“EMR Implementation Guide, The Link to a Better Future” by The Physicians Foundation

I just posted this on ClubPACS.com and thought I’ll do the same here

I chanced upon this interesting resource and thought I’ll put it here as the Electronic Medical Record / Electronic Health Record / Electronic Patient Record (or one of the other version) is pretty ‘hot’ these days.

The 105-page EMR implementation guide contains a (rather) comprehensive coverage on the current HITECH guidelines, information on how to prepare the adoption and selection process, case studies for review and (most importantly), the budgeting, financing, and contracting considerations.

The EMR guide is available for download here

Ramblings: My Next 2 Speaking Slots

My next two speaking slots are on the same topic: Workflow Preparation and Automation Solutions to Strengthen and Enhance Hospital Operational Efficiencies.

The two conferences are organized by MedTech Dynamics Asia and will be held at;

1. Tokyo (Japan) on the 12th November 2009 @ Hyatt Regency Tokyo
2. Delhi (India) on the 3rd December 2009 @ The Leela Kempinski Gurgaon

Do let me know if you are attending either conferences and want to catch up.

 

Ramblings: I was off on a holiday in Korea

Guess what, I was on a holiday in Korea from the 28th Oct (the day after I took the CPHIMS exam) to 3rd Nov 09 (arrived at Singapore at night-time) and it slipped my mind to update you guys of my absence.

I do have some interesting observation to share on the medical tourism sector in Korea but I’ll leave the details in a later post as I’m still a little groggy (I suspect I’m having a mild case of jet lag).

 

Grassley probes 10 health IT companies about software

Now this is an interesting read (food for thought).

“Ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, has sent a letter to 10 health IT companies requesting consumer complaint information about their health IT products.

The Oct. 16 letter was sent to 3M, Allscripts, Cerner, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Computer Sciences, Eclipsys, Epic Systems, McKesson, Perot Systems and Philips Healthcare and asked them for infomation about complaints received from Jan. 1, 2007 to Oct. 16, 2009.

Grassley is seeking information to conduct an oversight investigation of the manufacturers of health IT and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. In the letter, Grassley said he has received complaints from numerous health industry parties “regarding difficulties they have encountered with the health IT and CPOE devices in their medical facilities.” These complaints, he noted, have included “faulty software…that resulted in incorrect medication dosages.”

The senator pointed out that $19 billion have been earmarked for the development and implementation of these systems, and went on to state that he has “a special responsibility to protect the health of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and safeguard taxpayer dollars.”

“It is appropriate,” Grassley said, “that [taxpayers'] monies are appropriately spent on effective and interoperable health IT systems and devices.”

He also is requesting companies’ information on settlements relating to health IT/CPOE devices and products in the last 18 months, and whether or not they offer financial incentives to healthcare providers for purchasing their products is also being requested.

Grassley revealed in the letter that it “has been reported that IT/CPOE contracts with medical facilities may include ‘hold harmless’ provisions that absolve manufactureres…of any liability for errors that are allegedly [health] IT/CPOE system or software failtures.”

“Gag orders” may be included in these contracts, Grassley wrote, which might prohibit healthcare providers from disclosing flaws and defects in the software.

In addition to the earmarked funds and consumer complaints as reasons for the oversight process, Grassley stated that “there is no system in place to track, monitor and report the performance of these systems/devices, which could impact a healthcare provider’s ability to make informed decisions regarding the implementation of an IT/CPOE system.”

Grassley asked for appropriate responses to be submitted no later than Nov. 6.”

Source : www.CMIO.net

Report: Health IT central to healthcare debate

Health IT is taking a central role in the current healthcare debate, according to a report published by the Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital, George Washington University Medical Center and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)

The report, funded by the Princeton, N.J.-based RWJF, is a continuation of reports done in 2006 and 2008, which outlined the challenges to increasing EHR adoption. The current U.S. survey of hospitals was conducted by the HIT Adoption Initiative, in collaboration with the American Hospital Association.

According to the authors, there is broad bipartisan support to speed health IT adoption and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has made promoting a national interoperable health information system a priority, authorizing significant resources to achieve this goal.

