EHR Initiative - Is it a Monkey on the Back

In an interesting post by Evan Steele in his EMR Straight Talk blog: "Government EHR Teetering on the Backs of Physicians" talked about the recent HIT Policy committee response to the CMS proposed Meaningful Use regulations and the disconnect between the regulatory requirements and the practicalities of introducing these technologies into the complex clinical environment.

All this was nicely summarized in this graphic

As Evan points out

The government continues to ignore the fundamental problem that has discouraged EHR adoption in the past, particularly for high-volume, community-based specialists—and that is the EHR products themselves. The government has created an unstable program, basing it on unproven, difficult-to-use, traditional EHRs, and then has imposed additional layers of complexity on top of these products.

Demanding direct data entry by the provider into a Computerized Physician Order Entry System (CPOE) is a sure fire way to limit adoption. Did we learn nothing from the Cedars-Sinai failed CPOE implementation back in 2003

Cedars-Sinai failed despite having a very strong track record and deep experience in informatics, strong leadership, and substantial resources. There were several reasons for this failure: many decision-support mechanisms were introduced at the outset, especially for drug-drug interactions; with the way the application was set up, alerts could not be overridden; and it was hard to achieve buy-in from the very large number of providers using the system (Ornstein C. Hospital heeds doctors, suspends use of software: Cedars-Sinai physicians entered prescriptions and other orders in it, but called it unsafe. Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2003: B1)

So despite deep experience they failed and had to suspend use of the system. Meanwhile we see the government meaningful use objectives mandate CPOE from the start. The impact on physicians is likely to be negative and the impact on the vendors and their products will likely create more challenges:

First, EHR vendors will have to rush to modify their products to meet HHS certification requirements, resulting in even more cumbersome EHR products. Then, over the next five years, they will have to constantly hustle to keep up with the continuously evolving meaningful use criteria, as well as implementing the Y2K-like conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10. In the technology world, rushing development efforts to meet unrealistically aggressive timeframes typically results in unusable and clumsy software. Unfortunately for physicians, the government will expect them to use these more complex EHRs to meet onerous meaningful use requirements that become increasingly stringent from 2011 to 2013 and 2015.

Building on existing processes and systems and in particular clinical practice that collects information as a natural part of the clinical interaction with patients would seem to be a much more constructive approach that would garner support all round. The narrative has been the mainstay of clinical practice and to date the most efficient way of capturing that narrative has been dictation. Facilitating and including the narrative dictation and building on it to satisfy the data needs of EHR's and even CPOE systems is the bridge between these two opposing views and the Healthstory Initiative creates an open and widely accepted infrastructure of standardized implementation guides for the common note types. The project members have been submitting commentary on the Meaningful use specifications and continue to push for the inclusion of narrative in the specifications.

EHR's should be in our future but on terms we can accept and will work in the complex and demanding clinical environment - that requires inclusion of narrative in meaningful use and sensible standards that focus on flexibility and adaptability of technology to meet the needs of clinicians.

Data Input Is Difficult

A recent survey by the Texas Medical Association (TMA) (one page summary here -pdf and the survey results here - doc) shows an increase in the number of people reporting use of an EMR(43% in 2009 up from 33% in 2007). There is also a continued trend of physicians expecting to implement an EMR that is being helped by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act with 59% of respondents looking to qualify for these incentive payments.

But it is the likes and dislikes of existing users that makes for interesting reading. 76% of respondents like electronic charting which I interpret to be the accessing the clinical data in digital form, the ability to process and manipulate and re-purpose in different formats. And features clinicians don't like..........

data input difficult or time consuming

Shock horror - clinicians don't like being data entry clerks (I can't see my patient's because I am at the Screen Entering Data and Doctor Please look at me not Your EMR). None of this is surprising and this remains the most significant barrier to adoption of EMR's in the busy and complex clinical setting. Designing a brilliant user interface to capture clinicians input into discreet fields may suit the needs of the data driven EMR but it falls well short of the clinical needs and in particular the physicians need for information. Physicians are pushing the federal Health and Human Service department to include the narrative as part of the proposed regulations for electronic health records and rightly so. As the eWeek article "Doctors Say Narrative Missing from Proposed EHR Regulations" stated:

No matter how good [EHR records] are, you'll never get the flavored nuance of the patient's [situation] if you don't have an unstructured note," said Dr. Steven Schiff, the medical director and service chief of cardiology at Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, in Fountain Valley, Calif

The comparison between a template generated note:

The occurrence was one hour prior to arrival. The course of pain is constant. Location of pain: Head leg. Location of bleeding: None. Location of laceration: None. The degree of headache is mild. The other degree of pain is moderate. The degree of bleeding is negative. Mitigating factor is negative. Immobilization no backboard in place and no cervical collar in place. Fall description tripped. Intoxication: No alcohol intoxication. Location accident occurred was home

and the narrative created by a physician:

The patient is a 74-year-old female who presents with a complaint of fall, 74-year-old female presents with complaint of neck pain, headache. She states that she had mechanical fall at home where she tripped and fell downstairs, approximately 9 steps and landed on her back. She complained of shortness of breath right after the event. She noted that she had pain in her left ankle and left knee. She is not sure whether she had loss of consciousness and the patient further complains of the pain in the right wrist

makes this point with 97% of the survey saying they prefer the human generated note. It's unlikely that that any EMR system will pass the Turing Test anytime soon!

Patients too will start to insist on getting the full Health Story as Steven Schiff points out in his article on in the Huffington Post "Have you Thought About Your Health Story?". As patients increasingly become partners int eh care process rather than the traditional bystander information will need to be transferred between the patient and the clinicians and computer template generated notes are not going to work. There's a good reason that the:

written patient medical record had its birth in the 19th century and as such, has remained almost entirely unchanged for well more than 100 years. During this time, literally everything else in medical care has evolved

It was a very effective means of communication and has served the healthcare providers well but the transition from paper to electronic remains a major issue and the importance of the narrative in the progress note is essential:

From the outset, we need to agree on the critical importance of such notes. It is necessary to tell a patients story, and to assess the significance of that history. At this time, it simply is unrealistic to think that all healthcare givers will develop the typing skills needed to function adequately in this environment. At best, it will require a full generation of doctors, nurses, technicians, and therapists to come and go before that is as ubiquitous a skill as handwriting is now. It is clear to me that the answer to many of the physician challenges that surround electronic medical record adoption and full patient utilization of these records lies in the use of voice recognition software

Electronic health records coupled with voice recognition technology allows me to document in the chart while I am seeing the patient. The note is often created with the active participation of patients and family members; and is then finished at the end of the patient encounter and is faxed to the referring doctor. Additionally, a copy is printed out at the checkout desk and handed to the patient as they leave the office. The notes are error-free for the most part, and are immediately available in the chart. There is no reading, correcting, signing, and mailing to be done. Most importantly, the notes can be highly descriptive, capturing not only the raw facts, but the nuanced details that are unique to that patient.

You're unique; your health record should be too

Right on! EMR's need speech has an integral part of capturing clinical data. Turning that into shareable information that can be accessed and consumed by the data centric EMR is the function of the Healthstory Project that sets out an open Clinical Documentation Architecture (CDA) standard for Common Document Types. Tied to speech understanding and you bridge the divide and overcome the 50% of physicians surveyed who say they dislike the EMR because:

"Data input difficult or time consuming"

The pieces are all in place - we just need to put them together intelligently into the existing workflow and healthcare process.

What are you doing to capture or collect patient clinical documentation. Do you use voice or templates. What do you love or hate about your clinical system?

