On Hospital CPOE Systems [Part Two]

Posted on June 13, 2010 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Join Our Mailing List

Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems

By Brent Metfessel; MD, MIS

A significant initial cost outlay for an organization-wide CPOE system is necessary, which for a large hospital may run into the tens of millions of dollars.  Understandably, the majority of the hospitals that have installed a CPOE system are large urban hospitals.  The up-front cost outlay may be prohibitive for smaller or rural hospitals unless there is an increase in outside revenue or third-party subsidies.

However, although it may take a few years before a positive ROI becomes manifest, there can be a significant financial return from such systems.

www.CPOE.org

Potential Benefits

The potential benefits of a CPOE system go beyond quality. Significant decreases in resource utilization can occur. In one study, inpatient costs were 12% lower and average Length of Stay (LOS) was 0.89 day shorter for patients residing on general medicine wards that used a CPOE system with decision support. Rather simple decision support tools can reap cost benefits as well. When a computerized antibiotic advisor was integrated with the ordering process, one institution realized a reduction in costs per patient ($26,325 vs. $35,283) and average LOS (10.0 days vs. 12.9 days), with all differences statistically significant.

Studies have shown that CPOE systems can significantly reduce medication error rates, including rates of serious errors.

For example, one large east coast hospital saw a 55% reduction in serious adverse medication errors after the system was installed. However, on occasion errors can actually be introduced due to the computing process; in particular, errors can be introduced if the provider accidentally selects the wrong medication from the list or drop-down menu.

Accordingly, a CPOE system should not be viewed as a replacement for the pharmacist in terms of checking for medication errors. In addition, proper user interface design such as highlighting every other line on the medication screen for better visibility and having the provider give a final check to the orders before sending are some ways of reducing this kind of error. Overall, error rates from incorrect order entry on the computer are much smaller than other medication errors prior to introduction of the system.

Appropriate use of a CPOE system helps prevent errors and quality of care deficiencies due to problems with the initiation of orders.  However, errors can also occur in the execution of orders, particularly with the administration of medications to patients.  Bar coding of medications, discussed previously, is a simple way to close the loop in medication error prevention as well as further increase the efficiency of workflow.

Despite its advantages, a CPOE system has been implemented on an organization-wide basis in only about 45% of all US hospitals and growth in implementations has been relatively slow, although about 67% plan to add a CPOE system in the next few years.  Implementing a CPOE system is not an easy task, and there is a significant risk of failure.  Most hospitals utilize vendors for implementation rather than attempting to develop the system in-house given the difficulty of hiring full-time IT talent that specializes in CPOE systems.

One critical feature of any CPOE system is to obtain physician buy-in to the technology, since they will be doing most of the ordering.  Actually, unless the system is of the highest sophistication, physicians may claim it takes more time to write orders using a CPOE system than using the paper chart, as there may be a number of drop-down menus to negotiate prior to arriving at the appropriate drug.  Real-time retrieval of information and electronic documentation, provision of on-line alerts, and the ability to use standard order sets (prepackaged sets of orders pertaining to a particular clinical condition or time period in an episode of care), when relevant, can make the net time spent on writing orders similar to using paper charts.

Doctor Acceptance

It is also important, for physician acceptance, to not overwhelm them with on-line alerts.  Clearly, the system needs to point out the more serious errors, but if the physician’s process is frequently interrupted by alerts, they may increasingly resist the system.

For example, medication allergy alerts may warn physicians not only of potential problems with medications that have an exact match to the allergen, but also, as a defensive maneuver (“better safe than sorry”), to other medications that have a related molecular structure,, even though the patient may already be taking such medication and tolerating it well.  Furthermore, allergies to medications that may result in life-threatening anaphylactic shock may not be distinguished from “sensitivities” that consist of side effects that are not true allergies and are usually much less serious.

Thus, the potential exists for frequent alert generation that would interrupt the work flow and require time spent to override the alerts, making the system difficult to use and leading to user resistance.  One suggested solution is to have a hierarchy of importance, with alerts for potentially life-threatening situations being allowed to interrupt the work flow and requiring specific override or acknowledgment, and alerts for less serious problems being “noninterruptive,” allowing easy visibility of the alert without requiring stoppage of the work flow.

