Sunday, January 1, 2012

My experience with the Clinician Practitioner Consultant HIT Pro Exam



Back in 2009 the HITECH Act was passed seeking to improve American health care delivery and patient care through an investment in health information technology.  Most of the people I talk to think of this legislation in terms of "meaningful use" incentives.  A few people actually know that this act made provisions for other programs such as HIEs, "beacon communities", "SHARP programs", Community College and University based training and competency exams.  The competency exams (link here) test several EHR implementation areas such as project management, clinical and technical health IT skills.  

The Clinician/Practitioner Consultant qualification exam caught my attention and in August 2011 I registered for the  competency exam at www.pearsonvue.com/hitpro/ .  The exam was so new that there was no material that I could purchase in order to study.  Looking at healthit.hhs.gov I determined that the areas tested were divided in the following domains:
- Fundamentals of health workflow process analysis and redesign
- Quality improvement
- Working with HIT systems
- Health Information Management Systems
- Planning, Management, and Leadership for Health IT

In the end I had to rely on the clinical and technical knowledge I had accumulated over the years.  The 3 hour exam was intense and 
I was ecstatic to receive the news that I had passed it.  In November 2011 I received my Clinician/Practitioner Consultant  certificate, which I am proudly attaching here:



Mission accomplished!

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Chattanooga HIE - by Middle Tennessee eHealth Connect

Here is profile of the MTeHC - the HIE that is going to help Chattanooga exchange health information.  
The Middle Tennessee eHealth Connect (www.midtnehealth.com) is a not-for profit regional health information exchange organization whose mission is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health care delivered to every member of the community without regard to payer by connecting health care providers throughout Middle Tennessee.
MTeHC uses Informatics Corporation of America (ICA) which was technology developed by Vanderbilt Medical Center for the broader health care market, and now delivers a comprehensive HIE solution to hospitals, IDNs, communities and states. 
Participating entities in the Nashville area:
  • Saint Thomas Health Services
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center
  • Metropolitan Hospital Authority (Nashville General Hospital)
  • HCA TriStar Division
  • Tennessee Hospital Association
  • Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance
  • Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
  • State of Tennessee
  • Nashville Academy of Medicine
  • Tennessee Health Care Campaign
  • Safety Net Consortium of Middle Tennessee

Participating entities in the Chattanooga area:
  • Erlanger Hospital
  • Memorial Hospital
  • Parkridge Hospital - a part of the HCA TriStar Division

Health Information Exchange in Chattanooga … the latest developments

In my February post I described Chattanooga health community's attempt to get a Health Information Exchange started.    When we got together the main charge (established by the leadership group) was to determine if Chattanooga should form its own exchange or become a "community" within an already established HIE.   

The three workgroups (technical, clinical and security & privacy) debated over  several months,  looked at the issues from their respective points of view, and came up with the verdict:  join the MTeHC (Middle Tennessee eHealth Connect) out of Nashville.  

The decision was not easy but it had to do with the speed of implementation and the cost of running our own HIE.  

At end of November the workgroups were "reactivated"  and we started planning for the nitty gritty of hospital data exchange.   The initial aim of the health exchange is reduce the rate of readmissions for Erlanger, Memorial and Parkridge Hospitals.   Data sharing tests are projected to start somewhere in the April-June 2012 timeframe.  

While we are waiting for the data sharing agreements and the technical architecture for sharing of data to be built, the clinical workgroup would like to have "security messaging" functional as soon as possible.  This will allow clinicians to share data among each other using something like a secure webmail system. 

In my next post I will post MTeHC's profile.  

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Southeast Regional Exchange!


Yay!  On February 4-th we had our first meeting to discuss the HIE for our region.  
These were the institutions attending the first meeting:

Erlanger
IVHIN - Knoxville
Memorial
MidSouth eHealth Alliance - Memphis
Office of e-Health - State of TN
Parkridge
Southern Adventist University
Tennessee Hospital Association
TriStar

The name adopted (for now) was Southeast Regional Exchange.  
We split in several workgroups (clinical, leadership, privacy & security and technical) and each adopted their own charter.  The charge for everyone is to determine whether we should form our own HIE or join an existing one.  This decision will be taken by the middle of April.

The technical workgroup, of which I am a part of, has the mission of coming up with the technical requirements for an HIE in our region and judge whether two of the existing Tennessee HIE can serve our needs.  The work has already started.  

This is definitely an exciting beginning for a faster coordination of care in the Chattanooga region.

The architecture of Tennessee's state HIE

Things are starting to move along with the building of the Tennessee HIE.  As part of my engagement with HIP-TN (Tennessee HIE) I continue to participate in the  meetings of the Technical Workgroup.  I have displayed a few diagrams showing the general architecture of the processes of querying for patients, documents and retrieval of documents.

Tennessee HIE architecture


Patient Discovery

Query for Documents

Document Retrieval




Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Tennessee statewide HIE vendor chosen!