Time with the Doctor

Scientific American publish an article titled "Are Doctors getting slower or are patients getting sicker" that was based on a paper written and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine: Primary Care Visit Duration and Quality: Does Good Care Take Longer? Chen et al. Arch Intern Med.2009; 169: 1866-1872. (unfortunately subscription required). Apparently people are going to the doctor's office more often and for longer visits than 9 years ago. Whether this is because we need more medical attention or because there are more treatments available, the end result is the same as it is for imaging and radiology. Fewer resources spread over more work. In radiology the explosion of images (imagine the effect of single slice CT to 64 and more slices CT exams) has created less time to review per image for the number of radiologists available.

In medicine in general, if we the patient are consuming more time with more visits and for longer consultations - assuming the number of clinicians stays constant this should result in a decline in time per consultation. This represents a challenge in achieving the goals of modern healthcare

Two of the most pressing goals for the U.S. health care system are to deliver higher-quality care and to lower costs

Since most studies suggest that better care is linked to time spent with the clinicians - especially in complex cases. It turns out according to this study that

(they) found no evidence for the commonly held belief that physicians are spending less time with their patients or that quality of care has diminished

Time spent had increased from 18 minutes per consultation to 20.8 minutes. The investigators discount clinicians inefficiency as the reason for the increase:

Although it is possible that physicians are becoming less efficient over time, it is far more likely that visit duration has increased because it takes more resources or time to care for an older and sicker population

And while I think the complexity has increased in care delivery I think it is far more likely a combination of both (complexity of care and inefficiencies in the clinical care system) contributing to increase in time necessary to spend with the patient. Unfortunately much of this inefficiency is the new clinical systems and the complexity of capturing the information that has added significantly to the time required. No doubt we will see more studies that segment the time in more detail. In fact in some results published in this article in the Healthcare Ledger (Medical Transcription Relevance in the EHR Age - warning pdf) a study suggested that documentation time had quadrupled adding more than 110 minutes per day!

There is consensus on the value of clinical systems and digital information in particular the opportunity of providing more useful data at the time of the doctor-patient interaction. But it was clear from recent discussions that there is a divide in the way in which doctors and clinical staff should interact with these systems to capture and record information. There are those who view additional resources appropriate for assisting (Moving Transcription Back into the Hospital). And there are those that see a need for a change in approach and style to adapt to this process and incorporate into the doctor-patient interview. My own personal experiences support both answers. In some instances the interaction with the clinical system forces a change in the way doctors interact with patients and the process, work flow, methods and materials suit a new way of working. But in a recent experience at a clinician specialist's office (in this case a pulmonologist) it was very clear watching the interaction and in particular the flexibility and dynamic nature of the paper based note taking that any imposition of a digital system would not only slow the consultation to a grinding halt but would reduce the information captured dramatically. This is not to suggest that there is not (or will not be) a solution to this problem but the "standard" digital note capture system would be hopeless in this setting and be quickly rejected.

The comments to the article demonstrate some of the strong feelings - those of doctors overwhelmed with administrivia

Patients are NOT sicker and Doctors are slower, but only because of the inordinate amount of documentation required. My office note 40 years ago might have been: Sore throat-----Penicillin. We all knew what a sore throat was and that Penicillin was prescribed. In contrast Today's visit must include all vital signs, past history, a history of the presenting complaint, history of allergy, plus a rather extended physical exam, otherwise we do not get paid by the insurance companies or the Government. I used to see 50 or more patients a day and see them very well. Now, with all the rules I"m lucky to see 30 and am exhausted after doing so.
Dr. Michel Hirsch, FP, FAAFP (1967-present)
Donaldsonville, LA.

and the patients who feel they are getting less at a higher cost

I must live on another planet. Nurses have always performed all of the routine stuff like vital signs etc. I am 54 years old and have type 1 diabetes. I have never had a doctor spend more than 10 minutes with me, ever. It's usually 5 minutes and $70.

Both are right - doctors are required to do more in less time and patients are getting less. I like many others buy the vision of electronic medical records but perhaps not exactly as they exist today. The current large scale implementations and clinical systems struggle to account for the variations in specialties and their needs and while there is some element of best of breed approach many shy from this concept given the historical challenges of integration and intelligent sharing of information between systems from different providers. Things have improved - Healthstory (using HL7 CDA) as an example of an open standard that allows sharing of clinical data. This is a journey not a destination....and if there is a destination Ill bet that will be constantly changing! The challenge in the coming months and years will be guiding the beleaguered, over worked and underpaid clinicians through the maze of systems, their features and functions and helping them adapt their technology to their practice and vice versa.

How important is the digital record and if given the choice of doctors with and without what would you choose. For the practicing physicians that has an electronic medical record - is it a good or bad experience. For doctors still working in the paper world - can you see this changing or are your needs met currently and cannot be sustained in any of the digital models you've seen?

Is Speech Recognition Ready for Prime Time - You Bet

In a posting on the American Medical News site titled: Is Speech Recognition Ready for Prime Time - You Bet Pamela Dolan refers to the history of speech recognition and how the technology was cited as one of the best things to hit healthcare - 10 years ago. In fact in 2005 I wrote an article for Health Management Technology Magazine (now available for purchase through Amazon): "Is Speech Recognition the Holy Grail":

Speech recognition technology has been lauded as the best thing to happen to healthcare technology since the advent of the computer, but is it really the Holy Grail? Speech recognition has the potential to overcome one of the most significant barriers to implementing a fully computerized medical record: direct capture of physician notes. Industry estimates from physicians and chief information officers at hospitals suggest that 50 percent of physicians will utilize speech recognition within five years. Coupled with this is the growing demand for medical transcriptionists, which is projected to grow faster than the average of all occupations through 2010

In pulling up the original article from my archive it made for interesting reading and while there were still problems with the technology in 2005 it had reached a tipping point and the summary at the end was pretty much on the money:

Speech recognition is good technology, but it is neither a panacea nor the Holy Grail. Speech recognition has been two years away for the last 10 years, but we may be approaching the Grail — finally.

Developments over the last several years have incrementally improved speech recognition systems to the point that some have intelligent speech interpretation—extracting the meaning, not just the literal translation of words—and producing high-quality documents with minimal human intervention. Further integration and embedding speech recognition with mainstream EMR solutions will allow for expedited capture of documentation as part of the clinical care process, offering clinicians a choice of methods to document creation. The last significant development in speech recognition technology was the recognition of continuous speech. The next big leap in this technology will be the merger of NLP and CSR to create natural language understanding. This development will take the technology to the next level and will offer a realistic opportunity to make speech recognition the de facto method of data capture for the medical community. The question is, When?

As the article from the American Medical News says:

"It (speech recognition) wasn't ready for prime time," Dr. Garber pointed out. "Now it is. No question"

But I disagree on the impediment to EMR usage that is linked ot the lack of discreet data. This is true with old style speech recognition - the process of converting the spoken word into text

The problem is when you talk into it, the data is not discrete ... it's still like a Word document

but not for speech understanding which is the the merger speech recognition and natural language understanding - available today. Already in use in many sites and delivering data in Healthstory CDA4CDT format.

So to answer the question - Is Speech Recognition Ready for Prime Time: You Bet!

So are you using it, what are your experiences or would you rather be entering data using forms and computer screens?

I Can't See My Patients Because I'm At A Screen Entering Data

As with so many services the world is getting flatter (per Thomas Friedman: The World is Flat - A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century) and medical services and in particular medical care is no exception. Everyone must run faster just to stay in place even the health care profession. We are seeing increasing interest and uptake of "Medical Tourism" (this term seems wrong to me - it reminds me of "Friendly Fire") and a recent posting on the Wharton Site on Health Economics: Bangkok's Bumrungrad Hospital: Expanding the Footprint of Offshore Health Care (Props to HISTalk). As with many of the offshore medical facility there are questions regarding safety and oversight (see this web site regarding Jim Goldberg's 23 year old son who died there and he is convinced there is a cover up and conspiracy).

