EHR and Health IT Consulting
40.3K views | +3 today
Follow
EHR and Health IT Consulting
Technical Doctor's insights and information collated from various sources on EHR selection, EHR implementation, EMR relevance for providers and decision makers
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!

EHR Adoption Challenges Solved through Data Entry Transfer

EHR Adoption Challenges Solved through Data Entry Transfer | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

Once the HITECH Act was passed in 2009, EHR adoption and implementation of health IT systems grew tremendously over the coming years, as more providers began focusing on obtaining financial incentives from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the EHR Incentive Programs. While patient safety and quality of care has improved with the integration of computerized records, EHR adoption challenges have led to certain burdens among healthcare professionals.


From the potential for medical errors to a conceivably negative impact on the patient-doctor relationship, EHR adoption challenges will need to be addressed as healthcare facilities continue to implement computerized systems in order to qualify for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.


Fourteen experts from a wide background of organizations including Kaiser Permanente, Cerner Corporation, and Nextgen Healthcare put together a report to illustrate the future of EHR technology and how to overcome many common EHR adoption challenges. The report was published on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association EHR 2020 Task Force.


Some of the “unintended clinical consequences” of EHR implementation has been the longer work hours required from the data entry around computerized patient records  and less time for physicians to communicate directly with their patients. Additionally, EHR interoperability has not grown across the medical sector as quickly as previously hoped. Health data exchange is lacking due to information blocking among providers and vendors alike.


The overall goal of the health IT industry is to develop an effective and interoperable health information exchange platform in which patients, providers, healthcare professionals, and public health agencies have ready access to key data. However, EHR adoption challenges have put up roadblocks toward meeting this goal.


The Task Force offers ten suggestions for improving on health IT systems and overcoming some common EHR adoption challenges. First, it is important to decrease the overall burden from a high amount of data entry on the physician. When it comes to diagnosis and treatment, the process of capturing data has fallen on the physician, but moving the data entry toward other members of the healthcare team or even patients themselves could prove beneficial.


“Clinicians remain uncertain regarding who can and cannot enter data into the record, placing a tremendous data entry burden on providers, the most expensive members of the care team,” the Task Force wrote in the report. “Clinician time is better spent diagnosing and treating the patient rather than charting. Regulatory guidance that stipulates that data may be populated by others on the care team including patients would reduce this burden.”


Another suggestion the Task Force offered is to include sound recording during a patient visit instead of manually entering information into the EHR system. When it comes to discussing medical history, conducting a basic physical exam, and giving patients advice, doctors would benefit from a sound recording instead of pure data entry.


By following the suggestions offered in the Task Force’s report, the healthcare sector should move forward in properly addressing some common EHR adoption challenges and paving the road toward a future of effective and interoperable health IT products.

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Health Information Blocking Continues to Plague Data Exchange

Health Information Blocking Continues to Plague Data Exchange | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

Ever since the HITECH Act was passed and the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs were established, more than $29 billion was put toward expanding EHR implementation and health information exchange. Eligible physicians and hospitals were encouraged to adopt EHR systems and health IT platforms by offering financial incentives to those that do. Additionally, under the EHR Incentive Programs, reimbursement penalties would be given to those that have not met meaningful use requirements by a certain period. Despite the clear pathway toward medical data exchange, various stakeholders have participated in health information blocking, which impedes the goals of the healthcare IT industry for improved access to key data.


The New York Times reported that administration officials have found hospitals and laboratories along with EHR vendors participating in health information blocking in order to keep their consumer base from jumping toward a competing healthcare provider.


The federal government is currently attempting to create an environment across the healthcare industry in which medical information will flow freely from one facility to the next. The Obama Administration continues to make it a priority for hospitals and clinics to adopt EHRs and computerize patient records.


President Obama signed a stimulus bill upon taking office that gives hospitals and doctors incentives for implementing certified EHR technology. While large numbers of healthcare providers have adopted electronic records systems, the problem at hand is that few are able to share patient data across platforms designed by different vendors. Essentially, health information blocking delays the progress of EHR interoperability.


“We have electronic records at our clinic, but the hospital, which I can see from my window, has a separate system from a different vendor,” Dr. Reid B. Blackwelder, chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the news source. “The two don’t communicate. When I admit patients to the hospital, I have to print out my notes and send a copy to the hospital so they can be incorporated into the hospital’s electronic records.”


