Want better health information technology? Ask patients how they want it

Want better health information technology? Ask patients how they want it

Health Affairs report shows value of patient-centered IT at Group Health

SEATTLE—Hopes are high that health information technology will support care between office visits, boost efficiency and convenience, and help patients lead healthier lives. An evaluation in the April Health Affairs suggests how to make the most of this new approach: Routinely ask patients how they like it and what they want.

“It’s crucial to ask patients whether the health information technology they use is meeting their needs promptly and appropriately and honoring their values and preferences,” said lead author James Ralston, MD, MPH, an associate investigator at Group Health Research Institute and an internist at Group Health Cooperative.

Group Health was an “early adopter” of health information technology that directly engages patients online. By 2003, Group Health patients could use its Web site to: exchange secure e-mail with their health care providers; schedule office visits; get after-visit summaries and medication refills; and see parts of their electronic health record (EHR), including test results, medications, and immunizations. Since then, the integrated health care system has kept improving its health information technology based on surveys of randomly selected patients every two years.

Dr. Ralston used those biennial surveys as part of an evaluation of Group Health’s use of health information technology. He found patients were highly satisfied with the technology, and they were most satisfied with the services they used most often: reviewing test results, requesting medication refills, exchanging secure e-mail with providers, and reviewing after-visit summaries.

By the end of 2009, 58 percent of Group Health’s adult patients had registered for access to online services, and that percentage keeps rising. And of every 10 times that Group Health patients consulted with their primary care team, three times were through secure e-mail, two were over the phone, and five were in person.

The Stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) of 2009 included incentives for medical systems to adopt EHRs if they use them “meaningfully.” Accordingly, in 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will start paying incentives to providers and hospitals that show “meaningful use” of EHRs. But current meaningful-use criteria don’t include any assessment of patients’ experience.

“Based on our evaluation, we strongly urge policy makers to include measures of patients’ experience when setting criteria for meaningful use of health information technology,” Dr. Ralston said. “Because of concerns about disparities in access to care, especially the ‘technology gap,’ patients must be able to communicate with providers in the way they need or prefer, whether in person, over the phone, or through secure e-mail.”

At Group Health, patients can connect with their health care providers in whichever way they prefer. And providers are paid on salary for caring for a group of patients, not reimbursed for each visit and procedure they do. By contrast, most U.S. providers are paid for each procedure and office visit—but not for connecting with their patients by e-mail or phone.

“That’s why the United States also needs payment reform,” said Dr. Ralston’s co-author Matthew R. Handley, MD, Group Health’s associate medical director of quality and informatics.

###

Their other co-authors were Katie Coleman, MSPH, research associate; Robert J. Reid, MD, PhD, associate investigator; and Eric B. Larson, MD, MPH, senior investigator and executive director of Group Health Research Institute. Both Drs. Reid and Handley are also Group Health family physicians.

A video of Drs. Ralston and Handley discussing their evaluation of Group Health’s information technology is available here:www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAVDTPoFsY4

Health Affairs

Health Affairs, published by Project HOPE, is the leading journal of health policy. The peer-reviewed journal appears each month in print, with additional Web First papers published weekly at www.healthaffairs.org/.

Group Health Research Institute

Founded in 1947, Group Health Cooperative is a Seattle-based, consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system. Group Health Research Institute changed its name from Group Health Center for Health Studies in 2009. Since 1983, the Institute has conducted nonproprietary public-interest research on preventing, diagnosing, and treating major health problems. Government and private research grants provide its main funding.

6 reasons why EMR projects falter

A recent vendor’s assessment report and advisory for a local hospital that is midway through an EMR implementation illustrates some reasons why EMR projects fail, and how common the most common mistakes are.

1. Lack of coordination. Wait, isn’t that what project management is all about? Coordination? The vendor’s report reads, “It appears that there is little oversight or accountability in the review of builds against the approved design decisions.” I’d say that’s a pretty serious lack of coordination.

2. Inadequate testing. Testing is pretty important when you are developing a tool that if poorly designed can cost a patient their life.  Typically in EMR work, testing is done at three or four distinct points in development. If those tests aren’t done or are poorly done, the finished product is defective, and patients welfare is at risk. And as this vendor pointed out to its client, it also results in costly rework and user (doctor and nurse) dissatisfaction.