That aside the interview with Mack Banner CEO of Bumrungrad makes for interesting reading especially when it comes to the implementation of their Electronic Medical Record system (in this case Microsoft's Amalga) and their move towards a totally digital hospital. This is interesting not least of all because Microsoft is exploring this vertical in another country and developing a solution that we will likely see being rolled out in this country once they have worked out all the issues and filled in feature/functionality gaps. But from a documentation standpoint as Kenneth Mays (the Hospital's Director of Marketing) points out:

We talk to our colleagues in the States and they're all facing the same challenge of getting doctors to enter things into computers. It's wonderful in theory. It makes your system more efficient. It makes it faster. It takes out a big source of errors. But it requires doctors to type in these things and it's not easy to get doctors to do that. It could also take something away from the doctor-patient interaction if the doctor has his head buried in a computer rather than looking at the patient and having a dialogue with the patient.... Hospitals, not just our hospital but I think hospitals everywhere, are facing this challenge.

This challenge is significant and one that remains unanswered in the limited roll out of EMR's. In fact a recent Washington Post article: "Electronic medical Records not seen as a cure-all" Alexi Msotrous makes the point that while everyone appears to agree that American Medicine needs to go digital (it is probably broader than that and I would suggest worldwide medicine needs to go Digital) the results are less than stellar and in some cases

suggest that computer systems can increase errors, add hours to doctors' workloads and compromise patient care

Yikes! The Senate Finance Committee has sent a letter to 10 major vendors demanding to know what steps have been taken to safe guard patient data - I expect the responses will be made public which should make for interesting reading. Meanwhile David Bluementhal rightly points out that

the critical question is whether, on balance, care is better than before and he (David Blumenthal) said. "I think the answer is yes"

I agree - we cannot continue the paper based record and we need data to feed these systems to make them useful. But to get this data in creates a data entry challenge that one physician said

I can't see my patients because I'm at a screen entering data

AND

his department found that physicians spent nearly five of every 10 hours on a computer, he said. "I sit down and log on to a computer 60 times every shift. Physician productivity and satisfaction have fallen off a cliff"

And my own daughter (as a patient) from her experience interacting with a physician office said "I wish the doctor would look at me as much as she looked at her computer" (See Doctor Please Look at Me not Your EMR).

The answer lies in using the current methodologies for capturing information - dictation, forms, and other tools that are blended to provide the easiest and most facile way to capture the data for clinicians. Making the data capture part of the clinical interaction without taking it over is essential. Clinicians talk faster than they can type - capturing that information and making this narrative tagged with semantically interoperable data that is usable by the EMR is possible today. Technology, standards and resources exist that allow for this today.

What would you rather be doing - typing at a screen or talking to your patients?

Cause and Effect - Unintended Consequences

It was the story of the story of the Indiana Grandmother of Triplets whose picture ended up on the front page of her local newspaper titled "Drug Sweep" for the crime of buying two boxes Cold medication that got me thinking about the effect each of us has and fail to realize. She was arrested and prosecuted by the local Prosecutor (Nina Alexander) :

The public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse

whose inability to see past rules and regulations and direct transference of the problem directly to "the customer". As James Shott writes in Observations in his piece "Citizens deserve service from Lawmakers" the prosecutor clearly lost site of who precisely she was serving:

But does the public not also have a reasonable expectation that laws will be rational and bureaucrats will use common sense?

It would appear not in this case nor in this case. Working the other way was the surprise to the prison authorities in the United Kingdom who introduced anti bacterial hand gel pumps but quickly withdrew them when they discovered inmates were drinking the gel: "HM Prisons ban Anti Bacterial Hand Gel" - interesting they also mention the Royal Bournemouth Hospital was having the same problem and said:

it was one of many hospitals removing alcohol-based hand cleaning gel from reception areas in a bid to stop visitors drinking it

Who would have thought it!

But the same is true with money focused on healthcare reform already approved which according to Mark Leavitt from CCHIT and his presentation at AHIMA last week amounts to $36 Billion. As Kelly Mclendon from HIXPerts pointed out in his presentation this proposals are no longer proposals and the regulation went into effect September 23, 2009 (enforcement may be delayed but it's coming) with a series of focus areas:

• Incentives Meaningful Use and Certified EHR's
• Workforce Expansion
• HIPAA - Privacy and Security
• Data Exchange
• Regional Centers (CER)

As quoted in the presentation - the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) said on Meaningful use:

To some providers, particularly small or already stretched physician practices or small, rural hospitals, the path toward meaningful use may still seem arduous. To others, who would just prefer to stick with the "status quo," it may seem like an unwanted intrusion. We believe that the time has come for coordinated action. The price of inaction – in adverse events, lost patient lives, delayed or improper treatments, unnecessary procedures, excessive costs, and so on – is just too high, and will only get worse

This train has left and if you are left in any doubt as to the likelihood of the digitization of medicine is coming - ready or not. In the current documents for certification published on the CCHIT web site (warning pdf: Comprehensive Certification Handbook) a quick search of the for the following terms revealed the following number of hits:

Transcription - 0
Dictation - 0
Narrative - 1 ("Textual narratives must be present in each required section")

And the same in the Document (warning pdf: Meaningful Use Matrix Tagged for CCHIT Reference):

Transcription - 0
Dictation - 0
Narrative - 0

While this is neither scientific or conclusive it does represents the potential for unintended consequences. I wonder how many physicians can imagine their lives without Dictation, Transcription and Narrative. There are studies questioning the effects of technology on healthcare with the widespread implementation. Unfortunately subscription required for full articles - Journal of Biomedical Informatics: Qualitative studies to Improve Usability of EMR) - interference with worklfow as one of the posible challenges. More data continues to emerge that suggests that even for the oft cited "young" physician who grew up in an era awash with technology, computers keyboards still fail to transition easily to documentation using a keyboard and mouse once they enter a busy clinical practice overwhelmed with patients. As the Healthstory consortium states:

Approximately 1.2 billion clinical documents are produced in the United States each year. Dictated and transcribed documents make up around 60% of all clinical notes

With the looming regulations and incentives that currently take very little account of this enormous block of data. In fact in many instances have been promoting how they plan or propose to get rid of it, ostensibly to "save money" offers an opportunity to watch untended consequences grind the system to a halt. Anecdotal stories of physicians who are forced to spend more time on documentation for the purposes of clinical systems and in the case of the NPR story today: How the Modern Patient Drives up Health Costs that featured a tearful Dr Teresa Moore whose Keysville practice is overwhelmed with paperwork that finds her

stay(ing) at her office late into the night, trying to complete paperwork so that she is able to spend enough time with her patients during the day — enough time to explain why this test is probably not necessary, why that pill wouldn't be a good idea. And her children, she says, pay the price

In this story the focus is the additional burden of the educated patient questioning care, asking for alternatives or bringing in internet print outs and adverts. But the principles and issues remain the same - and as she says when asked if she preferred the old passive patient or the newer more demanding modern patient

But I do like an educated patient who's willing to read about their health issues. So I guess I'd like someone in the middle

Having others deal with the burdens of documentation (or in this case insurance that in her words: "Sometimes you have to request a form just to get the correct form — you do. You have to fill out a form stating the preauthorization form that you need") would help alleviate the strains placed on the clinical providers. But without involvement and participation of the providers of clinical documentation services we may be caught up in unintended consequences both from the perspective of the patient but also from an industry.