Another pediatrician from Massachusetts also lamented that he has tried and failed to connect medical records with a hospital’s EHR system in order to better coordinate care with his patients. Not long ago, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) sent a report to Congress expressing the need to put an end to health information blocking.


Additionally, the costs of sharing data among medical practices are creating barriers and essentially showing that various providers decline to share key data that is needed to treat a patient regardless of their condition.


Certain companiesare also making it more difficult for hospitals to connect to multiple laboratories and technology services while others have customers sign strict contracts that prohibit them from easily choosing a different EHR platform.


Recently, a House Committee passed a bill that states health information blocking is a federal offense. It is also against the law for doctors and hospitals to deliberately take part in health information blocking if they are receiving federal incentives from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for adopting certified EHR technology, according to a bill passed in Congress last month.

Through federal regulations, it is possible that health information blocking could become a problem of the past.

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

EHR Interoperability Stalled Due to Information Blocking

EHR Interoperability Stalled Due to Information Blocking | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

When it comes to the practice of medicine and drug discovery, the federal government plays a role in supporting these sectors and developing legislation that opens up avenues for healthcare professionals and scientific researchers. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has gone forward with creating legislation called 21st Century Cures that delves directly into stimulating the discovery and development of new treatments and medications for patients across the nation. The legislation also impacts the expansion of EHR interoperability.

While the intentions of the 21st Century Cures legislation is beneficial for drug discovery, the American Hospital Association (AHA) finds that the enforcement strategies under the proposed rules could have negative consequences for providers, particularly in its aim to expand EHR interoperability.

AHA Executive Vice President Rick Pollack stated in a letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that, which the organization appreciates the inclusion of EHR interoperability expansion, the “enforcement mechanisms” could lead to issues for healthcare providers such as putting together an ecosystem in which doctors may be significantly penalized for minor errors.

AHA does support health information exchange and EHR interoperability in pursuit of improving patient outcomes and incorporating new models of care. Nonetheless, AHA finds some issues with the enforcement related to vendors participating in information blocking problematic.

“The bill includes a number of enforcement mechanisms against those who engage in information blocking,” wrote AHA Executive Vice President Rick Pollack in the letter. “On the provider side, we believe that the use of Medicare fraud and abuse mechanisms, such as investigations by the Office of the Inspector General, imposition of civil monetary penalties or exclusion from the Medicare program, is unnecessary and inappropriate to address the concerns that the legislation seeks to remedy. We recommend that you use the existing structures of the meaningful use program to promote information sharing.”

On behalf of AHA, Pollack mentions that the organization appreciates the committee’s aim to ensure EHR vendors are responsible for creating interoperable health IT products. However, Pollack also stated that the committee should instruct the Federal Trade Commission to analyze any anti-competitive behavior among EHR vendors. In particular, Pollack finds the decertification of EHR systems among vendors that participated in information blocking objectionable, as it would affect healthcare providers and disrupt patient care.

“The language also includes decertification as a sanction for vendors that engage in information blocking. Decertification would be disruptive to hospitals and physicians that have invested in and deployed an EHR that is later decertified,” Pollack explained. “However, the inclusion of provider protections against meaningful use penalties if their EHR is decertified makes it more reasonable.”

The protections against payment penalties under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs would last for more than one year, which would give providers ample time to find a new vendor, develop a suitable contract, install another EHR system, and attest to relevant meaningful use requirements.

Additionally, AHA would like the definition of information blocking to become narrower in order to avoid charges of fraud to be dealt due to standard business practices. Essentially, AHA would like to reduce some of the punitive approaches the committee set forth and develop more positive approaches to expanding health information exchange.


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

While EHR Interoperability Remains Vital, Security Fears Abound

While EHR Interoperability Remains Vital, Security Fears Abound | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

The movement toward EHR interoperability is sought by the federal government and certain patient advocacy groups that believe it will lead to improved quality of healthcare, better outcomes, and lower costs. With the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) releasing an Interoperability Roadmap and issuing a report to Congress addressing the problems of information blocking, it is clear that the healthcare sector will be moving toward greater EHR interoperability and less restrictive health data exchange systems.


After ONC issued its report on information blocking in which EHR vendors were accused of charging additional fees for healthcare providers looking to access patient medical data outside of their facility, Epic Systems was one vendor that decided to drop its fees for exchanging patient data with non-Epic EHR system users. The Milwaukee Business Journal reported Epic System’s fees will be excluded until 2020.