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

CPOE Pitfalls

Other pitfalls with respect to CPOE systems include the following:

  • crowded menus making it easy to select the wrong patient or wrong drug with the mouse;
  • fragmented information necessitating navigation through numerous screens to find the relevant information;
  • computer downtime (scheduled or unscheduled); and
  • location of terminals in busy places, which can lead to distractions and resulting incomplete or incorrect entries.

Intelligent, well-thought-out system designs can serve to mitigate many of these problems.  It is important that such difficulties appear on the systems designers’ “radar screen” and are explicitly considered in the implementation.

Pharmacists

As for pharmacists, a CPOE system will not take them out of the process. Although a CPOE system has the capability to capture many drug errors and remove the need for manual order entry, there will always be a need for pharmacists to not only give a second look at possible errors, but to take a more active role in patient care, including going on ward rounds for complex cases, defining optimal treatment, and giving consultative advice.

www.MedicalBusinessAdvisors.com

Assessment

A CPOE system has the potential to give physicians ready access to patient data anywhere in the hospital as well as at home or on the road, especially with Internet-based connections. This is significant given the difficulty in obtaining patient charts for mobile providers.

In today’s environment of high expectations for care quality and pay-for-performance initiatives, enhanced quality of care can translate into financial gain. Although there is a significant up-front allocation of funds for CPOE systems, given present trends the time may arrive where there is no longer a choice but to implement such a system.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

DICTIONARIES: http://www.springerpub.com/Search/marcinko
PHYSICIANS: www.MedicalBusinessAdvisors.com
PRACTICES: www.BusinessofMedicalPractice.com
HOSPITALS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466558731
CLINICS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439879900
BLOG: www.MedicalExecutivePost.com
FINANCE: Financial Planning for Physicians and Advisors
INSURANCE: Risk Management and Insurance Strategies for Physicians and Advisors

Product Details

Filed under: "Doctors Only", CMP Program, Information Technology, Practice Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

On Hospital CPOE Systems [Part One]

Posted on June 12, 2010 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Join Our Mailing List

Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems

[By Brent Metfessel MD, MIS]

Since the late 1990s, there has been increasing pressure for hospitals to develop processes to ensure quality of care. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has estimated the number of annual deaths from medical error to be 44,000 to 98,000.  Manual entry of orders, use of non-standard abbreviations, and poor legibility of orders and chart notes contribute to medical errors.  They also concluded that most errors are the result of system failures, not people failures.

www.CPOE.org

Other studies suggest that between 6.5% and 20% of hospitalized patients will experience an adverse drug event (ADE) during their stay. Both quality and cost of care suffer.  The cost for each ADE is estimated to be about $2,000 to $2,500, mainly resulting from longer lengths of stay. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics reported that about 23,000 hospital patients die annually from injuries linked specifically to the use of medications.

Join Our Mailing List

The Joint Commission and the Leapfrog Group

In addition, the Joint Commission and the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, have pushed patient safety as a high priority and hospitals are following suit. The Leapfrog Group in particular highlighted CPOE systems as one of the changes that would most improve patient safety.  These patient safety initiatives have further advanced CPOE systems, since these systems have the reduction of medical errors as a prime function.  State and federal legislatures have also stepped up activity in this regard.

For example, back in July 2004, the federal government strongly advocated for electronic medical records, including the creation of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to develop a National Health Information Network. Consequently, regional health information organizations have been established in many states, and these are used for the purpose of expediting the sharing and exchange of healthcare data and information, although there still remain issues in terms of providing adequate funding to these programs.

In addition, consideration was given to the allocation of grants and low-interest loans to aid hospitals in implementing healthcare technology solutions.  In 2000, California first enacted legislation (Senate Bill 1875) stating that as a condition of licensure, acute care hospitals, with the exception of small and rural hospitals, submit plans to implement technological solutions (such as CPOE systems) to substantially reduce medication-related errors by January 1, 2002. Hospitals in California had until January 1, 2005, to actually implement their medication error-reduction plans and make them operational. Unfortunately, many are still not in compliance today.

