Showing posts with label EHR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EHR. Show all posts

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Psychiatrists have lowest EHR adoption rate of all specialties


Yikes! I've been silent here for close to a year. This is what happens when you get used to the appeal of short-form blogging (twitter). But you can only say so much in 140 characters.

Anyway, I tweeted yesterday about the low rate of electronic health record (EHR) adoption among psychiatrists (7%) and @ShellyVAdams asked for a link; so here is a bit more detail. Jonathan Wolfe has a piece in Psych News coming out next week with more details.

The HITECH Act's funding for EHR adoption for eligible providers does not cover most mental health professionals (eg, social workers, psychologists, counselors, community mental health centers (CMHCs), etc), other than psychiatrists and some nurse practitioners. Because many psychiatrists practice in CMHCs, it is not surprising that the rate is lower.

Click on the image below to go to the original source (page 38):

FYI: The average for solo practice physicians in 2012 is about 30%.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Crazy busy

So I noticed it's been 4 months since I last posted on HIT Shrink. Lots of things going on. I've had a few people ask me about what I've been working on, so thought I'd put it up here... if only for me to keep track of, including all the links to these areas.

  • Epic Implementation
    After about 15 months of planning, meeting, coding, optimizing, and preparing, we went live on Epic a week ago. We had Cerner before that, and a homegrown CIS before that. The initial CIS was mostly labs, rads, and dictations as I recall. With Cerner PowerChart and FirstNet, we added nursing documentation, MAR, and some clinical documentation, though we had a hybrid system that included a paper chart for all non-dictated physician documentation (mostly progress notes, as H&Ps, consults, and DC summaries were dictated) and paper physician orders. A handful of small, contained areas (Peds, OB, Psych, ED) did do CPOE, but expanding that to the rest of the hospital, and our many community-based physicians, was untenable.

    Now we have (mostly) abandoned paper documentation, with all physician documentation being done by either phone dictation, templates (using Notes and/or Notewriter plus/minus partial dictation), or Dragon. We are piloting Dragon Enterprise with a small number of physicians, otherwise they are using their own licenses. Still having network connectivity problems with wireless devices, especially BYODs -- particularly those of the Apple persuasion. And ironing out printing issues.

    Overall, the switch has gone amazingly well. I attribute this to excellent executive support, mandatory classroom (not online) physician training (8-12 hours), extensive clinician involvement in the build, and heavy at-the-elbow support.

  • Maryland's Behavioral Health Integration
    In 2011 we kicked off an effort to combine the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's two administrations -- Mental Hygiene Administration and Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration -- into an integrated administration which is expected to be called the Behavioral Health Administration. The Joint Chairman's Report lays out much of the rationale, as well as the challenges. Health Secretary Joshua Sharfstein MD MPH, previously Baltimore City commissioner, then a stint at FDA, has led an admirably open, transparent, stakeholder-rich effort to shape this integration effort.

    The past 3 months have been heavy with 2-to-3-hour long Workgroup meetings. I've been attending many of these meetings (maybe a third to a half), representing the Maryland Psychiatric Society. The main points I've been making mostly revolve around ensuring mental health parity and integration of primary care. Besides the large overall Workgroup, there have been four, more focused, workgroups (links have meeting agenda, minutes, resource documents). Their charges are as follows:
    • Systems Linkage:
      Purpose: To make a recommendation on those factors that should be present to promote "integration." For example, should there be a shared electronic health record among all providers within an MCO? What factors indicate “integrated” care, and what factors indicate “collaborative” care?
    • State/Local and Non-Medicaid Workgroup: Purpose: To make a recommendation on what services/financing should be left outside a “Medicaid” integrated care model to accommodate non-Medicaid eligible populations, or non-Medicaid-eligible services. This Workgroup will also make a recommendation on the roles that state and local government should perform depending on which services/financing are left outside of the Medicaid financing model, as well as how to support and interface with selected model.
    • Evaluation and Data WorkgroupPurpose: To determine what data is available and relevant to the ultimate recommendation on the model, and to make a recommendation on potential measures to evaluate any selected model.
    • Chronic Health Homes Workgroup
    • Purpose: To make a recommendation on a new “Health Home” service under the Affordable Care Act, and make a recommendation on how the new service could be developed to support any integration model. For example, this workgroup would help define the service; define the population eligible for the service; and define the provider qualifications to deliver the service.
  • Maryland Health Benefit Exchange
    Maryland is among the earliest states to respond to the ACA's requirement of health insurance exchanges that include qualified health plans (QHPs) which must include a minimum set of essential health benefits (EHBs). This process has been unfolding extremely quickly over the past three months, with several meetings per week across all the advisory committees, as well as the governing Board. I've served on the Plan Management Advisory Committee, which has completed its work and submitted a Summary to the Board and to the legislature. Over 200 pages of public comments have been submitted to the Board, which met last week. Ensuring that there are requirements to demonstrate Parity compliance, as well as adequate provider network standards, has been the main focus of mental health advocates.