Previously, Epic Systems charged $2.35 for every patient record accessed that wasn’t part of its EHR system. Removing these charges will be a big boost to EHR interoperability. Epic will also be taking part in the Carequality project, which is meant to develop effective health data exchange networks that assist in the sharing of medical information throughout the country.


While EHR interoperability is the name of the game for ONC, other federal agencies, and many healthcare providers, there are certain entities and individuals that do not support the seamless sharing of data. This was clearly seen in the public comments provided to ONC after the release of the Interoperability Roadmap.


“I have many issues with EHRs and interoperability – privacy is one of them. Privacy is a person’s right and this seems to be taken away with EHR interoperability,” wrote one stakeholder. “It allows nationwide access by innumerable people, which is unacceptable.”


Wayne Johnson, a retired Senior Project Manager, wrote to ONC: “I strongly urge you to vote against the proposed implementation of a National Medical Records System, an intrusive, non-secure storage and retrieval system designed to store and track the private medical data of US citizens, citizens who rightfully expect their personal information and effects to be secure from government inspection. I hold a Master’s of Science in software engineering, and I guarantee that the database system you intend to build, regardless of your intentions for security, will be compromised. Unlawful access to the private medical information stored in the system will be achieved. There is no such thing as an absolutely secure networked system.”


Clearly, privacy and security remains a top concern among citizens when it comes to improving EHR interoperability. As such, ONC issued an updated version of its Guide to Privacy and Security of Electronic Health Information in early May.


The guide has been updated to become more user-friendly and geared toward smaller medical practices and healthcare organizations that are addressing privacy and security measures across their facility, according to The National Law Review. While targeting small providers, the guide is also applicable to organizations of all sizes.


Some of the areas ONC focuses on includes identifying when patient authorizations are needed to disclose protected health data, the key questions providers need to ask their EHR vendors about security, and how to develop a security management program that will cover the privacy and security requirements under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.


While EHR interoperability remains vital for strengthening the healthcare industry as a whole, providers will need to focus on privacy and security measures to allay the fears of their patients.


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Health IT Certification Criteria Stresses Interoperability

Health IT Certification Criteria Stresses Interoperability | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

As technology continues to evolve and the federal government pushes forward EHR interoperability and health IT implementation, providers and vendors will need to ensure the systems they adopt adhere to the latest standards. Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) led a webinar called the “2015 Edition Health IT Certification Criteria Webinar,” which should help the healthcare community learn more about the standards set forth by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC).


The ONC panelists stated the following about the 2015 Health IT Certification Criteria:


“Now as we move towards the care continuum and the larger spectrum of interoperability, we’re thinking about how to support not just the EHR Incentive Programs, not just MU settings, but also those other settings such as long-term and post-acute care or behavioral health. This is a response to the stakeholder feedback we received over the last couple of years via round tables or listening sessions and through our federal advisory committees: the Health Information Policy Committee and the Health Information Standards Committee.”


“So how are we doing that? In the 2015 Edition Proposed Rule, we changed our focus from the EHR module to the health IT module to really think about the broader continuum of health IT and what’s needed to get to interoperability and the key components of health information exchange,” the panelist continued. “The overview of the proposed rule is about better care, smarter spending, and healthier people and that’s something that’s an HHS-wide goal and our goal is through health IT to support those key elements. We’re also building on the foundation that’s already in place – and we’re thinking about interoperability, a key word for the year and highly addressed in terms of our draft roadmap, which was released earlier this year.”


“What are the specific health IT goals that you will see resonate throughout the rule?” the panelist asks. “Improve interoperability, ensure privacy and security… reduce health disparities… data access and exchange, patient safety, reliability and transparency of certified health IT… and support for EHR Incentive Programs as well as the larger care continuum.”


Clearly, ONC has moved forward in expanding the certification criteria to go beyond digital patient records and focus on the health IT spectrum as a whole. As usual, improving health IT interoperability among the medical industry is a major goal of the federal agency as well.


The latest edition of the health IT certification criteria is meant to create more expansion of health information exchange and connect more providers and patients with access to relevant medical data. ONC continues to focus on engaging providers with Stage 3 Meaningful Use requirements, enhancing privacy and security strategies as well as patient safety, and improving data exchange.

