Title: How can ACMI best contribute to the widespread adoption of EHRs in the U.S.
1How can ACMI best contribute to the widespread
adoption of EHRs in the U.S.?
- W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D.
- Duke University
2What I would like to do today
- Share some ideas of what I think we are trying to
do - These ideas are suggested as starting points. We
will not all agree, but perhaps we can come to a
point of agreement - Identify some of the issues
- Suggest some recommendations that ACMI need to
publicize, support and promote - We will want to discuss, debate and modify
- We need to know how we will promote the
recommendations
3The EHRs time has come
- After more than 35 years of pursuing a thing we
now calling the Electronic Health Record, that
goal has captured the worlds attention. We are
now challenged to create standards and define a
process to make it happen. - We are discovering that the details of what it
is are elusive and the boundaries are very fuzzy. - What should be standardized and what should be
proprietary is open to debate. - There are more views of what we must specify to
move forward than we can accommodate.
4How many EHRs are there?
- Inpatient medical record
- Outpatient health record
- Primary care medical record
- Disease-specific record (cardiology,
hypertension, diabetes, etc.) - Intensive care record
- Emergency department record
- Nursing record
- Nursing home record
- Billing/claims record
- Research record
5The EHR
- It is not a clinical repository.
- Its purpose is to enhance the health and enable
the care of the individual. Its contents are
solely justified for that purpose. When data
ceases to contribute, it is removed. - Much of the data in the inpatient setting has
limited persistence - usually the more intense
the care, the shorter the persistence. - There are other repositories a data warehouse
that does contain and retain everything. - The EHR documents maintenance of care, diagnostic
and treatment processes, health status.
6Additionally
- There will be more than one type of EHR and the
purpose of each type will be different. - The site and purpose of care are importance
features. - The required functionality will be somewhat
different for each type of record. - The persistence of data will vary with site and
purpose. - The core components of all records must be the
same in terms of the data elements and how they
are represented. - All types of records are interconnected.
7IOM HL7
- Health Information and Data
- Results Management
- Order Entry/Management
- Decision Support
- Electronic Communications Connectivity
- Patient Support
- Administrative Process
- Reporting and Population Health Management
- Direct Care Health Information
- Work Flow and Operations Management
- Communications
- Records Documents and Views
- Clinical Support
- Measurement, Analysis, Research, Reports
- Administration/Finance
32 second level functional recommendations
60 second level functional specifications
8The HL7 Ballot
- 221 persons actually voted the largest number
of people voting on an HL7 standard ever - HL7 charged 100 administrative fee for
nonmembers to vote (negative reaction) - Approximately 50.2 of the votes were negative.
The largest number of negative votes came from
the vender community.
9Ballot Results
10Feedback from voting
- Structure vs functional description
- Vague and ambiguous terms and concepts
- Wanted clear and explicit definitions
- Variations in granularity
- Free text vs templates
- Clinical vs infrastructure terms
- Want specific data elements to be defined
- Confusion on Essential/Desired Tags
11From an other perspective
- Multiple views of the EHR must also exist
- The institutional/provider view that serves the
need of the institution in patient care, service
management, workflow management, and billing.
This view provides the source of data for other
views, since it is in this setting that the
patient/provider encounter takes place. - The composite view that represents a complete
summary view (the patient-centric view) of the
persons health. This view also serves needs of
health surveillance, bioterrorism surveillance,
and global epidemiology. - The personal health view that is customized to
each individual and their current and future
health needs.
12ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
COMMON TERMINOLOGY
MASTER SET DATA ELEMENTS
RIM DATA TYPES
CMETS GPICS ARCHETYPES
TERMINOLOGYSERVER
DATA ELEMENTSERVER
TEMPLATES CDA
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
ARCHITECTURE STRUCTURE
FUNCTIONS
CONTENT
13ExerciseLog
TravelLog
Device, SensorInput
AccessControlList
PersonalInput
DietLog
Specialists
Specialists
Specialists
PersonalHealthRecord
ChatRooms
ChatRooms
Clinics
Clinics
Clinics
Physiciane-mail
Inpatient
Inpatient
Inpatient
InternetWeb
InternetWeb
DecisionSupportAlgorithms
Pharmacy
Dental
Dental
Pharmacy
14EHR Interoperability Diagram
Billing/Claims
Profile
EnterpriseData Warehouse
PersonalEHR
PersonalEHR
Profile
PatientEncounter
Provider EHRDatabase
Institution EHRDatabase
Disease Registry
Profile
LongitudinalEHR
ResearchDatabase
Profile
Profile
Profiles contain business rules
15Download Process
Sensitive DemographicData
DoubleEncryptionSiliconEncoder
ID
ID
HL7 Message
Identifying Data, name, address, etc.