Health plans also entered the patient safety stage. In 2002, one large health plan in the northeast provided a 4% bonus to hospitals implementing a CPOE system and staffing intensive care units (ICUs) with “intensivists.” Today, this goal is almost the norm, but not yet reality for all.

More than Data Retrieval 

Many hospitals have “data retrieval” systems where a provider on the wards can obtain lab results and other information. A CPOE system, however, allows entry of data from the wards and is usually coupled with a “decision support” module that does just that — supports the provider in making decisions that maximize care quality and/or cost effectiveness.

In this application of HIT, physicians and possibly other providers enter hospital orders directly into the computer. Many vendors of such systems make special efforts to create an intuitive and user-friendly interface, with a variable range of customization possibilities. The physicians can enter orders either on a workstation on the ward or in some cases at the bedside.

Features of a True CPOE System

Basic features of CPOE should include the following:

  • Medication analysis system — A medication analysis program usually accompanies the order entry system. In such cases, either after order entry or interactively, the system checks for potential problems such as drug-drug interactions, duplicate orders, drug allergies and hypersensitivities, and dosage miscalculations. More sophisticated systems may also check for drug interactions with co-morbidities (e.g., psychiatric drugs that may increase blood pressure in a depressed patient with hypertension), drug-lab interactions (e.g., labs pointing to renal impairment that may adversely affect drug levels), and suggestions to use drugs with the same therapeutic effect but lower cost. Naturally, physicians have the option to decline the alerts and continue with the order. In fact, if there are alerts that providers are frequently overriding, providers will often provide feedback that can lead to modification of the alert paradigms. Encouraging feedback increases the robustness of the CPOE system and facilitates continuous quality improvement.
  • Order clarity — Reading the handwriting of providers is a legendary problem. Although many providers do perfectly well with legibility, other providers have difficulty due to being rushed, stressed, or due to trait factors. Since the orders are accessible directly on the workstation screen or from the printer, time is saved on callbacks to decipher illegible orders as well as preventing possible errors in order translation. A study in 1986 by Georgetown University Hospital (Washington, D.C.) noted that 16% of all manual medical records are illegible. Clarifying these orders takes professional time, and resources are spent duplicating the data; thus, real cost savings can be realized through the elimination of these processes.
  • Increased work efficiency — Instantaneous electronic transmittal of orders to radiology, laboratory, pharmacy, consulting services, or other departments replaces corresponding manual tasks. This increase in efficiency from a CPOE system has significant returns. In one hospital in the southeast, the time taken between drug order submission and receipt by the pharmacy was shortened from 96 minutes (using paper) to 3 minutes. Such an increase in efficiency can save labor costs and lead to earlier discharge of patients. The same hospital noted a 72% reduction in medication error rates during a three-month period after the system was implemented. Alerting providers to duplicate lab orders further saves costs from more efficient work processes. And, in another instance, the time from writing admission orders to execution of the orders decreased from about six hours to 30 minutes, underscoring CPOE system utility in making work processes more efficient; thus positively affecting the bottom line.

Assessment

In today’s environment of high expectations for care quality and pay-for-performance initiatives, enhanced quality of care can translate into financial gain. Although there is a significant up-front allocation of funds for CPOE systems, given present trends the time may arrive where there is no longer a choice but to implement such a system.

Conclusion

Although a Computerized Physician Order Entry system alone will reap significant benefits if intelligently implemented, in order to realize the greatest benefit a CPOE system should be rolled up into a fully functioning EMR system where feasible.

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct Details

 

Filed under: "Doctors Only", CMP Program, Information Technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Criticizing Electronic Medical Records?

Posted on October 28, 2009 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Brent A. Metfessel; MD, MS

By Staff Writers

www.HealthcareFinancials.comHOFMS

Despite ARRA and the HITECH initiatives, eMRs are not without drawbacks. And, with apologies to USCTO Aneesh Chopra, we list the following.   