The latest health IT certification standards also allow for EHR vendors to design systems based on the unique needs of specialized medical facilities. The changes in the 2015 Edition Health IT Certification Criteria should lead to improved quality of care, better patient outcomes, and lower costs across the healthcare continuum.


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Switching EHRs - leaving the frying pan for the fire?

Switching EHRs - leaving the frying pan for the fire? | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

Thinking about switching EHRs? This is a really big decision. Much bigger than choosing between the red patent pumps and snakeskin peep-toes, or your salsa selection at Chipotle. So before you rush into making a move, consider the following:


  1. Why am I even considering switching in the first place?
    Is the vendor sunsetting your product or not keeping up with ONC (Office of National Coordinator) certification?
    Or does your staff report that it is no good (probably using much stronger language), that there are too many clicks, or can’t get desired reports?
  2. Analyze your needs
    Map your workflow. Carefully consider WHY each step occurs – is there a clinical or regulatory reason? If not, get rid of it. Taking bad processes into a new system will not make you any happier with the new technology than the old. Sometimes an outside set of eyes can help shed light on these waste points. There is a pretty forest out there if you stop looking at the beetle-infested trees. You may not even need the following steps if you can improve how you use your current system.
  3. Assess your infrastructure and security
    Along with mapping processes, you should also have an inventory and map of hardware and networks. Assuming you are maintaining an up-to-date security risk assessment, this may be a good place to start.
  4. Do your research
    I know, many of us do not want to re-live college research projects without the reward of more letters after our name, but you will not regret this. Resources include the ONC, HIT.gov, and KLAS. You may also consider a consultant who is familiar with many EHRs and regulations.
  5. Make a comprehensive list of your needs and shop
    A key step that is often not given enough attention is to delineate your requirements in complete detail. These requirements can then be used to create a Request for Information (RFI) or Request for Proposal (RFP) to any potential software vendor. There are hundreds of products out there and they all may dazzle you with a demo. Get under the hood and test drive when possible. Seek out as many organizations that you can who use the product for a balanced opinion.
  6. The price tag is not always straightforward
    Sure, the monthly subscription, setup fees, yearly fees, may be clearly spelled out in the contract, but what about internal costs or future upgrades? Ask the vendor about their upgrades and additional modules processes, as these items will be inevitable with changes in technology and regulation. Are these generally associated with additional fees? Will your current hardware be sufficient or do you need to purchase new? Costs of servers, tablets, and wireless networks should be factored in to your overall cost. What about training for staff or additional IT resources to manage the application? And, as with everything, cheaper is not always the way to go. It may save you a few dollars now but the long range price may be high.
  7. Due diligence complete. I am ready to switch
    Read your contract carefully. Make sure you know your level of support as to the hours, turnaround time, and go-live. Make sure they were clear with an implementation schedule and assumptions.
    Server, web, yearly/monthly fees
  8. They can just move all my current patient information into the new system, right?
    Um, not so much. Data mapping and migration is difficult, time consuming and costly.
    There is no 1 to 1 map from any system to each other. If you choose to migrate data, consider only active patients with a critical subset of their information, such as medications, problems, diagnoses, etc. Another alternative is a data archiving service where you can have access to view your data at any time.
  9. Many perfectly good EHRs have failed due to bad implementations
    The vendor will have a project manager and an implementation plan. However, you need to have both of your own as they will not account for every aspect of your workflow and organizational needs. If you have not implemented a technology solution before, it is highly suggested you get help from an experienced implementation specialist or project manager. Planning and detailed checklists should be a critical part of your implementation. During the design and build process try to customize as little as possible. It will take several months to know what the system can do and is best optimized at a later date. You can also not have too much training or at-the-elbow support for weeks after go-live. These are often the highest complaints heard.


Now, given all that, is it still feeling hot in the kitchen or are you using your frying pan for the best meal you have ever had?

more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

ICD-10 Implementation Vital for Value-based Care Payments

ICD-10 Implementation Vital for Value-based Care Payments | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

When the SGR bill was passed by the Senate without any ICD-10 implementation delays, the proponents of the new coding set rejoiced. Not only did passage of this bill bring about a stronger formula for Medicare reimbursements but it also meant that the ICD-10 implementation would most likely take place by the scheduled deadline of October 1, 2015.


When President Obama signed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 into law on April 16, the legislation moved American physicians away from fee-for-service payments toward value-based care and accountable care delivery, according to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).