    The other advisory committees include Navigator, Continuity of Care, Financing, and Exchange Implementation.
  • Maryland Health Information Exchange
    The MHCC Policy Board continues to slog through its policy discussions. The current list of policies is in a .pdf document here. We've also been working on draft regulations for HIEs in Maryland. Initial public comments on these draft regulations are available on the HIE website.

Other things I've been working on include APA's Committee on Electronic Health Records, M3Clinician (a clinician portal for the M3 mental health screening tool), and mental health parity. This last thing includes working with folks in the Parity Implementation Coalition, testifying at a Congressional parity hearing, and even appearing on the Diane Rehm Show.

I'll try to post a bit more often here, but you can also keep an eye on Shrink Rap, Clinical Psychiatry News, and a new column on health IT to start soon in Psychiatric News.
Thank you for reading.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Stage 2 MU: Universal Depression Screening?


In Clinical Psychiatry News yesterday, I wrote a column entitled, "Effect on Psychiatry of Stage 2 Meaningful Use," where I focused primarily on the proposal that all "meaningful EHR users" must collect and report 12 clinical quality measures or CQMs. This is not to be confused with the objectives that must also be achieved. Both the objectives and the measures have core items and menu items. The core ones are mandatory (unless one meets exclusion criteria) and the menu ones are selectives (eg, one must be chosen from a list of options).

In the column, I listed the proposed core CQMs (as listed in Table 6 of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making or NPRM) and focused particularly on one of the proposed CQMs, depression screening. Here is the proposed list for Stage 2:

  • receiving consultant reports
  • functional status assessments for patients with complex chronic conditions
  • controlled hypertension
  • medication reconciliation
  • use of high risk meds in the elderly
  • therapeutic drug monitoring
  • antithrombotic use in ischemic vascular disease
  • obesity screening and counseling in kids
  • tobacco use screening in adults
  • cholesterol screening in adults
  • depression screening for ages 12 and up

[For a refresher on Stage 1, this article should be helpful.]
CMS actually proposed two possible schemes for reporting these measures. One scheme -- called 1a -- is to select 12 measures from a larger list of 125 options in Table 8 of the NPRM, with at least one from each of 6 domains. The other -- called 1b -- is to report on all 11 of the Table 6 measures (listed above) and 1 from Table 8. The former scheme makes more sense for most specialists, especially psychiatrists, because it maintains flexibility and does not force us to report on things like cholesterol screening and antithrombotic use, both of which are most likely being addressed by a patient's PCP (primary care physician). If one instead reports CQMs via the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System's EHR Reporting Option, then one can skip the above two schemes (at least, that's how I read it).

This Table 8 list of 125 clinical quality measures is the proposed list, not the final list that will likely be a subset of these based on public comments. Out of this long list, I list below those CQMs that seem to be most relevant to Psychiatry, while being sure to include at least one measure from each domain.