List of Drawbacks

The following are some of the more notable negatives:

  • Operator dependence — The term “garbage in, garbage out” applies to eMRs as well. The computer only works as well as the data it receives. If one is resistant to computing and works begrudgingly, is not well-trained, or is rushed for time, the potential exists for significantly incomplete or error-prone documentation.
  • Variable flexibility for unique needs — When one sees a single hospital, one sees just that — a single hospital, with unique needs unlike any other facility. A “one size fits all” approach misses the target. Even within a hospital, needs may change rapidly over time given the continued onslaught of external initiatives and measurement demands. Systems vary in flexibility and the ease with which they can customize options. More flexible systems exist but cost much more.
  • Data entry errors — Although data items normally only have to be entered once, data entry errors may still occur and be propagated throughout the system. Most notably, patient data can more easily be entered into the wrong chart when there is an error in chart selection. In general, simple double-checking and “sanity checks” in the system usually catch these errors, but if the error goes through the system the impact can be significant.
  • Lack of system integration — Interconnectivity of systems becomes more important with eMRs than with any other system. Personnel use the data in many different areas. If there are isolated departmental systems without connectivity, redundant data entry occur leading to confusion in the different departments. Appropriate and intelligent clinical decision support systems can make the job of the physician easier through education, real-time feedback, and through the presentation of choices that allow for clinical judgment.
  • Costs of implementation — Intelligently applied eMR implementations may also be cost saving; long term. For example, one large east coast hospital found that eMRs saved $9,000 to $19,000 annually per physician FTE. This savings was achieved through a decrease in costs for record retrieval, transcription, non-formulary drug ordering, and improvements in billing accuracy. And, in radiology, storage of digital pictures and the use of a picture archival and communication system significantly [PACS] decreased the turnaround time for radiology image interpretation — from 72 hours to only 1 hour. However, there is significant front-loading of costs prior to achieving such costs savings. 

Link: WSJ_Letter_3M_Company_2009-10-16

Assessment

At the American Health Information Management Association [AHIMA] October 2006 conference,  panelists suggested that developing, purchasing, and implementing an EMR would cost over $32,000 per physician, with an outlay of $1,200 per physician per month for maintenance.  This is larger in economic scope, today. Also, there exists no national standard that would require compatibility between the numerous competing eMR vendor systems that may need to communicate with each other, which can escalate costs and frustration in systems that attempt to integrate the features of multiple vendors.

Some recent HIT fiascos:

 Link: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/resource.aspx?resourceID=3090

 Link: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/resource.aspx?resourceID=1905

 Link: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/resource.aspx?resourceID=5286

 Link: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/resource.aspx?resourceID=3891

 http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/10/12/newscolumn3.html#

Conclusion

Join Our Mailing List

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated. What about CCHIT? Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, be sure to subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com 

Get our Widget: Get this widget!

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Sponsors Welcomed

And, credible sponsors and like-minded advertisers are always welcomed.

Link: https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/advertise

Filed under: Information Technology, Point-Counter Point | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Championing Electronic Medical Records?

Posted on October 27, 2009 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Brent A. Metfessel; MD, MS

By Staff Writers

www.HealthcareFinancials.comHOFMS

eMRs involve accessibility at the bedside either through bedside terminals, portable workstations, laptops, wireless tablets, and hand-held computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs), (e.g., 3ComtmPalm Pilot®). The inputs can either be uploaded into the main computer system after rounds or transmitted immediately to the system in the case of wireless technology. Bedside technology obviates the need to re-enter data from notes after rounds are complete. This improves recall and avoids redundancy in the work process, saving time that can instead be devoted to patient care. 

Usual eMR Features

Common features of an eMR include the following:

  • history and physical exam documentation, progress notes, and patient demographics;
  • medication and medication allergy information;
  • CPOEs and laboratory results;
  • graphical displays of medical imaging studies including X-rays, CT, and MRI;
  • ordering of drugs, diagnostic tests, and treatments, including decision support and drug interaction alerts;
  • clinical practice guidelines (evidence-based) to aid diagnostic and treatment decisions;
  • alerts that can be sent to patients reminding them of appointments and necessary preventive care;
  • scheduling of appointments;
  • processing of claims for payment; and
  • a GUI, which may include secure Web-based and wireless technologies that allows providers or other authorized healthcare personnel access to health information from remote sites, including outside offices and home.

Assessment

There are also other benefits, as well. For example, instead of calculating fluid balance off-line, the computer can perform calculations immediately, once again saving time and ensuring accurate values. Medication orders can also be entered in real-time, giving the provider the option to react to alerts at the bedside rather than waiting to load the orders into the system in “batch” mode.