Additionally, the new SGR bill includes innovative objectives for establishing the meaningful use of certified EHR technology. These payment models will be key for improving population health outcomes throughout the country. The volume-based payment reductions under the prior sustainable growth rate formula will now be altered with a new annual payment update of 0.5 percent through 2019.


By 2019, doctors will be able to choose their reimbursement method among two options: the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System or the Alternative Payment Model. While the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System will depend upon the performance of physicians, doctors who choose the Alternative Payment Model must utilize certified EHR technology standards and authorized quality measures as well as assume financial risk.


The overall push toward value-based care among the federal government, patient advocacy groups, and healthcare providers will require the medical industry to quickly and efficiently transition to the ICD-10 coding set. Documenting patients’ medical histories as well as accurately reporting and coding diagnoses and treatments is vital in the quest to pay for value and enhance population health outcomes across the sector.


The Coalition for ICD-10 also reports on the importance of the ICD-10 implementation in the move toward value-based care, as ICD-9 codes do not have the same capabilities as the newer coding set. While the healthcare community supports the SGR reform bill, many physician groups are still against the ICD-10 implementation and are hoping for additional delays.


However, a move toward measuring and paying for value-based care is not possible without transitioning to a modernized form of diagnostic and procedure coding. In order to accurately measure the value of a healthcare service, it is vital to have the detail available in the ICD-10 coding set, the coalition explains.


One example of the subpar quality of ICD-9 codes involves putting two patients with similar conditions but differing symptoms under the same code while ICD-10 accounts for a variety of divergence among patients. Essentially, ICD-10 codes will include key information about patients and record their medical history more accurately with additional detail.


“Despite opposition to ICD-10 by some physician groups and a few isolated state medical societies, there is general recognition in the medical community that a modern and precise coding system like ICD-10 is essential for measuring and paying for value,” the Coalition for ICD-10 stated. “ICD-9 represents medicine of a bygone era. It cannot support a move to measuring and paying for value. To meet the demands of SGR there can be no further delays in the ICD-10 implementation date.”


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Avoiding Legal Troubles Stemming from EHR Liabilities

Avoiding Legal Troubles Stemming from EHR Liabilities | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

I'm a big supporter of the EHR and its promise to make documenting patient care more accurate, easier, and clear. I also have a healthy respect for the dangers of the EHR — and see new dangers pop up constantly.

With all good technological tools, there are hazards that need to be recognized. The EHR can pose a liability for providers and institutions, and the legal profession is beginning to exploit this weakness in malpractice actions against providers and institutions.


Modern EHRs have a significant learning curve, and require a complete change in the process of documenting patient care. Many functions are a double-edged sword; including record cloning, automated dictation, medication dose checking, documentation templates, automatic record population, etc. The functionality of the EHR can make the job of providers much easier in generating a record, but this same functionality can introduce bad data, wrong dosages, and other errors that can harm patients.


The bottom line is that providers are ultimately responsible for what is charted in the EHR. Here are just a few examples of these new liabilities and how to avoid them.


• Scribes. Much of the charting that is done on the front end of a hospital admission is performed by the nursing and ancillary staff, or in the ER, scribes. This is very helpful in a busy inpatient and/or outpatient department, and speeds patient care and documentation. However, unless the provider verifies the accuracy and completeness of the record, significant errors can made.


• Cut and paste. The "cut and paste" function is one that is familiar to anyone using a computer in the modern age. This can interject errors, and propagate them when one does not exercise due diligence in making sure that the final record reflects the actual encounter. There are tools available which make searching for repetitive text in a record very easy. Obvious propagation of narratives and erroneous data, over and over again, is hard to defend in a court of law, and demonstrates that care was not taken. It also introduces doubt into all areas of the records being scrutinized.


• Note cloning. "Cloning" is another issue that works much like cutting and pasting. Cloning is the practice of copying an entire previous record into a new, editable record. The hazard here is obvious, and similar to the previously discussed practice of cut and paste. It goes without saying the more information and data that you "clone," the greater the risk you are going to miss something, and propagate erroneous data.


• Use of templates and macros. Macros for things such as review of systems and physical examination can really make you look bad when another provider or lawyer is reviewing your record. It is easy to miss that you called a positive physical finding negative, if you don't carefully review the record prior to finalizing it.


• Pull-down menus. Finally, clickable pre-populated components and pull-down menus can be hazardous in that it is sometimes easier to choose the wrong thing than it is to use "free text" to customize the finding or information.