Be part of the solution and get involved - join Healthstory, get involved in Advocacy and provide input to the Rule Making and definition of Meaningful use.

I'm Henry The VIII I Am

Henry VIII continues to be a fascinating case study and the focus of movies, books, songs (if you wonder about the title it comes from Herman's Hermits' Song of the Same name)


and recently ShowTime's series "The Tudors" which has certainly captured much of the intrigue if not all the historical accuracy. So what does this have to do with clinical documentation you may ask.

Henry VII is famous for his six wives but is also subject to substantial debate as to the cause of death. He died on 28 January 1547 after suffering through a bad fever. As was common at the time he was bled during his illness by the "physicians" of the day, and like so many cases this likely contributed to his death. But here we are 462 yeasr later and we continue to debate the cause of his death. There have been many suggested causes of his death:

• Syphilis
• Untreated type II diabetes
• Obesity
• Tuberculosis
• An infection coupled with breathing problems

and probably the most commonly held view is that Henry VIII died of syphilis. A position promoted some 100 years ago but currently thought to be inaccurate. But the list of possible causes of death today would be a lot shorter had the method of data capture been an EMR. Imagine Henry's physician documenting the case - he would be presented with a list possible causes of death as known in 1547:

Tudor EMRCause of Death:

• Consumption
• Smallpox
• Consumption with SmallPox
• Other

But Henry's medical record was one of the best medical records of his time and included the following information (from Trivia Library):

At 22 he contracted smallpox..At 33 he had his first attack of malaria...At 35, after a serious jousting accident, ...develop chronic migraine headaches and the extraordinarily painful leg ulcers which eventually crippled him...at44, Henry suffered his worst jousting accident and lay unconscious for two hours....fits of blind anger ..acute insomnia, painful sore throats, and recurrent, agonizing headaches. ....became prematurely gray and abnormally obese; in one four-year period his waist measurement increased by an astounding 17 in., ....At 45 he developed a strange growth on the side of his nose...At 49 he probably became sterile or impotent...at age 55, he could hardly walk ...increasingly absentminded, ...his last eight days in bed, too weak even to lift a glass to his lips

But recent review of the notes suggest she may well have died from complications of Type II Diabetes. And it was the narrative that helped current researchers to come to that conclusion.

So unless we believe we know everything we need to know about healthcare, symptoms, signs and diseases then collecting the narrative is imperative to capture the maximum amount of information both now and in the future. If we loose the narrative we will be loosing information. Identifying data elements is important but these two worlds can live in harmony in Clinical Document Architecture Format (CDA) in the Healthstory Project that preserves the narrative but adds additional data elements.

If you want to hear more come listen to the presentation:

Clinical Narrative and Structured Data in the EHR: Venus and Mars Live in Harmony with CDA4CDT on Wednesday Oct 7th @ 11:15 in the Grapevine Ballroom D, Gaylord Texan, at the AHIMA Convention in Grapevine Texas. Hope to see you there

The Challenge of Integrating the EHR into Clinical Practice

It probably comes as no surprise to read a recent report published on the "Society of Teachers of Family Medicine". In a their January 2009 "Family Medicine Journal - Vol 41, No 1": First Year Medical Students Can Demonstrate EHR Specific Communication Skills: A Control Group Study (abstract here - and full text here - pdf) they reviewed the teaching of medical students in relation to EHR specific interactions. Not surprisingly students that received communications and skills training for EHR usage performed better that the control group when judged on 10 EHR communication skills

That skills measured in this instance were divided up into 3 major categories - geography, Doctor/patient/EHR relationship and using the computer to teach and enhance care as follows:

• Adjust the geography

1. Student did not have their back to me during the exam.
2. Student adjusted the chair to be at eye level with me.
3. Student adjusted the screen so I could see it easily.
4. Student moved close enough for me to read the screen to construct a triangle between student/patient/computer (Signals like “Can you read the screen OK?”)

• Triad: doctor-patient-EHR relationship

1. Student introduced him/herself before turning to computer.
2. Student introduced the computer into the triad.
3. Student visually shared EHR information on the screen during the exam to bring me into the triad, rather than keeping me outside of his/her computer work.
4. Student maintained good eye contact with me during the encounter.
5. Student alerted me verbally when turning attention from me to the computer.

• Using the computer to teach/enhance the quality of care

1. Student showed me my vital signs.
2. Student graphed my vital signs or showed flowsheets or showed trends about my health.
3. Student asked if I’d like a copy of my data.
4. Student accessed other online patient education materials for me.

There are no real surprises to discover training an education can help improve the use of the EHR in the clinical setting but it was the feedback from the medical students that was interesting:

Medical students have expressed concerns about their ability to integrate the EHR into patient encounters. In a 2007 study, Rouf and colleagues reported that of 33 third-year medical students conducting electronic ambulatory encounters, only 64% were satisfied or very satisfied with doctor-patient communication when using an EHR.6 Further, only 24% thought the EHR improved their ability to establish rapport with patients, and only 21% believed that their patients liked them using the EHR. In addition, 48% of students reported they spent less time looking at the patient because of the EHR, and 34% reported spending less time talking to the patient.

So while a large number were satisfied with the doctor-patient communication when using the EHR they recognized that only 21% of patients liked them using the EHR. (the patient feedback directly would have been more useful). The 21% is not statistically significant since it is hearsay of the medical students not the patient but if my own personal family experience is anything to go by (Doctor please look at me not your EMR) then this may well underestimating patient dissatisfaction.

In fact I suspect patients are much like doctors in that they like the output and the improvement in communication and availability of information that comes with the EHR but like doctors hate the process of capturing this information and how this detracts from the patient-clinician interaction.. Solving this conundrum would push the adoption of these tools well past tipping point and into common use in every clinical setting. The dream of automating this task was captured in a still famous video from Hewlett Packard in the early 1990's "Imagine". Those that saw this were caught by the ease of interaction and the simplicity of sharing data. As the patient was wheeled into the Emergency Room the Emergency Medical Technician and nurse are documenting the vitals, history and related clinical findings directly into the EMR into the relevant fields - not with a keyboard and mouse but with their voice. Key data was identified and linked to the EHR database allowing the clinician to access the information and pull up related studies.

While we may not be quite there yet voice enabling the interaction still represents the most efficient method for capturing information. Capturing text has been possible for some time easily but the transition to structured clinical data is occurring now. The narrative is captured in its entirety (more on this next week) and within this narrative key data elements are identified and tagged and held in Healthstory format ready to be passed into structured data fields of the EHR.

Are you getting the full story?

Information Overload in Healthcare

Physicians are drinking from fire hoses that are fed by the expanding number of systems and information sources. Dealing with this information explosion was the subject of a recent posting by KevinMD on his blog titled "How a wealth of information takes attention away from the patient" (it was a reposting from Abraham Verghese blog originally called "A Theory of Attentivity"). Despite a prime time for working inpatient coverage as residents and senior residents reach the end of their training year and are better and more experienced it has as he describes it, gotten more challenging for the mountain of data that:

...exists on each patient. It’s a surprise every time, a feeling analogous to revisiting Bombay or Madras after years of being away and finding that a city you did not think could get more congested, has done just that

We add voluminous quantities of notes and data to a patient that represents the ever increasing haystack of patient data. IN fact as he quotes from a 1969 lecture:

What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients

Or as he paraphrases TS Eliot with an excellent quote:

knowledge can get lost in information, just as wisdom can get lost in knowledge

Leading to a lack of attention to the patient. It's not just data as I highlighted in this post "Doctor Please Look at me not Your EMR" that stemmed from my daughter's visit to our local pediatricians office. While I understand the desire to push a "poverty of attention and agree that the computer should not rule the interaction as this hinders and in some cases destroys the clinical diagnostic process we do need to address this information problem.