CLINICAL QUALITY MEASURE RELATED TO PSYCHIATRYDOMAIN
Initiation & Engagement of Alcohol & Drug Treatment
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Medication Reconciliation
Patient Safety
Major Depression: Diagnostic Evaluation
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Major Depression: Suicide Risk Assessment
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Anti-depressant Medication Management
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
ADHD: Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Mood disorders: Appraisal drug & alcohol use
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Bipolar Disorder: Monitoring change in level-of-functioning
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Screening for Clinical Depression
Population/ Public Health
Documentation of Current Medications in the Medical Record
Patient Safety
Depression Remission at Six Months
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Depression Remission at Twelve Months
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Depression Utilization of the PHQ-9 Tool
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Child & Adolescent Major Depression: Suicide Risk Assessment
Patient Safety
Dementia: Staging of Dementia
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Dementia: Cognitive Assessment
Clinical Process/ Effectiveness
Dementia: Functional Status Assessment
Patient and Family Engagement
Dementia: Counseling Regarding Safety Concerns
Patient and Family Engagement
Dementia: Caregiver Education and Support
Patient and Family Engagement
Dementia: Counseling Regarding Risks of Driving
Patient Safety
Closing the referral loop: receipt of specialist report
Care Coordination
Adverse Drug Event Prevention: Therapeutic drug monitoring
Patient Safety

So, if the 1b proposal is chosen by CMS, psychiatrists will have to report on cholesterol and anticoagulants, however this will also result in near-universal depression screening. This would likely result in a lot more referrals to mental health specialists when patients are found to score positively on the screening tool (note that any standardized screening tool is acceptable, such as the BDI, GDS, PHQ-9, and M3), resulting in improvements in morbidity and reductions in costs associated with undiagnosed and untreated depression.

But, it is also likely to result in more PCPs, pediatricians, and OB-GYNs managing mild and moderate depression. Unless they also screen for bipolar disorder, a certain percent of these people -- who have undiagnosed bipolar disorder -- will be placed on antidepressants and be harmed from induction of mania, hypomania, or a mixed state by the antidepressant. If this 1b proposal is chosen, we will need to ensure that PCPs know how to screen for bipolar disorder, and that they are able to recognize mania or hypomania induced by an antidepressant.

If the 1a proposal is chosen, then providers will be able to pick and choose which of the Table 8 CQMs (at least one from each domain) is chosen. While this will be preferable because specialists won't have to report on measures that they rarely address, this path will NOT result in widespread screening of depression, as I expect providers will pick those measures that they already record in most patients currently.

I must say that I am torn between the two options, as I would like to have my cake and eat it, too.

Please comment on your thoughts about this. Also, let CMS know your thoughts by providing public comment prior to May 7 at this regulations.gov page.


Friday, February 24, 2012

Meaningful Use Attestation by Psychiatrists

The ONC released a spreadsheet recently of all the eligible providers (Medicare and Medicaid) who attested to Stage 1 Meaningful Use (MU) of certified electronic health records (EHRs). I downloaded the results and did some pivot table magic to see which EHRs are being used by physicians identifying their specialty as "psychiatry."

There were 285 people who said they were compliant with Stage 1 MU. Interestingly, there were others who identified themselves in other ways. Three were "Community Mental Health Centers," even though HITECH specifically included them (but a doc there can attest, so I guess it's ok); they used Meditech and HCA. Five identified as "psychiatric" (Cerner, Design Clinicals, Siemens, and Wellsoft). And 16 as "psychiatric unit (Epic, Cerner, NextGen, McKesson, GE, HCA, Meditech, Midas+, Siemens). Here is data on the 285 identified as "psychiatry." If I get ambitious, I'll come back and hyperlink the names.
[edit 2/26: the links are in the Clinical Psychiatry News version of this article]

After discounting the large system products (eg, Epic, Cerner), you can get an idea about the EHR products being used in outpatient private practices.