On the bright side, templates for procedures help providers quickly and accurately document informed consent, indications for the procedure, the actual procedure, and the post procedure care by giving the provider a concise and complete format for documentation. The other benefit of the EHR from the provider standpoint is allowing the provider to make a more complete record in support of the level of care that is being billed.


I have to admit that in the past, I have used all the functionality of the EHR, and have made mistakes in my documentation. After studying these issues, and becoming aware of the hazards to patient safety and care, I'm much more sophisticated in my use of the functionality of the EHR. I still use macros and auto-text, but my use of cut and paste is limited to including diagnostic test reports that don't auto-populate. I never use cloning even though the functionality is still allowed in our EHR.


One of the big changes for me has been the deployment of enterprise level dictation in our EHR. Now, even though I can type 60 WPMs, I can much more rapidly and accurately dictate a unique HPI, PE, and plan, and better ensure that the record is accurate.


Take the time to understand EHR technology, and avoid the pitfalls that can be expected to increase your liability in the delivery of patient care.


more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

EHR Interoperability Imperative for Care Coordination

EHR Interoperability Imperative for Care Coordination | EHR and Health IT Consulting | Scoop.it

The medical industry is incorporating stronger strategies for care coordination to reform the sector and improve quality of care.  One major aspect of improving care coordination stemming from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the integration of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), which focus on a team of healthcare professionals working together to improve patients’ health across different specialties and varying facilities.


Nicole Beagin, Associate Editorial Director at The American Journal of Managed Care, and Mary Caffrey, Managing Editor of Evidence-Based Oncology and Evidence-Based Diabetes Management at The American Journal of Managed Care, spoke with EHRIntelligence.com to discuss the ACO Coalition their organization has created and how health IT systems and electronic patient records could be used to improve care coordination.


“The ACO Coalition is an initiative of AJMC,” Beagin stated. “Our ACO members are made up of payers, providers, patient advocates, those who work in health IT, and specialty-pharmacy. We put on two meetings per year and have four web-based events per year [for the ACO Coalition]. Various stakeholders and our members present on case studies and best practices.”


“[Our last meeting] had a lot of information about patient engagement. A lot of speakers were talking about patient engagement,” Caffrey explained. “[Some key questions formed were] how do you really define patient satisfaction and how to achieve population health measures with hard-to-reach populations.”


With the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focused on bringing the healthcare system toward value-based care, it grows more imperative than ever before to improve care coordination and the quality of services among ACOs and other entities, AJMC reports. At one meeting of the ACO Coalition, Jonathan Hare, CEO of WebShield Inc., addressed the need to share information quickly and effectively among medical organizations.


The sharing of payment models and emphasis of quality measures are key for better coordination while patient privacy and data security remains vital for healthcare organizations as well, said Hare at the meeting.


“Our meeting that we held in Miami last October, from Geisinger, Dr. Thomas Graff and Dr. Eric Newman both touched upon EHR use within the Geisinger health system,” Beagin continued. “[They discussed] how they were using EHRs within a group to specifically address specialty providers and specialty care coordination.”


When discussing providers’ feedback on ACO development, Caffrey mentioned, “Different health systems folks presented the data they’ve collected from the providers and will show where they started and what kind of challenges they’ve had to overcome in moving their system forward. We’ll see a lot of screens that move from red to green. When they started up with the ACO, they had a lot of patient data that was off the mark from where they needed to be in terms of health measurements. They had to make many changes in terms of how they were delivering care but also system changes in how they were communicating adequately and collecting data.”


When asked what objectives under meaningful use stages may be the most difficult to achieve for healthcare providers, Beagin stated, “Our members have been discussing the issue of interoperability when implementing EHR systems within their practices. Data technology is a hot button issue for our members.”


Clinical quality measures under Stage 2 Meaningful Use requirements as well as patient and family engagement have been major discussions as well,” Beagin concluded.


“With hard-to-reach populations, there’s a need for the use of technologies for the interface with community organizations such as churches or civic organizations,” said Caffrey. “Healthcare organizations are realizing that population health will occur outside the walls of the clinic and outside the walls of the hospital. If they’re taking responsibility for the population, they will need to meet the population where they are. A lot of our discussion has been about how to use technology to engage the community organizations and how to partner with these organizations.”


more...
No comment yet.