wonder how many doctors in the US chart in Spanish. I expect the answer is A LOT more than I realize.

Partial evidence of this is that about a year ago HIMSS announced a Latino Health IT Initiative. From that today there is now a HIMSS Latino Community web page and also a HIMSS Latino Community Workshop at the HIMSS Annual Conference in Las Vegas. I’m going to have to find some time to try and learn more about the HIMSS Latino Community. My Espanol is terrible, but I know enough that I think I could enjoy the event.

After my initial reaction, I then started wondering how you would correlate data from another language. So, much for coordinated care. I wonder what a doctor does if he asks for his patient’s record and it is all in Spanish. That’s great if all of your doctors know Spanish, but in the US at least I don’t know of any community that has doctors who know Spanish in every specialty. How do they get around it? I don’t think those translation services you can call are much help.

Once we start talking about automated patient records the language issue becomes more of a problem. Although, maybe part of that problem is solved if you use could standards like ICD-10, SNOMED, etc. A code is a code is a code regardless of what language it is and computers are great at matching up those codes. Although, if these standards are not used, then forget trying to connect the data even through Natural Language Processing (NLP). Sure the NLP could be bi-lingual, but has anyone done that? My guess is not.

All of this might start to really matter more when we’re talking about public health issues as we aggregate data internationally. Language becomes a much larger issue in this context and so it begs for an established set of standards for easy comparison.

I’d be interested to hear about other stories and experiences with EHR charting in Spanish or another language. I bet the open source EHR have some interesting solutions similar to the open source projects I know well. I look forward to learning more about the challenge of multiple languages.

I was asked by Practice Fusion to provide them some Health IT and EHR predictions for 2012. Here’s what I sent them:

“Next year will be all about Meaningful Use: Meaningful Use, ACOs, Meaningful Use, ICD-10, Meaningful Use, Meaningful Use, 5010, and a little more Meaningful Use covered in Meaningful Use.”

Sadly, I think this is a summary of what we can expect over the next year. Yes, it’s sad for me to predict that we’re going to be so mired in government requirements in 2012 that it is really hard to predict anything else really breaking significantly into the conversation in 2012.

As I ponder this New Year, I think my off the cuff (almost sarcastic) response above is actually going to be a pretty solid 2012 EHR and health IT prediction. However, that doesn’t mean it’s what I want to have happen and that doesn’t mean that other things won’t be happening. As such, over the next week or so I’m going to do a series of posts covering the following areas:

- My 2012 EMR and Health IT Wish List (things I wish would happen)
- Predictions on EHR adoption in 2012
- 2012 EHR and Health IT Noise (things that will make a noise, but have little impact)

If you have other topics you think I should cover, I’d love to hear any other ideas you have. If I have something of value to offer, then I’ll be happy to add it to my list. Should be a fun week prognosticating about the future of EHR and health IT. I hope you’ll join me in the comments with your own commentary on what we should expect and I invite other bloggers to do similar posts around these topics.

Today is going to be the last day looking at other people’s “Top Health IT Lists” since tomorrow I think I’ll create my own Top 10 Health IT 2011 List and then for the New Years I’ll see about doing a Top 10 Health IT in 2012 list. However, today let’s look at something that will likely make the Top 10 2012 Health IT issues: ICD-10. Government Health IT recently wrote an article what they call the Top 5 ICD-10 Pitfalls.

1. Reporting: I’m sure that many think that ICD-10 is just going to happen and be fine. They’ll assume that their reports are just going to work with ICD-10 since they worked with ICD-9. Don’t be so sure. Test the reports so you know one way or another. Diving a little deeper beforehand is a lot better than learning about the problems after.

2. Overlooking impacted areas: Much like an EHR implementation, don’t forget the other people that are affected by ICD-10. Involve everyone in the process so that they can share their concerns so they can be addressed. Plus, by having them involved you’ll get much better buy in from the staff.

3. Teaching old dogs new tricks: ICD-10 is a different beast and will require significant training even if you have an expert ICD-9 coder with years of experience. Don’t underestimate the cost to train your coders on ICD-10.

4. Preparing for impact on productivity: The article mentions Canada’s loss of productivity during their implementation of ICD-10. Do we think we’re going to be any different? Remember also that productivity loss can come in a lot of different places (which is kind of a repeat of number 2 above).