Vendor Name EHR Product Name Total % of all Psychiatrists
Epic Systems Corporation EpicCare Ambulatory - Core EMR 129
EpicCare Inpatient - Core EMR 2
Epic Systems Corporation Total 131 46.0%
Practice Fusion Practice Fusion 22
Practice Fusion Total 22 7.7%
Cerner Corporation Health Sentry 8
Millennium Powerchart, Healthe Exchange, IQHealth, Health Sentry, Cerner Health 1
Powerchart and Cerner Healthe 8
Cerner Corporation Total 17 6.0%
Allscripts Allscripts ED 1
Allscripts Enterprise E HR Modular 2
Allscripts Enterprise EHR 2
Allscripts ePrescribe 1
Allscripts MyWay EHR 1
Allscripts PeakPractice 1
Allscripts Professional EHR 5
Allscripts Total 13 4.6%
Community Computer Service, Inc. MEDENT 9
Community Computer Service, Inc. Total 9 3.2%
Valant Medical Solutions, Inc. Valant Premium Psychiatric Suite 9
Valant Medical Solutions, Inc. Total 9 3.2%
DrFirst Rcopia MU 8
DrFirst Total 8 2.8%
MedSeek, Inc. eHealth ecoSystem 8
MedSeek, Inc. Total 8 2.8%
WellCentive WellCentive Registry 8
WellCentive Total 8 2.8%
eClinicalWorks LLC eClinicalWorks 6
eClinicalWorks LLC Total 6 2.1%
ICANotes, LLC ICANotes EHR/EMR for Behavioral Health 6
ICANotes, LLC Total 6 2.1%
NextGen Healthcare NextGen Ambulatory EHR 5
NextGen Inpatient Clinicals 1
NextGen Healthcare Total 6 2.1%
McKesson Medisoft Clinical 4
McKesson Total 4 1.4%
e-MDs, Inc. e-MDs Solution Series 3
e-MDs, Inc. Total 3 1.1%
MedPlus, A Quest Diagnostics Company Care360 EHR 3
MedPlus, A Quest Diagnostics Company Total 3 1.1%
UNI/CARE Systems, Inc Pro-Filer(TM) 3
UNI/CARE Systems, Inc Total 3 1.1%
AmazingCharts.com, Inc. Amazing Charts 2
AmazingCharts.com, Inc. Total 2 0.7%
Greenway Medical Technologies, Inc. PrimeSuite 2
Greenway Medical Technologies, Inc. Total 2 0.7%
MedCPU Inc. Meaningful Use Advisor 2
MedCPU Inc. Total 2 0.7%
Meditab Software, Inc. IMS 2
Meditab Software, Inc. Total 2 0.7%
MTBC (Medical Transcription Billing Corporation) MTBC-EHR 2
MTBC (Medical Transcription Billing Corporation) Total 2 0.7%
Nuesoft Technologies, Inc. NueMD EHR 2
Nuesoft Technologies, Inc. Total 2 0.7%
Office Ally EHR 24/7 2
Office Ally Total 2 0.7%
TheraManager LLC MaestroMed 2
TheraManager LLC Total 2 0.7%
Waiting Room Solutions 2011 Waiting Room Solutions Web Based EHR and Practice Management System 2
Waiting Room Solutions Total 2 0.7%
ADP AdvancedMD AdvancedMD EHR 1
ADP AdvancedMD Total 1 0.4%
athenahealth, Inc athenaClinicals 1
athenahealth, Inc Total 1 0.4%
DrChrono.com Inc. drchrono EHR 1
DrChrono.com Inc. Total 1 0.4%
GE Healthcare Centricity EMR 1
GE Healthcare Total 1 0.4%
HealthFusion MediTouch EHR 1
HealthFusion Total 1 0.4%
Henry Schein Medical Systems MicroMD EMR 1
Henry Schein Medical Systems Total 1 0.4%
Ingenix Ingenix CareTracker 1
Ingenix Total 1 0.4%
IOS Health Systems Medios 1
IOS Health Systems Total 1 0.4%
iSALUS Healthcare OfficeEMR 1
iSALUS Healthcare Total 1 0.4%
Medical Informatics Engineering WebChart EHR 1
Medical Informatics Engineering Total 1 0.4%
SuiteMed Intelligent Medical Software (IMS) 1
SuiteMed Total 1 0.4%
Grand Total 285

Hmm, the numbers are cut off. I placed this here in a Google Doc so you can see all the data.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Risks & Benefits of HIE's: "Sensitive" Health Information