I am back to blogging after a hiatus of a few months.  So, what has been going on? 


During this time I have participated in the HIP-TN Technical Workgroup writing the technical requirements for the state-wide HIE RFP (see http://www.hiptn.org/hip-tn-rfp/)  and evaluating the various HIE solution vendors.


We evaluated thirteen vendors based on their experience and response to our RFP (clinical, financial, technical).


A number of the respondents were eliminated in the first round because they could not meet the "mandatory requirements.  In the second round we split in little groups each evaluating a specific vendor.  The vendors that emerged out of the this round  participated in a "face-to-face" meeting in Nashville, where we all descended upon the "Tennessee Health Association" headquarters. 


Even after that we had two vendors that were very closely scored.  After further evaluation of their offering one vendor come out victorious:  Axolotl.  You can view the press release here.


I feel the vendors were evaluated in a fair manner with input from various workgroups which represented a wide range of organizations from the Tennessee healthcare spectrum.  


So who were the software vendors that participated?  Sorry, I cannot tell you.  The general consensus was that we would not divulge the names of those who responded to the RFP in order to avoid negative publicity for those companies.


The HIP-TN Technical Workgroup will continue to meet and provide feedback in the process of state wide HIE implementation.  Stay tuned!

Monday, March 29, 2010

NHIN Direct - introduction

At HIMSS 2010 Dr. Blumenthal launched the new ONC's initiative - NHIN Direct.  This created quite of bit of confusion ... myself included.  Why now? What is new? What's wrong with existing NHIN?  Why are HIEs still needed?  Is this a "skinny NHIN"?  
Wes Reshel outlines the differences very well in his blog.  I have included the article below for convenience:


NHIN Direct v. HIEs: Competitors or Collaborators
"Recently a person organizing a state’s HIE effort reported a hospital CIO saying, “why do I need your complex HIE when can have NHIN Direct?”
This question gets to the heart of the confusion that some states or stated designated entities are experiencing with the introduction of NHIN Direct into the mix. I wrote this fellow back, outlining the relative value propositions of HIEs and NHIN Direct. It is clear that the two notions are complimentary even if there is still some need to work out the rough edges. Here is what I wrote.
The hospital that is evaluating its need to participate in a state HIE needs to answer the following questions.
How long will the hospital and community physicians be satisfied with the following assumptions that will probably be baked into NHIN Direct:
  • We will be sending information but not offering clinicians the opportunity to look up a patient and retrieve their information.
  • We will be sending the information to a practice without sending the practice’s patient ID number
  • We will send out structured lab information from our lab using standard LOINC codes
  • We will independently determine whether it is appropriate to send each transmission to a specific provider.
  • We will send all information with only a very general usage agreement in place.
  • We will accept inbound information without our patient ID so each such input will have to be matched by the receiver.
  • We will accept information without assurance as to whether coded information is standard.
Most of the hospital CIOs that I talk to say, “I’d be happy to live with those restrictions in order to get started reaching out to physicians in my community sooner. I know that practices that I send info to would be willing to live with them as well.”
This is a fair trade-off. However, it provides clear limits in supporting care transitions in that the sender has to know to whom the patient is transitioning – or the receiver has to make a special request for information that must be manually approved by the sender.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that community physicians will remain satisfied with this approach if an HIE is available that supports both the hospital and the practice or if HIEs are linked in a way to provide the connection.
The value that HIEs typically add include
  • Maintaining a common patient index
  • Providing the trust mechanism, software interfaces. access control and consent mechanism that enables lookup up information
  • Developing a common trust agreement that all parties can accept.
  • An interface to consumer advocates that will assert their role protecting the interests of the patients.
  • A common software channel and active support to enable multiple data sources (e.g., labs and hospitals) to send results to multiple recipients and provide both senders and receivers a single point of contact for troubleshooting.
  • Mapping imprecise recipients data (e.g., taking a physician name as the recipient of the lab result and determining whether to deliver the result by fax, on-line lookup or structured transmission to the EMR).
  • Aggregating data at a community or state level for measuring quality, epidemiology, and other programs.
The only thing that an HIE has to do to compete with NHIN Direct-based communications is exist.
How, then should an HIE deal with the fact that by the time it comes to an operational state a great deal of communication may be going on under NHIN Direct? Easy: join it instead of fighting it. Be prepared to bring practices that are already using NHIN Direct into the fold without having to immediately change what they do. Add immediate value by forwarding patient results and notes with the practice’s patient ID. Provide shims for labs that cannot get to standard approaches. Allow them to begin to look up patients (using new interfaces) as soon as their EHR is ready. Allow them to use a portal to look up patients and have the results sent to them through NHIN Direct.
To really seize the initiative the HIE should become a provider of NHIN Direct services to physicians that don’t yet have an EHR or have an EHR that is not yet capable of dealing with NHIN direct. Operators of such a portal are in an ideal state to gradually introduce services that add value as soon as they can make the software and business agreement arrangements."