3. Ignoring important information. Vendors typically send out informational bulletins about their products, as well as software updates, which the hospital or other provider’s technical staff needs to look at, analyze, and act on. In this case, critical bulletins were either ignored or not properly acted on. Software updates were late or improperly applied, resulting–again–in less than optimal functionality of the system, and–again–dampened satisfaction among the clinical users. Again, delaying the updates also can result in costly rework later on.

4. Making the product more complex than necessary. Technical people are prone to use a gadget or a software configuration option just because it’s there. Using a particular piece of functionality may not make things easier for the end user. It may actually make things more difficult, and may scuttle a workflow that was working fine before the new technology was introduced. My favorite Einstein quote is “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”. That little piece of wisdom should be tattooed on the arm of every CIO and IT analyst in the nation.

5. The physicians (and other clinicians) do not have enough input in the process. This particular vendor’s report calls this point repeatedly. “We recommend these decisions be reconsidered with input from end users, including physicians.” This recommendation several times. As well as the physicians, all the end users–nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, and therapists–need to be consulted, and the work that they do has to be thoroughly understood by the people that are configuring the software. Whatever it takes to facilitate this communication has to happen before the installation manual is even opened.

6. Best practices are rarely followed consistently. Everyone has days when they can’t follow the simplest instructions. Bad hair days, fuzzy Fridays, call them what you will. Your implementation plan, at a high level, has to account for the human factor in everything you are trying to accomplish in your EMR implementation. As part of your design, you have to design reliable feedback and quality control mechanisms that will get you back on track if you should divert for one of these human reasons.

We’ve been doing EMR implementations long enough now. there are volumes full of best practices. Why do we still have little hospitals trying to reinvent the wheel? And it’s not just little hospitals. Big famous ones, like Cedars-Sinai in Hollywood, routinely miss human error in the planning stage, and it haunts those projects and those humans all through implementation.

Too-tight timelines, poor communications between departments and work groups all can spell disaster at any time, and safeguards aren’t designed in, time and money is lost, and–back to item 2.–patient’s lives can be endangered.

Court rules homeowners don’t have to pay membership fee

Appeals court rules Ironhorse homeowners don’t have to pay membership fee.

By KIMBERLY MILLER

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Updated: 9:06 a.m. Friday, Dec. 18, 2009

Posted: 8:56 a.m. Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009

— Residents of the Ironhorse community are no longer required to buy memberships to the development’s financially troubled country club following an appeals court decision.

The mandatory memberships, which cost residents $2,900 a year, were challenged by 10 homeowners and struck down in a 2008 circuit court ruling. The ruling said Ironhorse’s developer couldn’t unilaterally change homeowner documents forcing residents to pay the fee.

Wednesday’s decision out of the 4th District Court of Appeal upholds that judgment.

“It is patently unjust to tell owners that you now have to become a member of the country club just because it’s located within the confines of the neighborhood,” said Boca Raton attorney Guy Shir, who with attorney Patrick Dervishi represented the plaintiffs. “The bottom line is there has to be a limitation and reason to how far you can go to tax residents of the community.”

Ironhorse, near Beeline Highway and Jog Road, has 324 homes. The country club spent about $3.5 million renovating its Arthur Hills-designed golf course in 2006, but has since seen its members dwindle to about 200.

Club President Bob Naples said bylaws call for 350 members, but the club could probably get by with about 300. Members are considering selling the club to private investors, and have discussed filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of financial problems.

Still, Naples said he doesn’t believe the decision will have a big impact on the club because many residents will choose to buy a “social membership” that allows them access to everything but the golf course.

“We’ll live with the court decision,” Naples said.

Attorneys involved in a few other mandatory country club fee lawsuits said the Ironhorse ruling is unlikely to influence their cases.

Because the appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling but didn’t offer its own opinion, it’s not a precedent-setting case, said attorney Peter Sachs.

Sachs represents Aberdeen Golf and Country Club in Boynton Beach in a lawsuit about mandatory memberships.