[cross-posted from Shrink Rap]
I participate in a committee that establishes policies for our state's health information exchange (HIE). The HIE is the electronic infrastructure that permits hospitals, physician groups, labs, imaging companies, pharmacies, and others to share information about patients. The idea behind the sharing is to make it easier for your primary care doctor to share your health data (ideally, with your permission) with your cardiologist and your dermatologist. The potential benefits to this sharing include:
  • quicker exchange of information than with faxing or mailing
  • less likely for papers to get misfiled or lost (eg, think Hurricane Katrina)
  • better tracking of who accessed what information
  • less duplication of tests ("I know you had a CAT scan at the other hospital last week but I can't wait for the results to be sent to me so I'm getting another one.")
  • improved coordination of care
  • fewer medical errors due to more information available
  • decreased liability due to sharing of important information with other providers

The potential risks include:
  • decreased privacy due to potential for data breach, identity theft
  • loss of data due to technical problems (viruses, hardware failure, etc)
  • failure to secure data due to inadequate authentication, authorization, encryption, etc
  • more errors in health record due to automated data collection processes
  • increased liability due to sharing of sensitive information with other providers

I wanted to talk briefly about this notion of "sensitive health information." Our committee has spent many hours discussing what this might mean and how to define it. One view is that all health information should be treated as "sensitive," while another is that only certain categories of health information, such as mental illness, substance abuse, HIV status, domestic violence, abortion history, and genetic data, should be treated with additional safeguards against inadvertent access or disclosure. This latter viewpoint promotes the stigma about mental illness that we have been trying to erase. It wasn't so long ago that epilepsy and cancer might have been on this list. My viewpoint is that patients should be the one to decide which elements of their health information should be treated with extra precautions and which should be considered routine.

This was ultimately agreed upon by the other committee members, but it still didn't help us much because the technology for patients to review their health information and mark which bits should be tagged as sensitive is not yet built into nearly any of the electronic health record products or the HIE systems. There is no standard for doing so nor is there even any agreement about how or whether it should be done. Groups like healthdatarights.org and speakflower.org have promoted these ideals, but we are not much closer to achieving them.

Anyway, I discussed this topic in my Shrink Rap News blog post this week over on Clinical Psychiatry News. Read more about it over there. If you are a psychiatrist, log in or register on CPN and join the discussion (my mistake -- other professionals and also consumers are allowed to register over there).

Saturday, October 2, 2010

IOM to Address Safety of EHRs

Scot Silverstein from the Health Care Renewal blog posted about IOM's recently announced contract with ONC to "identify best policies and practices for improving healthcare safety when using electronic health records."
"Perhaps these studies should have been initiated, say, ten years ago, or at least before the beneficence of health IT and its capacity to revolutionize medicine was openly promoted by the past and current Administrations (the current one going so far as to institutionalize penalties for non adopters)?"

The IOM consensus study, entitled "Patient Safety and Health Information Technology," will be conducted by NAS staffers Samantha Chao, Joi Washington, and Erin Wilhelm:
"The IOM will review the available evidence and the experience from the field on how the use of health information technology (HIT) affects the safety of patient care and make recommendations on how public and private actors can maximize the safety of HIT-assisted health care services. The IOM's final report will be both comprehensive and specific in terms of recommended options and opportunities for public and private interventions that may improve the safety of care that incorporates the use EHRs and other forms of HIT."
While I agree that this effort should have been done long ago, I am glad to see it being addressed. There is much polarization about whether EHRs are the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing to hit medicine since managed care. Perhaps this IOM study will address both the pros and cons of EHRs from a provider's perspective (though I don't think any of the study staff are providers). Health care providers need to have a voice that can be heard by the vendors and governments when we find that given instances of EHR usability are inefficient or unsafe, and maybe this study will recommendations to address this current gap.

Monday, March 22, 2010

HIMSS EMR Adoption Model: 2009 Level 4 (CPOE) Only 14%



Hospitals in 2009 continued to have low CPOE adoption (Level 4), but they did manage to jump from 5.8% to 13.5% having CPOE (Computerized Provider Order Entry) from 2008 to 2009.