Among the findings were:

• Less than 2 percent of non-federal general acute-care U.S. hospitals have a comprehensive EHR, and 7.6 percent have a basic EHR.
  
• The individual functionalities most commonly reported as implemented across all units of the hospital were electronic viewing of laboratory (77 percent) and radiology reports (78 percent) and radiology images (78 percent). Approximately one in five hospitals reported fully implemented computerized provider order entry and clinical decision support.
  
• Given the focus on financial barriers, additional reimbursement for EHR use and financial incentives for implementation were the policy options most often cited as likely to have a positive impact on adoption.
  
• Between 2005 and 2008,168 pieces of health IT legislation were passed by states.
  
• Two main barriers prohibit large-scale EHR use for collecting and reporting clinical quality measures. First, the current level of EHR adoption is dismally low in virtually all clinical settings. Second, adoption of records and systems with the capability to enhance and accelerate measurement and public reporting is likely even lower still.
  
• Quality measurement and reporting, combined with the potential of meaningfully applied health IT, could prove to be the necessary accelerator for rapid improvements in the quality and efficiency of care Americans receive.

Source : www.CMIO.net

IBM launches health analytics center

IBM has launched a Health Analytics Solution Center, part of a network of global centers addressing the demand for advanced analytics needed to help hospitals and medical staff improve decision making and optimal quality of care.

The company said its center, located in Dallas, will employ more than 100 health analytics experts, technical architects and specialists, with access to hundreds more IBM employees from IBM’s Business Analytics and Optimization consulting organization and IBM Research.

The center will seek to address the need for advanced analytics across the healthcare industry, such as collecting and analyzing data streaming in from sensors, patient monitoring systems, medical instruments and handheld devices, as well as the volumes of data generated by hospitals every hour. Also, IBM said that analytics can be used by pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and health insurance providers to derive intelligence from their data.

Source :  www.CMIO.net

Ramblings: So I just took the CPHIMS exam

So I just took the CPHIMS exam and I must admit, I did not expect to ‘almost run out of time’.

Only 4 people took the CPHIMS this round (first time it’s offered in Singapore), there’s me, an IT Project Manager and a Medical Doctor involved in health informatics plus a gentleman whom I didn’t manage to speak to.

First thing first, we were given a paper based exam and the time allocated remained the same at 2 hours (a computer based exam is also 2 hours), I personally feel that they should allocated more time for a paper based exam as the ‘workflow’ of a paper-based exam is different from a computer based exam (time is taken when we look at another piece of paper located in a different area, locate the correct area to shade and then back to the question booklet, locate the next question etc).

Another few attributes that irk me (slightly) was poor lighting and that the environment was quite noisy. The examination took place in a classroom (with no sound proofing) of an institute of higher learning for 16-19 year old kids. One of the proctor had to leave the room several times to request the kids next door to keep the noise level down. For me, I sat next to the door and ‘enjoyed’ footsteps and conversations of students walking by – constantly.

One interesting part of the exam is that the questions seems to be geared towards the healthcare context of the US (2 other candidates who took the exam agreed with me) so I hope HIMSS will take that into consideration during grading and also fine-tune future exams for this region (HIMSS, if you are reading this, I can help you guys review the questions, I am designing curriculum for institutes of higher learning on health informatics in Asia).

Having said all these, I think the CPHIMS exam does cover a very interesting scope (see my previous post on the CBOK) and it’s well worth the time to take the preparation course even if one is not interested in taking the exam as it serves as a good recap on the various domain of knowledge one would need to navigate the complicated world of health informatics.

The results of the exam will be made known in about 2 6 weeks time so lets see if I ‘make the grade’.

Till then~

Panel: Health IT professional shortfall underestimated

Good news fellow Healthcare Informatics Professionals, HealthImaging.com ran an article that the Connected Health Symposium (USA) projected a shortage of some 50,000 health IT professionals (in the USA alone, imagine the rest of the world).