The clinician interaction needs to be captured. Providing a point and click technology to capture that detailed process that he suggests to his student that demands:

getting as much as he can from listening to the patient, from sounding the body

Will never be captured in a drop down list or check box. This is the information in the narrative. But if we just load narrative it will provide little value as it just adds to the hay stack and clinicians will be relegated to turning pages of information in the eBook reader (better known as an EMR). For this information and knowledge to be useful it must be computer interpretable and usable by machines automatically. This is the strength that Healthstory format and structure brings. Allowing for the capture of the narrative but attaching codes and structure to that content that makes it useful.

The case is made - we need to keep the clinician patient interaction and preserve that content but it needs to be made useful. Filling in forms and selecting from drop down lists is not going to satisfy that need and worse may well limit the capture of rich detailed knowledge that is an essential part of that patient discovery process. Helping to bridge that gap is the Healthstory project that allows for both worlds to coexist happily.

Have you joined?

Standards and Interoperability

It has been an interesting week of rhetoric and emotional outbursts for and against healthcare reform. In amongst the many articles I found this post from David Kibbe on the Healthcare Blog: Why Standards Matter - the True Meaning of Interoperability; a word that he believes that the American people are skeptical of.

You only have to take a quick visit to one of the personal health record systems Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault) to understand why when he says:

interoperability is a hugely important word in the context of today's ongoing debate about the use of EHR technology by physicians, hospitals, and patients too

It is not just an important work, it is an essential component of any future innovation in healthcare. At a recent meeting of the HIT committee several of the members acknowledged that

didn't really know" what interoperability means

Yikes! Frightening if the advisers don;'t have a good handle on what this should mean. He is right that there is complexity in a precise meaning of interoperability since there are many levels and the post contains some good descriptions on the various levels and elements of interoperability - for instance data, words, formats, layout etc. But as he rightly points out capturing medical information in PDF format does not make it truly interoperable and in the example h cites of loading his living will into Google Health this is simply an online version of the Amazon Kindle. Interesting and may be useful to have but not really interoperable.For it to be interoperable the information contained in the files should be in a standard format and the example here is XML (the underlying basis of web pages that you are reading this blog on). XML is an open standard and has a lot of flexibility (as we have seen with the advent of even more creative web pages and Web 2.0 type applications)

The essence here is the need for standards that are the industry and users of the information need to agree on the standard. We need to move past the VHS/BetaMax or BluRay/HDDVD debate and to a set of standards that everyone can use.

At this point standards have not been agreed and there are still some competing standards but XML does seem to be an underlying technology format of choice and is in use Healthstory. Based on Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) that uses XML this format allows for the capture of free form narrative linked to encoded content such that the Diabetes in the note can be identified by a computer systems as ICD9 Code of 255.0 - Diabetes Mellitus). Already some systems will import medical information encoded using XML type standards and this is likely to increase. As you think about your health record you should be looking for providers and technology that will export your information in a meaningful format that can be reused in other systems and applications. Start looking for your records in interoperable format - and insist on the full story not just extracts or sub sets of the data.

Self Service Medicine

No doubt the title will raise a few eyebrows but there is a growing trend of self service in many other industries as detailed in this posting last month by Tim Egan at the NY Times - The Self Service City and also in this posting by David Strom - Surviving the Self Service Internet. In each of these pieces the authors describe the slow erosion of personal service in favor of automated systems and technologies. In almost all cases this is not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the service provider. In the case of cameras "it turned out to be a revenue-generator" and the local government "took to it with a vengeance":

Who needs a human being when you can write ten times as many tickets without overtime pay?

But in fact as Tim points out

Numerous studies have found that robo-cams make intersections less safe. People panic knowing the camera is on them, trying to beat the recording click of their license plate. In Alexandria, Va., one study found that accidents increased 43 percent at intersections where cameras were used to enforce red lights.

But you won't find easy links to those studies as the governments have found a new way to tax the citizens thinly disguised in the name of safety. In fact this is subject to a concerted effort in my home state to combat the rising tide of cameras (you can find out more here)

And the story has been repeated with frightening frequency from the original trail blazer of ATM cash machines to check in desks at air lines. How about the local little league baseball match, even professional games umpired by cameras. Perhaps that is good news for healthcare as the industry is certainly currently in the face-to-face contact world. But there are moves to change this - this the latest in self service healthcare in the PBS piece - Bill of Health: Self Service Medicine. The concept is still in its infancy and centered around capturing registration and basic details but we are seeing the idea moving into the healthcare realm. It is hard to assess this and there are of course concerns expressed over the safety of such an enterprise since no "professional" will have reviewed or checked the information and diagnostic process. Equally the application of a good data base could actually apply more information to a consultation given the limited capacity of the human mind to recall all relevant information. In fact in a recent posting on online symptom checkers that took a look at a few of the same tools being offered in a self service world. No question there are challenges but some of the tools I have seen show great promise and even the potential to bring more data analysis to each and every consultation. Today your success and treatment choices are very much driven by the first touch. This is well demonstrated in oncology where your the likelihood of your treatment being surgical is much higher if the first person you see is a surgical oncologists. Similarly for radiation (radiation oncologist) and chemotherapy (medical oncologist) - yet we know that there are some clear benefits to the correct sequencing of treatments for best possible outcomes with minimal side effects

So is self service medicine a good or bad thing......I'm going with good. But for it to be effective patients need to have complete detailed health records that they own and have full and ready access to. Part of that ownership includes the need to provide useful translation of complex terms into more readily understood information that can be read, understood and processed by automated clinical tools. In other words patients need the full healthstory that they can read and feed into these systems.

Imagine the circumstance where you have an incidental finding on a routine x-ray that is ignored because it does not fall in the typical patient profile for the clinicians specialty that you are visiting. But feeding that information into an online personal health record provides additional background and alerts that make you a better more informed patient that can discuss the findings and determine the best next steps in conjunction with a clinician.

There are challenges of privacy, insurance and even excess investigation but like your airline flight.... wouldn't you rather know why the aircraft is sitting on the ground or should the pilot just assume that he knows best and keeping you informed is unnecessary until such time as he is certain on the reason and the possible outcome. I know which one I prefer - full and complete disclosure. Unpleasant news is always hard to take but prevention is a key element to successful treatment and outcomes and without full disclosure getting to that early diagnosis is will be that much harder and take longer.

Do you have personal experiences good or bad. Do you agree - online checkers or self service medicine is good - or perhaps you disagree and you think this should be stopped at all costs. Let me know

Meaningful Use and the Missing Ultrasound

Imagine you show up for a follow up appointment with your physician to review the Ultrasound you had done 10 days ago. An ultrasound that was performed in the same hospital system as the one you are visiting that you fully expect to be available for your physician to review with you - but when you arrive they have no information, report or even knowledge of the study every being performed.....well you don't have to imagine this at all as I would bet it is happening on a routine basis in many facilities.

So it was for a recent visit in our family. Fortunately I had insisted on a digital copy of the Ultrasound delivered on a CD in DICOM format. A quick visit to download a free DICOM Viewer - in this case OsiriX and a potentially wasted visit turned into productive experience. But were it not for the standard of DICOM making these images available easily, and my mission of collecting all medical records personally it would have been a very different story. In my mind the facility woud not have passed the first hurdle of meaningful use - no one involved in care was getting meaningful use of the imaging study or the information from that exam.

Which brings me to the the HITECH act and Meaningful Use standard. Health and Human Services convened hearings on Meaningful use in April this year and issued a set of recommendations that were open to public comment up to June 26, 2009. It is an important question because the incentive funds are linked to implementation that fulfills "Meaningful Use". Naturally everyone is scrambling to determine if their product/solution will meet the requirements and for those on the purchasing or user side wanting to know what Meaningful Use means to them. The Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems (AMDIS) submitted their combined response - the result of discussion that took place at the cleverly nabbed domain www.meaningfuluse.org. The AMDIS response can be found here (pdf). AMDIS promotes Meaningful use based on broad high level themes that include

• Meaningful use should be from the patient’s eyes and in particular make the information available to them
• Clarification of the requirements to receive funding - what must be met to receive payouts
• Focus on data capture and sharing
• Defer reporting requirements of quality measures on the basis that this will become a natural byproduct of implementing systems that capture this information appropriately
• Defer requirements for CPOE implementation as this represents a huge technical and administrative challenge
• Support the criteria with certification of systems that ensure they can talk to other systems - sharing of the data

Great additions to the debate and ones that include a common theme of the patient and importantly easy access to their own records and clinical information.

Not surprisingly the common theme of shareability of information is also evident in the Healthstory response which can be found here (Word Document). Healthstory focused on:

• Incentives to make information sharing a core component of any system and process
• Make the information shared available in "meaningful" form that includes structure and consistency
• Include additional codification of the data that makes it useful to both humans and electronic healthcare systems
• Create incentives for reporting of quality measures

The common thread is the ready sharing of information for the Personal Health Record. As presented in an organization chart that I remember from years back at ground breaking and innovative facility Health Care International Hospital (HCI) in Glasgow Scotland the patient is the king and appears at the top of the organization chart. So while the comment period has closed your ability to look for meaningful use and getting the full healthstory has not. Insist on receiving your information in usable form - it may save you and your physician a lot of time.

Have you had similar experiences - did you get your medical record in usable form or did you meet with full blown resistance. Let me know the good and the bad.

AHRQ Patient Videos - Become your Own Primary Care Provider

In an interesting use of technology and social media AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) have a series of public service announcements directed at patients encouraging them to ask more questions before during and after your medical appointment and in one case have a song and dance spot (wmv file) encouraging patient participation and asking questions:

DOCTOR (spoken): Any questions?
PATIENT (spoken): No.
DOCTOR: You know...
DOCTOR: (begins singing): We're not magicians, we can't read your mind!
BACKGROUND (singing): Read your mind!

Fun video - important points. Questions are the answer. As the AHRQ group puts it you play a critical role in improving your own healthcare and making wise medical decisions. As I heard recently in one presentation - we all need to become our own Primary Care Provider - managing our own healthcare and understanding the choices available to us. As was pointed out in one of the videos - we spend more time asking questions when we order food or buy a cell phone than we do when we go meet out doctor for a check up or clinical problem. No doubt some of this is time challenges faced in busy clinical practices and a degree of intimidation that persists in relation to patients and their relationship with their clinical provider.

Part of the process must include bringing information to the appointment and referring to it as well as extracting as much information both verbally but more importantly in electronic form from the clinical visit. Asking for a copy of your medical record should be a standard request - over time this may become a more electronic activity and even include requests that ask for the record to be sent digitally to your own Personal Health Record. But for now a paper print out is already an improvement and will allow a better understanding of the appointment. There is no better advocate for a successful outcome that you and your family members and oftentimes more time available for you to focus on doing the research on your own condition and understanding of the choices available if not the personal choice to be made. The AHRQ site gives some guidance on questions to ask here - extensive list and not all questions are necessary for all interactions but a good starting point. It's your health - start taking care of it and participating in the process actively not as passive observer.

Had good or bad experiences share them here - maybe your doctor actually volunteers your record and discussion or maybe your clinical office refuses to provide you with all your records. Whatever your experience I'd love to hear from you.

HIT as a Catalyst to Healthcare Improvement

The Center for American Progress - a think tank group dedicated to improving the US through policy and innovation) published a report: "A Historic Opportunity - Wedding the Health Information Technology to Care Delivery Innovation and Provider Payment Reform". You can download the executive summery here (pdf) or the full report here (pdf)

They make the point tat the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s HITECH $19 billion investment is not just about technology. In fact if this is the way the program is actioned:

failure is effectively guaranteed if the HITECH program embraces technology adoption for the sake of adoption. But if this new health IT investment program is wedded to a strong commitment to provider payment reform in forthcoming health care reform legislation and implemented specifically as an accelerator of health care delivery innovation and payment reform, then the investment program can help transform U.S. health care as we know it.

We know technology can contribute significantly to our lives. Everything from basic tools in our homes from cell phones to computer access that replaces the limited access to the Encyclopedia Britannica that we had some years back based on the sale to individual homes. This has been replaced for school children and households with access online to all this information in an instant.

Technology has had similar extended effects in healthcare that have seen revolutions in the diagnosis and treatment that previously were unimagined. But technology alone will not solve the underlying problems of our healthcare system and in the US we must change the payment model that currently incentivises everyone int he system to "do more". The system rewards for volume of service delivered and this is the underlying challenge faced by clinicians and facilities that continue to strive to maintain income when presented with the decreasing reimbursement per unit are forced to increase volume. This leads to the current circumstance where a consultation and patient interaction must be limited to minutes if the number of patients to be seen is to increase and the income stream to be maintained.

But seeing more patients for less time does not help manage chronic conditions, allow for a focus on prevention and chronic condition management that demands time and attention to detail. So as they suggest health care reform should include:

• Proactive improvements in individual and population health status
• Collaboration among health care providers necessary to accomplish these improvements
• Achievement of efficiencies in care, such as the elimination of duplicate services, avoidable hospital readmissions, and unnecessary in-person visits

and should also include a change in the documentation and in particular coding requirements. As they rightly point out the current system of coding

so called evaluation-and-management, or E&M, coding of office visits—which drives extraordinary complexity into clinical documentation and EHR workflow—could be replaced by payment-and-documentation standards that are simpler and more focused on what is actually valuable for patient care.

The much used term "meaningful use" comes up again and the suggestion that this be focused on Health IT that actually helps improve care and accelerate payment reform. IN fact the suggestions include:

• Tracking key patient-level clinical information in order to give health care providers clear visibility into the health status of their patient populations
• Applying clinical decision support designed by health care providers to help improve adherence to evidence-based best practices
• Executing electronic health care transactions (prescriptions, receipt of drug formulary information, eligibility checking, lab results, basic patient summary data exchange) with key stakeholders
• Reporting a focused set of meaningful care outcomes and evidence-based process metrics (for example, the percentage of patients with hypertension whose blood pressure is under control), which will be required by virtually any conceivable new value-based payment regimes.

And in each of these is the implied requirement to capture this information at the point of care which has been a significant challenge to date. I've said it before and I'll say it again - turning our clinicians into data entry clerks does not make sense. Whatever systems are put in place must allow for the capture of this information in way that does not interfere with the patient/clinicians interaction and includes the ability to capture the detail and the data to drive these activities of tracking, clinical decision support and evidence based metrics. There does not seem to be many technologies that can fulfill this at the time of care delivery and one that shines out constantly is that of speech and in particular speech understanding that is able to understand the meaning and generate meaningful clinical documents that can be used in these clinical systems to help deliver this higher quality care.

To this commentator, speech technology and in particular speech understanding must be a fundamental component of the success of healthcare IT as part of the HITECH investment act. What do you think - are we there yet?

Meaningful Use - Getting the Full Story

There has been much activity relating to the term meaningful use cited in the health care reform proposals form the government that includes AMDIS that includes a new web site to encourage "meaningful" discussion (the website: http://meaningfuluse.org) and various others.

The Healthstory project is carrying the torch for the inclusion of narrative in a written response: Written Testimony Regarding “Meaningful Use” (Word document). Narrative and free expression has been under fire for some years as inefficient and requiring replacement with semantically interoperable information. But since the vast majority (by Gartners estimates 60%) of content is created using the traditional dictation and transcription methodology we fail to leverage this information by discounting it. Trying to force a behavior that is not natural and removes much of the value contained in the fine detail in our rich and expressive language is counter intuitive.

Meaningful use of the Certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) must encompass dictation for creation and exchange of standards-based clinical documentation. This comprehensive view of the EHR supports the immediate needs of front-line physicians and patients, is complementary with structured data, and lays the ground work for increasing EHR adoption and information reuse

Narrative documentation enhances clinical care and the use of free form narrative is essential to the delivery of high quality care ensuring that the care team get the full story and all the fine details necessary to contribute to high quality health care

The Healthstory format - CDA for CDT or Clinical Document Architecture for Common Document Types (CDA4CDT) uses HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) documents that are XML representations of familiar clinical documents designed for exchange, recognized by ISO, ANSI, NCVHS, CHI, HITSP, CCHIT.

Healthstory represents disruptive technology that has the greatest capacity to transform practice and deliver the benefits of standardization of dictated notes. This is an achievable step for providers that will inject massive amounts of important information into our fledgling networks, lower costs, and provide a clear pathway towards standardized computable data.

Get on board - join now and start insisting on getting the Full Story from your provider, hospital, vendor.....

Interoperability and Data Entry - There are Solutions

This piece on the Syleum blog analyzing data and effective communication on "The Data Model that Nearly Killed me" makes for interesting reading

During the last week of January 2009 a faulty electronic, networked, health information data model nearly killed me despite its vaunted status as a component of two state-of-the-art, health information systems at two of the world’s most advanced medical facilities.

It does not come as a surprise given the complexity of medical information and the exponential growth in that data that keeping all this information correct, connected and up to date. In fact there was a veritable uproar created with the this posting by ePatinetDave - Imagine someone had been managing your data, and then you looked" (also this post). Not surprising to those of us who have looked at our own data for the last several years, myself included but quite shocking to most folks who for that period of time have been entrusting their data to others expecting it to contain accurate and appropriate content.

The sharing of information across systems just doesn't exist and I've talked about his before (here, here and here) and it's frustrating as hell to everyone involved. The patient ends up repeating information multiple times

The nurse who escorts me into urgent care asks me for my doctor’s name. I tell her my allergist’s name. The nurse argues that she wants to know the name of my primary care physician. Of course, that information is in my electronic medical record that she can readily access. The nurse next requests me to relate my medical history - which information is available in the electronic record. Next, an attending physician asks for my doctor’s name, no, not my allergist, my internist, and please relate my medical history. Never mind that (a) I provided this information to the nurse only moments ago, (b) I can barely breath, (c) I have horrible pain in my lungs, (d) I have a high fever, and (e) the requested data already is in my electronic health record.

In fact this is all in one office let alone sharing between offices....! This goes on with multiple interactions being documented next in the Allergists offices, then in the ambulance and then in the ER

I was in ER for 20 hours before being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) where I spent another 28 hours. Throughout my stay, I was hooked to network attached monitors that incessantly sounded alarms to which no one responded. I was asked 11 times to repeat my medical history, medication, and allergies to as many different medical professionals. I was seen by seven doctors each of whom asked me similar questions. Five doctors were never to be seen again. All doctors mumbled something about putting their findings into the hospital’s electronic records system - most did not according to ICU nurses. No one read my allergist’s detailed report about my condition and health history.

Then some heroic efforts to enter and capture this in electronic form

One heroic medical professional, the first nurse I met in ICU, worked to create a consistent record of my condition, allergies, and medications in the hospital’s electronic health information system. She spent over one hour searching for previously entered data, correcting errors, and moving or reentering data.

The review is a damning indictment of "the system" and it matters not which one it is

Medical personnel at urgent care and the hospital who interacted with me all used a version of the same electronic health information system (the “system”). It became clear that everyone was fighting that system. Indeed, they wasted between 40% and 60% of their time making the system do something useful for them. The system kept everyone from fulfilling their duties - the health information system did not help medical professionals perform their duties.

Fixing the underlying data model and the systems that we use to interact with these systems must be on the critical path. Spending millions of stimulus dollars on systems that "wasted between 40 - 60% of clinician time" is not going to fix the problem. Unfortunately fixing the data model is a challenging problem as this is a moving target in medicine. But fixing the capture of this information is not - there are time related challenges but existing infrastructure - dictation and transcription used in conjunction with technology: speech understanding, CDA and the healthstory interchange format and most importantly knowledge based workers: medical editors can help facilitate this process and at least relieve the burden of data entry from the time pressured clinical staff who want to (and used to) focus on the patient and their care rather than on the system and data capture.

Telling the Full Story

For the Record magazine did an excellent front page cover story on the Health Story project "Telling the Full Story". With less than 3% of the typical patient record composed of direct clinician input and somewhere in the region of 60% of clinical data coming from transcribed documents we need to find a way to capture and utilize this information to feed the data hungry EMR.

The Healthstory project represents that leap across the chasm. The opportunity to bridge the divide between the human readable and essential detailed free form narrative and the data elements necessary to drive the the EMR systems and automated tools available today but struggling to work as they sit starved of discreet structured, encoded clinically actionable data. As part of this initiative is the recognition that transcription and medical editors are a value added service bringing extensive knowledge, skills and data analysis skills to bear on the over burden documentation industry. As Liora Alschuler points out:

for a number of years, the “narrative” has been the EMR’s enemy, a relationship that the Health Story Project aims to reverse. “If you look at even the most sophisticated IT environments in healthcare, they still need this because their EMR does not eliminate the narrative form,”

Changing this perception of the narrative as the enemy and embracing the rich capacity of expression possible in narrative language is an essential first step. With the inclusion of narrative not just alongside but linked to the structured encoded clinical data creates meaningful clinical documents "that handle structured data and natural language narratives with equal ease". Providing both the computer and the clinicians with information suited to their needs.

“Data is structured to support rich links between clinical documents and electronic health records. That makes it easy to share information across provider and computer system boundaries while still retaining the essential human-readable, detailed narrative in one document.”

There was also other recent coverage including this piece in the JAHIMA April edition (pdf copy here or online here). If you don't know what it is or what is means to your organization you should.

If you are going to be at the MTIA conference this week - come along and find out more on Thursday April 23 at 7:30 - 8:15 (warning pdf). If not take the time to review the standards the "Shovel Ready" nature of the project, the benefits and the membership options)

The project has momentum and participation and needs your support. We should all be insisting on receiving the full story. If not

• press 1 to fill in all your information again at yet another clinical office,
• press 2 if you are fed up filling in forms and complete them half heartedly despite the fact that information is critical background to help your clinician make diagnostic and decision
• press 3 to have your blood work and x-rays redone since the information is not available to the one of multiple clinicians you visit each year
• Press 4 To skip a question since it does not have an suitable answer in the list of choices
• Press 5 To hear these choices, again and again and again

I know I want the full story and have been collecting mine for years.....are you?

Physicians Morphing into Data Entry Clerks

There is something wrong with the general positioning of technology in healthcare especially when you consider it relative to other industries. In no other industry do the most highly paid, skilled knowledgeable workers become data entry clerks. You don't find technology vendors working on optimizing the stock tracking systems to allow the CEO of Merrill Lynch to enter stock data in his financial tracking program.........

So, why oh why in healthcare do we spend enormous amounts of energy finding ways to make doctors more efficient in capturing data and entering that information into electronic medical records systems?

Philips Dowd, a former clinical associate professor of medicine at Brown University and an internist and hematologist suggests that these systems are not ready for prime time. The iHealthBeat site features a review of an opinion piece written by Dr Dowd for the Providence Journal: "Physician Says EHR Systems Turn Doctors Into 'Clerk-Typists" that places EHR's "where cell phones were at in the 1980s: primitive, proprietary and expensive".

Wrapped up in this piece are two major issues:

• Capturing the data
• Communicating the data

The capturing of data represents an ongoing challenge and the data hungry EHR's need to be fed. In fact much of the drive towards electronic records is being fanned by insurers who see this as a path to

reduce their billing costs and increase control over denials and prescription services

But as he rightly points out

patients found the [EHR] disrupted what had been a fluid, meaningful dialogue....the system offered little assistance and increased the time required to complete and record a patient visit

The process of interacting with a patient is an integral part of the clinical decision making and diagnostic process. Questions, answer and observation (dramatized to an extreme but not widely removed from reality in the clever series House on TV). Electronic systems have yet to facilitate this process and disrupt was has been meaningful and important element of patient clinical interaction. Dowd's summary brings this point home:

I see the [EHR] as the final stage in the forced metamorphism of physicians from thoughtful professionals to clerk-typists from the Katherine Gibbs School of Medicine

This is true and I heard in a recent discussion with a physician that his clinical interaction and the questions he asks has been changed as a result of the implementation of a structured EHR and data entry systems. With experience using the system he discovered that anything that was not covered in the "standard" replies available in the system cost him much more time......inevitably in a time pressured world he found himself not asking questions fearing a non-standard response from his patient and requiring a complex and time consuming additional data entry. The change from the widely used open ended questions to closed simple yes/no interactions is not likely to elicit more information or add greater value to the diagnostic clinical history taking.

Facilitating this data entry and voice enabling the capture of structured meaningful clinical documents cannot come fast enough. Technology can and already does automate some of this using Speech Understanding which understands words and their underlying context and meaning and output structured and meaningful clinical documents in Clinical Document architecture (CDA) format - or put another way The Full Healthstory that encompasses both the detailed narrative alongside the structured and encoded clinically actionable data necessary to drive the EHR and decision support systems. In addition the delivery of these structured documents are already available from many of the medical transcription service organizations (MTSO) who capture and produce CDA Healthstory documents. The Medical Transcriptionist is the knowledge based worker here to support and enable the clinicians to capture the information quickly, accurately and effectively. Right now many customers elect to receive text or word output but the rich meta data is available and health systems, doctors offices and physician practices should be asking for the Full Healthstory form their MTSO provider.

The challenge of communicating the data Dr Dowd rightly pointed out what every patient knows through the nauseam of multiple form filling activity in clinical offices

My brand can't speak to your brand or group or hospital

There is no sharing of data and information is repeated, recaptured and fails to be shared effectively between clinical teams. Walk into any clinical office and the first thing they do is ask you to fill in YAPF (Yet Another Paper Form) that contains much of the data you know is in multiple systems around the various clinical offices they have visited (an average Heart Failure patient visits 23 different providers per year). You can bet they fill out 23 or more different forms!

Once again the CDA concept allows for easy adoption and sharing of the full Healthstory. The standard encompasses all the elements necessary for good patient care, administration, reporting and research and importantly includes the narrative. You can download the Healthstory Q1 business update here (warning ppt download) and you can find out more about joining here. Everyone, patients, clinicians, hospitals, insurers and healthcare facilities should all be insisting on the full Healthstory

Reinvestment is not Just About Technology

There is lots of excitement or even frenzy over the wave of investment coming down the pipe towards healthcare technology but in this piece on the Huffington Post: Workforce Development Essential to Obama's Health Care IT Initiative Julian Alssid and Jonathan Leviss are quick to point out that there is an essential element that must be included - that of Human Capital. Healthcare is unique and transplanting technology from other industries is not a straightforward process

Hospitals are not banks, or insurance agencies, or hotels. Healthcare's unique workflows -- including many physicians and nurses sharing computers in a busy emergency room, the challenges of maintaining working hardware in an intensive care unit, and the vast realm of data accessed to care for a sick human being -- require novel technologies and processes that cannot be easily translated from other industries.

While I agree that some technologies have stalled many are being implemented and are delivering success today. Speech Recognition did suffer problems in noisy environments (that's why the early adopters of this technology are Radiologists who mostly work in quiet reading rooms). But newer Speech Understanding which is modelled on nature's success in speech understanding by not only using audio inputs but also getting information from the patent's previous history, demographics, prior reports and any other elements that will help in understanding what was said.

But that's not enough

Physicians, nurses, and other health care providers routinely learn new skills and adopt new technologies....What is missing, however, is a parallel training track for a sufficient workforce to develop, implement, manage, and support advanced information technologies in hospitals, doctors' offices, and other health care venues.

So providing the infrastructure is one thing but having the resources to support it is an essential part. This is especially true for the embattled medical transcription industry that has been fighting declining rates of pay as hospitals and healthcare providers continue to push for lower and lower line rates. All this is driven by the perception of the medical transcription is a cost, when in actual fact it is a value added service that frees up the clinical staff to focus on taking care of patients rather than the drudgery of data entry. There are lots of examples of systems trying to turn clinicians into data entry clerks and while there are instances where this methodology makes sense in many cases it does not. Technology will help (see above - Speech Understanding is moving speech into the 21st Century) but even with this technology there is still the requirement to provide support and expertise to facilitate the process of capturing information that is essential to the new age of data driven medicine. The Medical Transcriptionist is the knowledge worker who delivers the value add of helping turn clinical information into structured clinical data that includes the fine detail in the free form narrative that clinicians need and want to include while adding tagged structured data to deliver the full Healthstory for the patent's episode of care.

Computers Don't Have to Depersonalizes Medicine

The NY Times article this week; The Computer Will See You Now written by a pediatric physician complains that the electronic medical record has depersonalized her interaction.

HISTalk commented on it in his morning update and highlighted the complaints:

• using the computer in front of patients is intrusive
• standard questions must be asked in order even when they clearly don’t apply
• the doctor might swear in front of patients when the computer does something wrong
• computers lose context because doctors can’t underline, write bigger, or otherwise highlight something important

And I would add that because it gets printed out and is held in a computer it appears to carry more weight/validity.

As the author says:

The benefits (of the EMR) may be real, but we should not sacrifice too much for them

And the end result for her is

In short, the computer depersonalizes medicine. It ignores nuances that we do not measure but clearly influence care

But the prescribed treatment of a hybrid using a tablet ignores most of the issues and concerns highlighted and forgets the relative difficulty of interacting with tablet or screen based technologies while facing and talking a patient. No doubt there are some circumstances where this does make sense but the key to success is the hybrid approach or blended model that does uses all the available methods and tools.

It is important to not turn our clinicians into data entry clerks and utilizing the finely honed and developed skills of the medical editor/transcriptionist to convert this audio into the data necessary to drive the EMR. Technology can assist and provide some efficiency to the process and specifically Speech Understanding can automate some of this process. But this method of capturing the voice is repeatedly dropped or forgotten in this discussion. There are circumstances where this technique may not apply (public forum in earshot of nosy eavesdroppers fro instance) but for circumstances where it does voice provides a ready and efficient method. Historically this created text that the EMR systems had difficulty using (they are essentially data driven repositories) but with the addition of tagged information that is linked to the narrative all held in the complete Healthstory we bridge the gap. Not only allowing for the inclusion of the fine detail that is essential and influences care but linked and part of this same material is tagged structured and encoded data that can feed the data hungry EMR.