5. Communicating with IT vendors: It’s one thing to trust that your EHR and other health IT vendors are prepared to deal with ICD-10. It’s another to blindly follow whatever you’re being told. Remember at the end of the day it’s your organization that will suffer if your health IT vendor is not ready. I like to use the phrase, trust but verify.

Be sure to read the rest of my Health IT Top 10 as they’re posted.

Next up in our evaluation of the various end of 2011 Health IT lists series is one that takes a bit of a look back at 2011. In this list, PwC lists what they consider the Top Health Industry Issues of 2011. The list starts with an interesting comment about the health IT spending in 2011:

More than $88.6 billion was spent by providers in 2010 on developing and implementing electronic health records (EHRs), health information exchanges (HIEs) and other initiatives. This surge is a sign of technology’s critical place in health system improvement.

$88.6 billion is a lot of health IT spending and larger than most numbers I’ve seen. Although, most numbers I’ve seen are only the EMR and EHR market and doesn’t include HIE spending and other healthcare IT initiatives. It’s quite clear that the health IT spending is up, and up Big!

Their list of top Health issues isn’t that surprising, except possibly one of them:

Meaningful Use – This has to be topic number one for health IT in 2011. It’s had a trans formative effect on healthcare IT and EMR and EHR as we know them. Pretty much every EHR vendor I’ve talked to basically had to take an entire software development life cycle to meet the meaningful use and certified EHR requirements. This is the dramatic effect of meaningful use on EHR development.

PwC actually focuses on how meaningful use will encourage patient participation in their healthcare or “shared medical decision-making.” To be honest, I’m not sure meaningful use has done much to help this goal, yet(?). Possibly meaningful use stage 2 and meaningful use stage 3 will help to further these goals. MU stage 1 has done little to encourage this. Regardless of the impact of meaningful use, shared medical decision-making is going forward fast and furious.

HIPAA 5010 and ICD-10 – The interesting issue for 5010 and ICD-10 is that they’ve basically been overwhelmed by meaningful use and EHR incentive money. Either of these changes alone would have been a reasonable challenge for a normal year. However, clinical organizations are battling through 5010, ICD-10 and meaningful use all at the same time. Are there any other IT projects going on that don’t involved these three things? I’d say probably very few.

Electronic medical device reporting (eMDR) – I found this point quite interesting. There’s been a lot of movement in 2011 in regards to what constitutes a medical device and who should take care of tracking and collecting the adverse events that occur on these devices. I don’t think we’ve come to a final conclusion on what will be considered a medical device and how we’re going to deal with reporting adverse events, but finally getting electronic reporting of adverse events is a good step in the right direction.

Be sure to read the rest of my Health IT Top 10 as they’re posted.

The Wall Street Journal put out an interesting article about the switch from ICD-9 coding to ICD-10. The title mocks the ICD-10 codes, Walked Into a Lamppost? Hurt While Crocheting? Help Is on the Way”, and the subtitle is funny as well, “New Medical-Billing System Provides Precision; Nine Codes for Macaw Mishaps”

I must admit that I’m not very well steeped in the history of ICD-9 and ICD-10. Nor am I that familiar with the process that was used for creating the voluminous ICD-10 coding system. I’m more of a practical person and so I’ve been more interested in EHR’s ICD-10 preparedness and the timeline for ICD-10 implementation. Seems like we won’t have much choice.

I guess I should have known that going from 18,000 codes (which doctors can’t even stay up with as is) to 140,000 codes would offer some crazy and hilarious codes. Here’s some examples from the article linked above:

There are codes for injuries in opera houses, art galleries, squash courts and nine locations in and around a mobile home, from the bathroom to the bedroom.

And the appropriate follow up question from a family physician, “Really? Bathroom versus bedroom? What difference does it make?”

Some other interesting codes mentioned in the article:
R46.1 is “bizarre personal appearance”
R46.0 is “very low level of personal hygiene”
W22.02XA, “walked into lamppost, initial encounter
W22.02XD, “walked into lamppost, subsequent encounter”
V91.07XA, “burn due to water-skis on fire”

There are codes for injuries received while sewing, ironing, playing a brass instrument, crocheting, doing handcrafts, or knitting—but not while shopping. There are codes for injuries from birds such as: a duck, macaw, parrot, goose, turkey or chicken. I’d hate for my doctor to choose the “bitten by turtle” versus “struck by turtle” code. My insurance company might not reimburse the second.