Looking at the HIMSS EMR Adoption Model trends, you can see how the 5000+ hospitals in the US are gradually moving up the electronic evolutionary ladder towards Level 7, which is full implementation of a completely interoperable, paperless, electronic medical record (note that HIMSS differentiates an "EMR" (within a single organization) from an "EHR", which it defines to specifically be a "subset of each care delivery organization's (CDO) EMR, ... owned by the patient and has patient input and access that spans episodes of care across multiple CDOs within a community, region, or state...").

As a reminder, here are the definitions of the levels (from HIMSS):

It'll be interesting to see how the HITECH Act's financial incentives accelerates adoption of the higher levels (4 and up). Looking at the cumulative adoption percentages below, I'd expect Level 4 to take off in the same way that Level 3 has over the past several years. But that is the hardest transition to achieve due to the dramatic changes in physician workflow required. This is easier to achieve in hospitals where the majority of the physicians are employed by the hospital; however, physicians at most hospitals (especially community hospitals) are not employed, so these hospitals have less fortitude in requiring them to enter their own orders.

Any guesses as to what the 2010 adoption numbers will be?


Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Licensing One's Own Health Care Data


Paul Roemer at HealthcareITstrategies asked about the difference between a patient owning vs accessing their health care data.

To which I replied:
Paul, I'd like to see a model considered where the patient owns the data, and licenses it out to others, such as doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. One could then imagine a situation where that data (including their genetic info), owned and licensed by the patient, might have a value. The patient could then do the following:
  • be paid licensing fees for access to their data (from Google or other marketing companies; and from insurance companies and Pharma, who would benefit from knowing this info)
  • grant access for free to their providers, spouse, etc
  • pay others to access their data in order to gain some benefit, such as analytics

This would change the whole discussion about health care, privacy, and costs.



Think about the incredible shifts and changes in the marketplace if such a revolution developed.

Not only would there be this "power to the people" shift in mindset, it would also create a huge change in the average consumer's approach to their own health. It would encourage them to pay attention to their data, and thus their health, in a manner similar to how people pay attention to their savings and checking accounts. It might even result in a reduction in health care costs. It would certainly create a more fluid marketplace.

How do we get there? (add comments/ideas)

[Edit: Dec 13- I'm linking to some of the great prior posts and items noted by the commenters.]
  • HealthBlawg: David Harlow's interview with law professor Marc Rodwin about idea of public ownership of de-identified health data. [Jul 2009]
  • Marc Rodwin's JAMA article, "The Case for Public Ownership of Patient Data". [Jul 2009]
  • Silona Bonewald's post about mutual data ownership. [Jun 2009]
  • Leo Kish asks: What if all applications, caregivers and patients were connected online? [Nov 2009]
  • Gregg Masters (@2healthguru) posts "I Will License or Lease My Health Info to Providers". [Mar 2009]
  • Steve Holcombe's piece on granular information ownership. [Aug 2008]

Friday, October 16, 2009

Links to HIT and MU Resources


Please add a comment for other links that should be included. Thanks.

Upcoming meetings & public comment . . .


FDA Hearing on Social MediaNov 12-13fdasm.com | Federal Register notice (PUBLIC COMMENTS thru Feb 28) | FDA Notice | AGENDA | Speakers | Panelists | transcript of 1996 mtg re internet
HIT Standards CommThu Oct 29Public testimony to better understand adoption and implementation issues, needs for enhanced implementation guidance, and identification of enablers that would accelerate interoperability such as new tools or filing standards gaps. We'll also conduct an online forum and accept written testimony. [per John Halamka]
HIT Policy CommOct 27-28MU relevance to Specialty providers (incl Psychiatry & Behavioral Health), small practices, and small hospitals.
| Agenda | Webcast | Oct 27 transcript
Twitter links . . .
  • #fdasm: FDA hearing on social media and web2.0 (Nov 12-13)
  • #hcsm: Health Care & Social Media chat, Sunday nights 9-10 ET
  • @ahier: Brian often is the first to post transcripts of the public meetings on his blog
  • #hitpol: Tweets related to HIT policy issues
  • #ehr: EHR-related tweets
  • #hchit: Health care HIT chat, Thursdays 1-2pm ET