BOSTON–A projected shortage of some 50,000 health IT professionals in the United States is most likely an underestimate by the federal government, according to a panel discussion at the Connected Health Symposium on Thursday.

Panelists John Glaser, MD, vice president and chief imaging officer for Partners HealthCare; Eileen Sporing, chief nursing officer at Children’s Hospital Boston; and Andrew Vaz, national director of life sciences at Deloitte Consulting, shared a bevy of professional insights on current health IT market trends and its future direction.

Andrews said he believes that a projected shortage of 50,000 health IT professionals underestimates the market need by about 20 to 30 percent.

Vaz said that offshoring and emerging markets in China will contribute to an IT explosion “to win the war in talent.” Sporing said computer scientists are going to have to help providers expand the role of health IT in the future. Glaser acknowledged that the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act (ARRA) will force health IT professionals to hit the ground running when meaningful use is defined.

He said that the new health IT employment opportunities will need to be occupied in a relatively short amount of time, and all will require staff with the proper training.

According to the panel, the cost of health IT training may be a burden that providers have to shoulder.

Glaser noted that the federal government will put “some money” on the table for curriculum and to jumpstart the process. Increasingly, organizations will front money to bring in talent, Glaser said. He predicted that certification programs will proliferate, as the need for health IT professionals continues to grow.

The panel predicted that individuals also will shoulder some training costs in order to provide themselves with a competitive edge in the job market.

Vaz said that one of the biggest challenges facilities face is obtaining experienced project managers and information system designers. Glaser agreed, noting that “an element of effectiveness comes with experience.”

In a question-and-answer session, Jay Sanders, MD, president and CEO of the Global Telemedicine Group, said he had no doubt that an infrastructure will be set in place for EHR meaningful use requirements. His concern was that the “integrity of the information infrastructure” might be compromised.

“That is a persistent and never-ending challenge,” Glaser responded, adding that there will always be inherent limitations on the quality of data. Glaser noted that you’ll always want to piggy-back “knowledge to complement the algorithms.”

ABII exam results in 65 new CIIPs

Sixty-five candidates are now certified imaging informatics professionals (CIIP) after passing the American Board of Imaging Informatics (ABII) exam in September.

The pass rate for first-time candidates was 89.2 percent compared with 87.2 percent for the five previous exams, which ABII began administering in 2007.

Of the candidates who took the exam, three tested in Canada, one (a resident of Saudi Arabia) in Hong Kong, one in Mumbai, India, and the rest in the United States (including two in Puerto Rico).

According to the ABII, there are now 477 CIIPs. The exam tests candidates in several areas, including imaging management, health IT, operations, communications, systems management, clinical engineering, medical informatics, procurement, project management and training and education.

Digirad Debuts Fee-per-Study Web Based Cardiology PACS and CVIS

And Digrad jumps on the bandwagon.

Digrad Corporation, Poway, Calif. has launched c.pax™, a new web based cardiology PACS and cardio vascular information system (CVIS). The combined structured reporting and picture archiving and communication system is an online solution specifically for cardiology applications.

“c.pax will offer our many cardiology clients a tremendous workflow enhancement opportunity as well as greatly improve their quality of life by enabling instant web-access to all of their patients’ imaging studies and reports,” said Digirad CEO Todd Clyde in the press release.

c.pax includes remote archiving, web-based multi-modality viewing, analysis and intelligent structured reporting, as well as a remote archiving system that lets physicians edit and complete reports remotely, while eliminating the administrative task of implementing and maintaining a local archive. It is also DICOM compatible.

The c.pax costs are structured on a fee-for-service basis, rather than purchasing the PACS system and service contract separately, saving large capital upfront costs. In addition, as a secure web-based solution, physicians are able to perform diagnostic work and submit reports from any computer, regardless of location.

Lets see, Web Based and Fee-For-Service, maybe these guys have been attending my talks. (just joking guys).

On a serious note, I didn’t manage to find out what sort of modalities Digrad’s CVPACS covers so I can’t cover on the breath (nor depth) of the solution. One thing I did notice is that it is (so far) only available in the USA so I reckon it’ll be awhile before I get to see it in action.