Conclusion

Join Our Mailing List

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated. What about “meaningful use”? Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, be sure to subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com 

Get our Widget: Get this widget!

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Sponsors Welcomed

And, credible sponsors and like-minded advertisers are always welcomed.

Link: https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/advertise

Filed under: Information Technology, Point-Counter Point | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Overview of Hospital System IT Architectures

Posted on October 12, 2009 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Understanding a Variety of Configurations

By Brent Metfessel; MD, MIS

www.HealthcareFinancials.comHOFMS

Hospitals can use a variety of configurations for HIS implementation depending on business needs and budgetary constraints. Staffing needed for these systems can range from a few full-time equivalents (FTEs) per 100 beds for very basic off-site processing systems to 15 or more FTEs per 100 beds for sophisticated systems that attempt to combine several architectures into one system (e.g., combination of client-server systems with mainframe processing). Resource use and customizability tend to vary in tandem; the greater the flexibility of the system to meet unique user needs, the greater the cost outlay for capital and/or additional FTEs.

Basic Systems

The basic system architecture possibilities are as follows:

  • Off-site (remote) processing: In this case the hospital contracts with a vendor external to the hospital. The hospital sends data over to the vendor site where the actual processing takes place. When processing is complete, the vendor sends the data back to the hospital, usually in electronic form.
  • Turnkey systems: A vendor provides the hospital with systems that are “pre-packaged” so that hospital-based system development is minimal. Limited customization of the system is possible using systems analysts or programmers.
  • Mainframe systems: Most applicable to large hospitals, this configuration is highly centralized. A large and powerful computer performs basically all the information processing for the institution and connects to multiple terminals that communicate with the mainframe to display the information at the user sites. Hospital IT departments usually use in-house programmers to modify the core operating systems or applications programs such as billing and scheduling programs.
  • Client-server systems: In this configuration one or more “repository” computers exist, known as “servers,” that store large amounts of data and perform limited processing. Communicating with the server(s) are client workstations that perform much of the data processing and often have graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for ease of use. Both customizability and resource use is high, depending on the desired sophistication. Many clinical information systems that process data directly related to patient care use this configuration.

For instance, the Veterans Health Administration, which has implemented what is likely the largest integrated healthcare information system in the United States, uses client-server architecture.  Known as the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), this system provides technology infrastructure to about 1,300 care facilities, including hospitals and medical centers, outpatient facilities, and long-term care centers. VistA utilizes a client-server architecture that links together workstations and personal computers using software that is accessed via a graphical user interface.

Overall, for hospitals that have the financial and manpower resources for a significant investment in IT, client-server architectures are the fastest-growing and typically the most preferred of the system architectures, due in large part to their local adaptability and flexibility to meet changing hospital and medical center needs.

Assessment

Join Our Mailing List

The above architectures are broad categories. Modifications and combinations of the above also exist, such as the use of client-server technology with mainframe systems and the addition of wireless technology and personal digital assistants (PDAs) to supplement the core computing functionality.

In considering the optimal architecture for a hospital, management needs to take into account factors such as size of the institution, desired sophistication of the application, IT budget, and anticipated level of user community involvement.

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, be sure to subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com 

Get our Widget: Get this widget!

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Sponsors Welcomed

And, credible sponsors and like-minded advertisers are always welcomed.

Link: https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/advertise

Filed under: Information Technology, Research & Development | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

New-Wave Medical Quality Resources

Posted on March 1, 2009 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Beyond Traditional Administrative Databases

Staff Reporters

ho-journal15Physician blogger, and Harvard University CTO, John Halamka MD recently opined about some emerging new medical quality data sources for the industry.

Traditional Sources

As all ME-P subscribers know, traditional data sources are derived from, and usually include, administrative claims data information aggregated from many sources and silos.

www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Emerging Sources

But, newer sources of data for medical quality analysis go beyond administrative data and includes electronic repositories like eHRs, PHRs, eMRs and Healthcare Information Exchange [HIE] resources, where available.

www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Assessment

For a few more examples:

Link: http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/02/index.html

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post, and original post, are appreciated.