Do people know of any other off the wall ICD-10 codes?

While this has me a little concerned to see ICD-10 in action, hopefully it will give all of you a good laugh going into the weekend. I can’t say I saw a code for any sort of Friday inefficiency, but there probably should be.

Chuck Podesta is Fletcher Allen Health Care’s chief information officer.

ICD-10 would not be so daunting if the deadline was not occurring during the rush to get EHRs for meaningful use. Add in value-based purchasing, bundled payments and transitioning to ACOs, and you can see why many CIOs are retiring early or migrating to the vendor or consulting world. We are just over two years away from the October 2013 deadline, and there is much work to be done. ICD-10 contains 68,000 codes, as opposed to the 13,000 currently used in the ICD-9 world. There is a code for every condition that exists on the planet.

The revenue cycle system, which includes registration, HIM and billing/AR, will be the lynch pin to ICD-10 readiness. Having a solid vendor partner and a strong product is key to a successful transition. Many solution providers – like GE Healthcare, who recently launched the 5.0 version of their Centricity Business product – are updating their systems to better comply with ICD-10. GE Healthcare also allows existing Centricity Business customers to retrofit the new ICD-10 functions to the 4.6 version of the product. Strong vendor partners take the burden off you by being ahead of the game and delivering the appropriate technology in time so you are not racing to the finish line.

By now, you should have at least a steering committee in place. Your IT shop should have completed an inventory of all applications that are impacted by ICD-10, including reporting systems. You will be surprised by the number of applications, even if you have taken the one-vendor approach for most of your IT needs. You will need to contact all affected application vendors to see what the plans are for ICD-10 compliance. Most likely, upgrades will be required that will need to be scheduled.

Training of coders will be critical, along with implementing clinical documentation improvement programs. Documentation improvement programs are difficult to implement and will be viewed by providers as more work on top of an already busy schedule. New technologies such as computer-assisted coding will definitely help, but success will be a combination of process improvements and technology.

Lastly, remember that the deadline is for Medicare and Medicaid patients only. Unless the rest of the payer industry follows the same deadline (highly unlikely), you will need to run both ICD-9 and ICD-10 systems.

Probably unintentionally, it seems like various HHS branches are playing good cop-bad cop right now.

I’m in Ojai, Calif., right now (please don’t hate me because of it) for the annual Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems (AMDIS) Physician-Computer Connection meeting, a gathering of chief medical information officers and others in the field of what AMDIS likes to call applied medical informatics. That contrasts with the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA), which tends to draw more from the academic side.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) apparently is the good cop. National health IT coordinator Dr. Farzad Mostashari was unable to make it out here from Washington, but he addressed the gathering by telephone. Unfortunately, he called into a cell phone hooked up to the PA system in a room already suffering from poor cellular coverage, so some of his words were clipped. But a few things were clear.

Mostashari indicated that he was in favor of delaying the start of Stage 2 of “meaningful use” to 2014, even for those who meet Stage 1 requirements this year. That’s the recommendation that the Health IT Policy Committee made to him a couple of weeks ago. Furthermore, if CMS approves the delay—CMS is producing and administering the EMR incentive program—Mostashari said that providers will be able to earn three years of Medicare and/or Medicaid bonus payments, not just two years’ worth, prior to the start of Stage 2.

That, not surprisingly, elicited some smiles and nodding from attendees. Mostashari, himself a medical informatics veteran with a primary care and public-health slant, played to the crowd by pointing out how health IT is accelerating real reform of American healthcare—not just an expansion of insurance coverage that to me is just throwing more money at a broken system. “We’re moving away from the fee-for-service model comfortably faster than we had anticipated,” he said.

Meanwhile, CMS came off looking like the bad guy, at least in contrast to ONC.

The agency already is taking a lot of heat from many parts of the healthcare world, which has heaped tons of criticism on the proposed Accountable Care Organizations rule. Just after Mostashari’s session, Ethan Moore, a health IT and HITECH Act specialist at CMS, hosted an update on the Medicare and Medicaid agency’s efforts in health IT, which included two other CMS technical specialists calling in on the phone.

One of the callers delivered a disheartening message to the 200 or so informaticists present: the Oct. 1, 2013, deadline to convert to ICD-10 coding is “firm.” That may not have surprised anyone, but it certainly seemed disappointing, given that there’s probably going to be more time available to achieve later stages of meaningful use.

Moore also showed slides that walked through the online application for attesting to meaningful use. Moore was an engaging speaker, albeit not as enthusiastic as Mostashari, but a lot of eyes still glazed over. Blame it either on the relatively early hour if you want, but I think it had more to do with the bureaucratic nature of the process. I suppose there isn’t much anyone can do about that. If there is, I’d love to know exactly what.

Two articles I’ve written in the last 24 hours have gotten me thinking that we’ve already entered the post-implementation era of EMRs, even as implementation remains in progress at so many healthcare organizations. While the vast majority of hospitals and physician practices in the U.S. still don’t have full-featured EMRs in place, many are already looking well into the future.

As you may already know, HIMSS on Tuesday released its first-ever survey on “clinical transformation.” According to HIMSS and survey sponsor McKesson, “Clinical transformation involves assessing and continually improving the way patient care is delivered at all levels in a care delivery organization. It occurs when an organization rejects existing practice patterns that deliver inefficient or less effective results and embraces a common goal of patient safety, clinical outcomes and quality care through process redesign and IT implementation. By effectively blending people, processes and technology, clinical transformation occurs across facilities, departments and clinical fields of expertise”

As I reported for InformationWeek, 86 percent of organizations surveyed had a plan for clinical transformation in place or at least under development, and just 12 percent of respondents called organizational commitment a barrier to reporting on quality measures. And though nearly 8o percent indicated that they still gather quality data by hand and 60 said they don’t capture data in discrete format, more than half already had software specifically for business intelligence. This tells me that analytics is here to stay.

I kind of knew that anyway, since the bulk of the program at last week’s Wisconsin Technology Network Digital Healthcare Conference was devoted to BI, data governance and advanced analytics tools, even in the context of Accountable Care Organizations. (My story about this for WTN News appeared this morning.)

“I’m ready to declare the era of business intelligence,” said Galen Metz, CIO and IS director for Madison-based Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin. Though he criticized the proposed ACO rules for being too “daunting” for the average provider, Galen and other speakers said that it’s time to harness all the new, granular data being generated by EMRs and, soon, ICD-10 coding.

It may seem “daunting” now in the midst of all the preparations for ICD-10 and meaningful use, but it’s good to know that many healthcare organizations see a light at the end of the tunnel and know that the future bring better healthcare information in exchange for all the hard work and investment today.

I guess kind of like they just had Shark Week on TV, this week on EMR and HIPAA has been ICD-10 week. So far I’ve covered EMR vendors ICD-10 planning, moving to ICD-10 and bridging from ICD-9 to ICD-10.

In response to my previous ICD-10 posts, Gordon Fenton provided this interesting insight about the UK’s experience with ICD-10.

Over in the UK we already use the ICD10 along side the OPCS code to generate our HRG’s which is the currenvy that commissioners and providers use in the billing process.

While I am based on the commissioner side I know that our providers employ coders whose specific job is to translate Doctors notes into ICD and OPCS codes.

The main challenge will be in varifying and validating the codes being applied by providers, the IT is just a small issue. It will be very easy for providers to inadvertantly apply the wrong code simply by the fact that there are so many.

You could do a lot worse than look at the UK model for guidance on how we deal with it

I’m always interested to learn from what other countries are doing with technology and EMR. I’d love to learn more about UK provider’s experience with ICD-10 and how we can improve the eventual ICD-10 implementations in the US.

In response to my previous EMR and ICD-10 posts, an EMR vendor recently sent me how they plan to address the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Here’s their plan:

1. We are going to have both the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes reside in the same file in our application. This will allow the charge entry people to enter either code. There will be a field in the ICD-9 that will map to a single ICD-10.
2. We will provide a report to each doctor showing them the frequency of the ICD-9 codes they used over a period of time that they can specify. This report will show the available ICD-10 codes. The doctor can study it, start to change, or ignore it.
3. The staff can opt to let the software map one ICD-10 to the ICD-9 or manually enter the code of their choice.
4. Our electronic claims software will have a flag per insurance carrier indicating whether or not it will accept ICD-10. For those that will, we will map the ICD-9 to the 10 and send that code. If no map identified, we will generate an error edit.
5. At some point down the road, we will use the information collected from billing to update the doctor’s preferred list of dx codes in the EMR.
6. We will have to augment customized programs at each client site that may be doing reports based on ICD-9.