Encrypted ID
Identifying Data, Translated (e.g. Zip).
Aggregated SummaryLongitudinalEHR
Summary Data
16Summary Longitudinal Record
Patient controlled access
Summary Longitudinal Record
Access log
Access list permitby provider group clinic othe
r
Feeds PH surveillance, patient
safety, epidemiology
17Regional Linkages
18State-wide Linkage
UHI Pointer
Population 12 M
19National Linkage
N
UHI Pointer
20Business Linkages
Hospital Intensive Care EmergencyDepartment
NursingHome
Ambulatory Care Clinic
21What must be in place
- Data standards
- Reference Information Model
- Common data elements
- Common data types
- Common terminology
- Clinical templates
- Ability to share data and knowledge
- Data interchange standards
- Common content architecture standards
- Common minimum set of functions for the EHR
- Infrastructure to support required connectivity
- Common methods of knowledge representation
22Shared repositories at national or international
levels
- Master set of data objects or elements
- Common, integrated terminology sets
- Registered clinical documents using a standard
architecture - Registered clinical templates
- Registered clinical guidelines using standard
format - Registered decision support algorithms in
standard format - Registered disease registries in standard format
23Everybodys doing it
- United Kingdom (11B)
- Canada (1B)
- Australia (millions)
- New Zealand
- Germany
- Denmark
- Sweden
- Finland
- Korea
- Taiwan
- Japan
- US (Can we? A bigger challenge)
- Others
Goal is to have nation-wide clinical,
interoperable electronic health record systems by
the end of the first decade of the 21st century.
24Issues
- Vendor community
- Dont know installed base
- Legacy and costs too much to change
- Capacity and scalability
- Confused as to market demands
- Cant stay state of the art
- Dont really understand the problem
- Providers
- Wont pay to go or stay state of the art
- Are not motivated to change
- terminology
- Dont know what to change to
- 100 per month for ambulatory system
25Issues
- Open source
- Continuity of Care Record
- Too many choices
- Who will make the case?
- How do we hold to the course?
- Who is the trusted authority?
- Who provides the leadership?
- Who controls the data?
- Who owns the data?
26Issues
- Take what we can get or try to achieve the best
system we can conceive - Transition sets vs structured data
- Narrative versus coded data
27Recommendation 1
- Push toward each and all institutions moving
toward interoperability within their own
institutions - Terminology
- Data elements
- Integration and aggregation
- Create a registry and recognition of institutions
who accomplish this goal
28Recommendation 2
- Create a basic EHR that we will provide free to
any provider or clinic - Primer coat
- Minimum system (demographics, lab results,
medications, allergies, problem lists,
encounters) - Adequate decision support
- Simple, low maintenance, little education to use
required - Contract not open source
- Push for 100 adoption by providers in 3 years
- Provide specifications and funmctionality set for
vendors
29Recommendation 3
- Create an integrated terminology using inputs
from SNOMED CT, LOINC, ICD, MEDRA, RxNorm, VA NDF
RT, MEDCIN, NCI, IEEE, ICPC - Major market for provider institution to switch
to integrated terminology - Create process for update of terminology
- Do real time distribution
30Recommendation 4
- Identify who can influence movement to adoption
of EHR - All medical specialty organizations
- AAMC, AMIA, eHI, HIMSS, AMA, AHA, others
- Hospital groups
- Professional groups
- Make adoption of EHR a primary goal for any and
all groups with influence - Educate and promote within consumer groups push
for EHR - Create financial incentives
31Recommendation 5
- Established trusted agency to be responsible for
regional centers and to set up infrastructure. - Probably 200-300 centers in US with creation cost
of about 20M per region and an infrastructure
cost of 2B (6B) and operational costs of around
4M per regional center 800M plus operational
costs of 200M for infrastructure for a total of
1B per year. - Model process after Highway Interstate System
- Provide vendor specifications to participate
32Recommendation 6
- CMS and other payers provide all health care
plans, including rules for authorization,
approvals for reimbursement, etc. in computer
readable and computer understandable form. - Work toward real time adjudication of changes and
real time reimbursement. Minimize human
resources required to deal with reimbursement
33Recommendation 7
- Make a recommendation on universal health care
identifier - Algorithm based on several data elements
- Assigned unique identifier
- Voluntary unique identifier