Are these database silos secure, and do patients know that, or how, their hopefully blinded information is redacted and used?  Will the health insurance industry use this information to further “slice and dice” ratings levels for their insured’s? Will it then be securitized, re-aggregated and resold again for non-healthcare related purposes like home, auto or life insurance; or other yet to be developed risk-management products and services?

Is this transparent and fair to patients? What are the legal and ethical implications, if any? Thought leaders please opine?

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  or Bio: www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm

Get our Widget: Get this widget!

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Get our Widget: Get this widget!

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Filed under: Ethics, Health Insurance, Health Law & Policy, Information Technology, Quality Initiatives, Research & Development | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

About Hyoumanity

Posted on January 19, 2009 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

The Persistent Non-Diagnosis Dilemma

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA, CMP™dr-david-marcinko4

It is well known that computerized information systems [CIS] are increasingly being used to analyze the cost-effectiveness and quality of care given by medical providers. And, providers are slowly receiving clarity in the methods used to track their practice patterns, whether the tracking includes the cost of the practice, quality of care (such as frequency of preventive services that a practice provides), and/or outcomes monitoring.

Using information systems for such purposes is part of the growing field of medical informatics, which can be defined as the applied science at the junction of the disciplines of medicine, business, and information technology, which supports the healthcare delivery process and promotes measurable improvements in both quality of care and cost-effectiveness [Source: Medical College of Wisconsin, and www.HealthDictionarySeries.com].

Health Risk Assessment Data

Although HRA data are not generally used to profile care processes per se, such measures help to determine which members are at highest risk for chronic illness in the future, such as heart disease. And, according to our Business of Medical Practice print-book colleague – Brent A. Metfessel MD, MIS – patients usually fill out such surveys directly, as many Internet sites have sprung up which include free HRAs and calculation of risk scores. Included in HRA surveys are smoking history, dietary habits, general health questions, energy levels, emotional health, driving habits, and other parameters. Providers may use these results as guides to ascertain which members need the most intensive intervention and thus help prevent poor future outcomes http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

None address the emerging problem of persistent non-diagnosis, however.

The Problem

Therefore, Bradley Kittredge of Hyoumanity suggests that a significant dilemma is emerging when addressing – or not addressing – HRA data relative to persistent non-diagnosis. In other words, the persistent non-diagnosis dilemma may represent a significant under-recognized and under-addressed emerging problem in our healthcare system today.

Not Iatric

This situation is unlike iatrogenic conditions which may be defined as those conditions that are physician induced [complications, “never-events”, allergic reactions, un-necessary treatments, interventions and/or surgery, etc]. More formally; iatros means physician in Greek, and-genic, meaning induced-by, is derived from the International Scientific Vocabulary [ISV]. Combined, of course, they become iatrogenic, meaning physician-induced. Iatrogenic disease is obviously, then, disease which is caused by a physician [www.iatrogenic.org].

The Definition

Blogger Kittredge – an MBA/MPH candidate for 2009 at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley and a Brian Maxwell Fellow – defines persistent non-diagnosis as:

“any patient who experiences clinical symptoms that five or more doctors are unable to diagnose.”

And, he opines that every day, thousands of Americans are desperately seeking answers to complex medical conditions that doctors are unable to diagnose.

Quality Improvement Initiatives

Findings ways to improve the process of diagnosis and the handling of these tough cases for both patients and doctors will reduce costs, improve health outcomes, and dramatically impact lives. It is the stuff of such medical quality improvement icons like Robert M. Wachter MD, Professor and Associate Chairman of the Department of Medicine at UCSF and my colleague and print-journal Foreword contributor David B. Nash; MD, MBA of the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, PA www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Assessment

Currently, Brad is working to build an online tool to assist with complex and difficult diagnoses, which he considers among the biggest problems in medical care. His technical off-spring, Hyoumanity, is committed to improving awareness and understanding of the prevalence, causes, and implications of persistent non-diagnosis – and misdiagnosis – and to the development of tools to assist and empower patients and doctors to resolve complex cases [http://hyoumanity.blogspot.com]. We wish him well.

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  or Bio: www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. It’s free. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Filed under: Breaking News, Ethics, Health Economics, Quality Initiatives, Research & Development | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »