EHRs and Ebola in the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital ED: the ED physician finally speaks out

At my Oct. 2, 2014 post "Did Electronic Medical Record-mediated problems contribute to or cause the current Dallas Ebola scare?" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/10/did-electronic-medical-record-mediated.html) I had written:

While I have no evidence as to any role of EHRs in this seemingly strange, cavalier and incomprehensible medical decision to send this man home, resulting in potential exposure of numerous other individuals to Ebola (and I am certainly not in a position to have such evidence), I believe this possibility [that is, an EHR-related information snafu - ed.] needs to be investigated fully.

 
I then did an update:

10/3/2014 Update:

My suspicions were apparently correct.  [The hospital admitted an EHR role - ed.]

Then, the hospital retracted its admission, blur and obfuscation broke loose in the press, and the situation became foggy.  See posts by Roy Poses and myself at query link http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/Ebola%20virus, including Dr. Poses' Nov. 24, 2014 post "Public Relations and the Obfuscation of Management Errors - Texas Health Resources Dodges its Ebola Questions" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/11/public-relations-and-obfuscation-of.html.

Finally, the primary clinician involved speaks.  Do read the whole article, as it delves into behind-the-scenes issues:

ER doctor discusses role in Ebola patient’s initial misdiagnosis
By REESE DUNKLIN and STEVE THOMPSON
Dallas Morning News
Dec. 6, 2014
http://www.dallasnews.com/ebola/headlines/20141206-er-doctor-discusses-role-in-ebola-patients-initial-misdiagnosis.ece

... "[ED physician Joseph Howard Meier's] notes in the medical records say he had reviewed the nursing notes. Hospital officials told Congress that the ER physician several times accessed portions of the electronic records where the nurse had recorded Duncan’s arrival from Africa. It wasn’t clear, though, “which information the physician read,” hospital officials told Congress. 

Meier told The News he hadn’t seen the Africa notation in Duncan’s records. The physician said the hospital’s electronic medical records system contained a lot of information, which, like patients, “must also be triaged.” 

Clinicians in an ED have to "triage" information from their records systems, just like patients need to be triaged?  That is a candid and astonishing (to anyone with common sense) admission.

Paper charts never had those problems in my own time working in the ED.

Further, ED charts used to be relatively brief, which is why as a Chief Medical Informatics Officer I recommended document imaging systems only in ED's, to make charts available 24/7/anywhere, and data transcriptionists to capture important data into computers later, not full EHR systems where clinicians enter data which I felt (and still feel) are inappropriate in faced-paced, high-risk settings.

(Put another way, the experiments of direct data entry by busy clinicians, and clinicians attempting to drink information from a tangled cybernetic EHR firehose, are proving a failure.)

... The “travel information was not easily visible in my standard workflow,” he said. “This has now been modified very effectively.”

Modified only after near-catastrophe.  How many other "modifications" (i.e., experimental software changes) will be needed over time in this and other EHRs, I ask?  (Perhaps 10,000 such as here: http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/06/in-fixing-those-9553-ehr-issues.html?)

... The News asked Meier whether knowing Duncan’s travel history would have changed his evaluation. 

“If he told me he came from Liberia, this would have prompted me to contact the CDC and begin an evaluation for Ebola,” Meier said, “but the likelihood would have still been low since Mr. Duncan denied any sick contacts.”

Over the next few hours, Meier ordered tests, along with an IV for saline. He prescribed extra-strength Tylenol, which the nurse gave Duncan at 1:24 a.m. Meier reviewed Duncan’s vital signs. CT scans of Duncan’s head were “unremarkable,” the medical records say, showing no sign of sinusitis.

Doctors typically order CT scans to rule out more serious possibilities, such as a hemorrhage or meningitis. In his responses to The News, Meier said he ordered the CT scan because of Duncan’s headache.

Meier did not say whether the CT scan’s lack of an indication of sinusitis factored into his diagnosis. “Sinusitis is mostly a clinical diagnosis,” he said.

At 3:02 a.m., Duncan’s temperature was 103 degrees, his medical records say. Sixteen minutes later, however, Meier entered a note saying: “Patient is feeling better and comfortable with going home.” Meier told The News he hadn’t seen the higher temperature in Duncan’s chart.

Duncan was discharged at 3:37 a.m. with the diagnosis of sinusitis. His last recorded fever, at 3:32 a.m., was 101.2 degrees. Meier prescribed Duncan the antibiotic Zithromax, 250-milligram tablets, to be taken twice the first day and once daily for four more days.

I note two things:

1.  If an EHR company has hiring practices allegedly such as described via Histalk blog at my Aug. 15, 2010 post "EPIC's outrageous recommendations on healthcare IT project staffing" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/epics-outrageous-recommendations-on.html), where rank-novice recent college graduates suddenly become EHR experts afters some transfusion of wisdom at corporate HQ (perhaps via this alien neural interface device that imparts the Knowledge of the Ancients: http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Repository_of_knowledge?), then what can one expect?

The Stargate neural interface device that imparts the Knowledge of the Ancients via direct brain download.  Presto - instant EHR expert!

and

2.   I note what I am going to somewhat satirically going to call the "Silverstein EHR principle", that states:

• When bizarre and otherwise inexplicable information-related snafus occur in hospitals, especially in fast-paced, high-risk areas, suspect bad health IT as causative or contributory as #1 in your differential diagnosis (or post-mortem, as the case may be).

-- SS

1:16 AM

Speculation about EHR role in Texas Ebola debacle vs. real evidence - will it take a lawsuit to know what's real? Probably.

In the past several days the media has been abuzz with stories about the admission, then the following retraction, by a Texas hospital that and EMR "flaw" had caused a man who had been in West Africa and was infected with the Ebola virus to be sent home, instead of admitted and put into isolation.

I wrote about these matters at my Oct. 2, 2014 post "Did Electronic Medical Record-mediated problems contribute to or cause the current Dallas Ebola scare?" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/10/did-electronic-medical-record-mediated.html) and the followup October 4, 2014 post
"Dallas Hospital reverses EHR-related explanation for fumbling Ebola case" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/10/dallas-hospital-reverses-ehr-relarted.htm).

A spectrum of the healthcare IT ecosystem seems represented (see http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=ecosystem).  The technology enthusiasts and hyper-enthusiasts seem to believe the computer could have done no wrong (and usually lack medical and Medical Informatics expertise).

Some people such as myself with specific Medical Informatics experience and who know the failure modes via AHRQ, FDA, ECRI Institute etc. believe the EHR was quite likely contributory or causative of the mistake (see my April 9, 2014 post "FDA on health IT risk:  "We don't know the magnitude of the risk, and what we do know is the tip of the iceberg, but health IT is of 'sufficiently low risk' that we don't need to regulate it" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/04/fda-on-health-it-risk-reckless-or.html).

The reason I have written little after my initial two posts is that the only was to resolve the controversy is to actually examine the EHR screens, screen navigation and behavior of the EHR, if possible both before and after the hospital's stated "fix" of the problem, the EHR audit trails (automatically generated EHR accounting logs of user accesses, action taken, time, location etc.) and to examine the EHR in actual operation to evaluate it in context with the clinical setting in which it was installed.

Barring that, everything else is speculation usually biased either by the speculator's own beliefs about either the beneficence or fallibility of information technology in healthcare, and perhaps IT generally, and/or conflicts of interest.

Unfortunately, considering the health IT industry and environment, the only way I believe such an examination of the EHR can come about is via litigation.  I doubt it will come from the traditional regulators of medical devices and healthcare safety.

I do note the following of interest at Politico:

... While all EHRs difficult to use, some are set up better than others.

At Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, information that a patient was feverish and recently flew in from Liberia would have set off an alarm, with the nurse’s screen flashing yellow and giving instructions to immediately isolate the patient, said Jason Shapiro, an emergency room physician and informatics expert at the hospital.

The nurse entering “fever” into the record would “get a hard stop. They immediately have to enter a response to a travel history question. And if there’s fever and the right kind of travel history, the whole isolation mechanism is supposed to swing into play,” Shapiro said.

... Both Mount Sinai and Texas Health Presbyterian have health records systems they purchased for hundreds of millions of dollars from Epic.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ebola-texas-electronic-records-111598_Page2.html

At least some users of EPIC seem to have a system configured to catch such a problem.  In my mind, this speaks the need to industry regulation, to ensure all EHRs meet basic standards of safety and reliability and are not haphazardly designed or implemented from one hospital to the next.

-- SS

10/9/14 Addendum:  

Prof. Jon Patrick of Australia, cited numerous times on this blog, relates this:

"I always talk about data capture and data reuse and the reuse is defined by the data flows required in the design of the system. EPIC might well have allowed for the the data capture but failed to deal with the data flow to properly effect the required reuse."

As may the implementers at the hospital in question also have failed at the flows supporting appropriate and fail-safe reuse in a hectic ED environment.

He adds, for further clarification:

A footnote to this point. We separate data flow from work flow. Data flow is the movement of data from context to reuse in another context, or you collect data on this screen(first context) and then you see it later on another screen (=another context).

Workflow is the route staff team members take in moving from one context to another, that is the movement from using one screen to another screen. Most often triggered by clicking a button that moves you to the chosen screen(next context).

The two are very different things and require close thinking in both cases to not trip up with unhelpful and frustrating system solutions.

Historically, Information Systems development has dealt with these issues both poorly and without adequate separate planning. In the past the focus has been on the data capture and storage, because the notion of reuse and context shifting has been left behind. This has been OK for many business systems where contexts have only small variations and workflow are simple or unimportant.

In medicine that just isn’t the case.

-- SS

12:13 PM

Dallas Hospital reverses EHR-related explanation for fumbling Ebola case

At my Oct. 2, 2014 post "Did Electronic Medical Record-mediated problems contribute to or cause the current Dallas Ebola scare?" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/10/did-electronic-medical-record-mediated.html) I questioned a possible role for an EMR-related mishap, including known disruptions of teamwork and suboptimal presentation of information, to have contributed to or led to the release of a man carrying the Ebola virus from a Dallas Hospital.

I then related how the press reported, the very next day, that this was indeed the case.

Now...gee whiz...the hospital changes its tune. "No, it wasn't the EMR after all!" 

See "Hospital reverses explanation for fumbling Ebola case" at http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141003-hospital-reverses-explanation-for-fumbling-ebola-case.ece. The reversal strains credibility and sounds like redirection, to my ear possibly due to inside attorney and/or EMR company attorney pressure. 

The "new explanation" itself per the new article is that:

... A written statement Thursday said hospital officials identified and corrected “a flaw in the way the physician and nursing portions of our electronic health records (EHR) interacted in this specific case.” That statement implied, without directly saying it, that the flaw left the doctor uninformed about Duncan’s travel history. In Friday’s statement, though, the hospital said, “The patient’s travel history was documented and available to the full care team in the electronic health record.” “There was no flaw in the EHR in the way the physician and nursing portions interacted related to this event,” the statement said.

Again, sounds like redirection and making the doctor (and perhaps the ED doctor's group, if they were contractors) the sole scapegoat.  

"Available to the full care team?"  "Available" in a complex computer system with myriad screens is a very relative term.  The issue seems not "how the physician and nursing portion interacted", it is "how the physician portion made the information readily apparent to the physicians and other team members, or not."
 
The problem here, I believe, still likely amounts to "information hard to find" and "suboptimal support of teamwork (situational awareness)", among others, per the AHRQ hazards taxonomy. 

See, for instance, this.  Either it is true, or not, regarding the travel history:

 (click to enlarge)

I think an impartial investigation is needed to get to the truth.  

What we have now is likely healthcare defense attorney and/or risk management "fog", a phenomenon I have both professional and (sadly) personal experience with.

One also wonders if the EHR vendor had a contractual defects non-disclosure ("gag") clause with the organization, and is now threatening suit, leading to the retraction.  (See http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=koppel_kreda for more on that issue, and of corporate "hold harmless" clauses).

Unfortunately, a comprehensive investigation would be likely to only occur in a courtroom via Discovery if others become infected.

If any reader has knowledge of details, my email address is scotsilv AT aol DOT com.

-- SS

Addendum: A medical informatics colleague, Dr. William Goossen of the Netherlands, sent me a reminder about this article on the de-professionalizing aspect of health IT:

Harris BL. Becoming de-professionalized: One aspect of the staff nurse’s perspective on computer-mediated nursing care plans. Advances in nursing science. 1990: 13, 2,  3-74.

Some content of this study - Nurses who participated in this study felt to some degree:

• De-professionalized: being controlled by the computer, not formally planning individualized care, losing skills to develop NCP's (Nursing Care Plans).

• De-autonomizing: - control by supervisors - linear operations of the computer and nurses felt to think like that - the system doesn't allow  free texting, - nurses must follow the rules of the computer.

• De-individualizing: - 'one-size-fits-all' - routinized care - eliminating creativity.

• De-expertizing: - mindlessness and losing the skills learned in school, the computer does the work.

There is a human aspect to computerization in medicine that is often overlooked, especially by the health IT hyper-enthusiasts (see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html). 

Perhaps the ED staff at the Dallas hospital needs to be surveyed on these issues.

-- SS

8:11 AM

Did Electronic Medical Record-mediated problems contribute to or cause the current Dallas Ebola scare?

[10/3/2014 Note:  my suspicions were correct - see addenda below.]

This story merits special scrutiny in relation to EHR dangers (see for instance http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/04/fda-on-health-it-risk-reckless-or.html):

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/44a12c35649f4f6782fcb3c9f476da09/ebola-case-stokes-concerns-liberians-dallas

Oct. 1, 2014:  Ebola-infected passenger was sent home from ER

DALLAS (AP) — The airline passenger who brought Ebola into the U.S. initially went to a Dallas emergency room last week but was sent home, despite telling a nurse that he had been in disease-ravaged West Africa, the hospital said Wednesday in a disclosure that showed how easily an infection could be missed.

The decision by Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital to release the patient, who had recently arrived from Liberia, could have put others at risk of exposure to Ebola before the man went back to the ER a couple of days later, when his condition worsened.

... The patient explained to a nurse last Thursday that he was visiting the U.S. from Africa, but that information was not widely shared, said Dr. Mark Lester, who works for the hospital's parent company.

"Regretfully, that information was not fully communicated" throughout the medical team, Lester said. Instead, the man was diagnosed with a low-risk infection and sent home.

How could a "failure to fully communicate" information about the man's travels have occurred, at a time when the Ebola issue has been prominent in the press and is causing a worldwide scare?

The Texas Health System hospitals, including Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, are EHR users and have been recipients of millions of dollars of federal incentives:

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2011/05/24/texas-health-gets-19m-for-ehr-upgrades.html?page=all

May 24, 2011: Texas Health Resources has received more than $19.5 million in Medicare incentive payments for meeting “meaningful use” criteria for installation and use of its electronic health records.

It appears these hospitals are using EPIC. From a July 6, 2009 HIStalk blog interview with the CMIO:

http://histalk2.com/2009/07/06/histalk-interviews-ferdinand-velasco-md-chief-medical-information-officer-texas-health-resources/

What are the most important projects you are working on at Texas Health Resources?
The project is our EHR deployment. We’re an Epic customer. We’re in the middle of deploying the EHR. We’re live now with probably close to three-quarters of our beds. We’re a 14-hospital health system.

EHR's are known to disrupt normal, even mundane channels of medical communication (as readers of this blog know, my mother is dead thanks, in part, to this problem).

Per the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of HHS, possibly relevant modes of disruption in this scenario include:

• "information hard to find", 
• "suboptimal support of teamwork (situational awareness)", 
• "confusing information display", 
• "design contributed to entry into wrong patient's record", 
• "lost data", 
• "excessive workload (including cognitive)" ...

... and other potentially relevant factors (including system outage).

Below is a checklist of such failure modes from the May 2012 AHRQ Health IT Hazard Manager Report (http://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/citation/HealthITHazardManagerFinalReport.pdf):

 

AHRQ Health IT Hazard Manager Report - Hazard Modes of Health IT (click to enlarge)

I've worked in ED's and find this matter puzzling.  While I have no evidence as to any role of EHRs in this seemingly strange, cavalier and incomprehensible medical decision to send this man home, resulting in potential exposure of numerous other individuals to Ebola (and I am certainly not in a position to have such evidence), I believe this possibility needs to be investigated fully.

Yet there does not appear to be a rush for investigation of what transpired in the ED.  See "Health regulators not rushing to probe Dallas hospital’s handling of Ebola patient", Miles Moffeit, Dallas News, Oct. 1, 2014 at http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/health-regulators-not-rushing-into-probe-of-dallas-hospitals-handling-of-ebola-patient.html/.

Finally, by the way, after all the tens of millions of dollars spent by this organization on EHR's at taxpayer expense and with the awards and accolades heaped on them by the likes of HIMSS, Leapfrog etc., at the very least one might have expected a blatantly obvious case like this to have been recognized as a serious matter. Yet it was not. (One can only imagine what happens with more subtle issues.)

One wonders how much in the real world, as opposed to in the world of EHR marketing and hype, these systems really do help in critical decision making and safety.

-- SS

10/3/2014 Update:

My suspicions were apparently correct.

See:

 "Travel Information Wasn't Communicated In Dallas Ebola Case Due To Electronic Health Record Flaw" (Huffington Post),
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/dallas-ebola-patient-hospital-error-electronic-health-record-flaw_n_5924698.html

and:

"Dallas hospital blames ‘flaw’ in ‘workflow’ for release of Ebola patient as a more complete picture of his travels emerges" (Washington Post), http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/02/dallas-hospital-blames-flaw-in-electronic-record-keeping-system-for-release-of-ebola-patient/

-- SS

More:
  
http://www.wptz.com/health/urgent-ebola-texas-hospital-flaw/28381038

(CNN) -- The Texas hospital treating the first person diagnosed with Ebola on American soil says a "flaw" in its electronic health records prevented doctors from seeing the patient's travel history. Patient Thomas Eric Duncan told the nurse he'd been in Africa, but that information was entered into a document that isn't automatically visible to physicians [apparently even after being filled out with positive information, I note - ed.], Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas said in a statement Thursday. After discovering this, the hospital says it has changed the system so doctors and nurses will see travel history documentation. "We feel that this change will improve the early identification of patients who may be at risk for communicable diseases, including Ebola," the hospital said.  

Well, yes it will.  Perhaps that could have been thought of sooner?

Additional thought:  this situation might end up being the "Cybernetic Libby Zion case" I've been predicting - where some major debacle leads to serious attention to EHR safety issues.  (On Libby Zion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Zion_Law.)

-- SS

10/4/2014 addendum:

Now...gee whiz...the hospital changes its tune. "No, it wasn't the EMR after all!" 

See "Hospital reverses explanation for fumbling Ebola case" at http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141003-hospital-reverses-explanation-for-fumbling-ebola-case.ece. The reversal strains credibility and sounds like redirection, to my ear possibly due to inside attorney and/or EMR company attorney pressure. 

The "new explanation" itself per the new article is that:

... A written statement Thursday said hospital officials identified and corrected “a flaw in the way the physician and nursing portions of our electronic health records (EHR) interacted in this specific case.” That statement implied, without directly saying it, that the flaw left the doctor uninformed about Duncan’s travel history. In Friday’s statement, though, the hospital said, “The patient’s travel history was documented and available to the full care team in the electronic health record.” “There was no flaw in the EHR in the way the physician and nursing portions interacted related to this event,” the statement said.

Again, sounds like redirection and making the doctor (and perhaps the ED doctor's group, if they were contractors) the sole scapegoat.   

"Available to the full care team?"  "Available" in a complex computer system with myriad screens is a very relative term.  The issue seems not "how the physician and nursing portion interacted", it is "how the physician portion made the information readily apparent to the physicians and other team members, or not."
 
The problem here, I believe, still likely amounts to "information hard to find" and "suboptimal support of teamwork (situational awareness)", among others, per the AHRQ hazards taxonomy. 

See, for instance, this.  Either it is true, or not, regarding the travel history:

 (click to enlarge)

I think an impartial investigation is needed to get to the truth.  

What we have now is likely healthcare defense attorney and/or risk management "fog", a phenomenon I have both professional and (sadly) personal experience with.

One also wonders if the EHR vendor had a contractual defects non-disclosure ("gag") clause with the organization, and is now threatening suit, leading to the retraction.  (See http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=koppel_kreda for more on that issue, and of corporate "hold harmless" clauses).   

Unfortunately, a comprehensive investigation would be likely to only occur in a courtroom via Discovery if others become infected.

If any reader has knowledge of details, my email address is scotsilv AT aol DOT com.

-- SS

10:34 AM

Health IT Amateurs, Logical Fallacy and Hospital Leadership: An Inhibitor to Good Health IT

An excellent three-part article on local providers' efforts to "join the electronic medical record/clinical IT movement", including a middle section "One doctor has reservations about EMR's design, usability", was published yesterday in the Dubuque (IA) Telegraph Herald.

I was cited as that doctor (subscription required).

The article began:

Dr. Scot Silverstein travels the country attending conferences [and other countries as well - ed.], speaking on panels and voicing concerns about health care's headlong rush into a reliance on electronic medical record systems.

"Headlong rush" is an accurate description of my beliefs, as in my "cart before the horse" posts here.

The newspaper reporter continues:

"Older and younger physicians alike are increasingly concerned about the poor design and poor usability of clinical IT," Silverstein said.  

Not only that, but so is ONC, the Institute of Medicine and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, among others, who I indicated were the source of my quotes.

The Drexel University College of Information Science and Technology faculty member calls "EMR" an anachronistic term from a time when the systems were merely storage tools for records.  "What is meant in 2012 is not just an innocuous 'filing cabinet,' but an enterprise clinical resource management and workflow control system - not just storing records, but regulating and governing all clinical behavior and action," Silverstein said.

That is, indeed, my own observation.

Silverstein contends such systems are inappropriate for some health-care environments, such as emergency rooms and intensive-care units.  "They slow down and distract clinicians due to their generally poor user interfaces, in the worst possible setting, and disrupt clinician cognition," he said.

Again, not only me.  As I had written to the reporter:

... These devices are not appropriate for high-risk, high-intensity environments such as ED's, ICU's etc.  They slow down and distract clinicians due to their generally poor user interfaces, in the worst possible setting, and disrupt clinician cognition.  But don't take my word for it.  See the 2012 report from the Institute of Medicine on healthcare IT safety (I wrote about it at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/iom-report-on-health-it-safety-nix-fda.html), the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on clinical IT usability (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/10/nist-on-ehr-mission-hostile-user.html) and the literature I collated at http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=readinglist.

In fact, document image management systems and human data abstractors are a good tradeoff to meet the needs of the most time-pressed clinicians whose time is a hospital's most valuable asset, and to make patient charts available when and where needed.  This is as opposed to "digital data field and form-based" (i.e., conventional) EMR's that force the clinicians to waste their time in clerical functions and distract them from pressing clinical matters and informational accuracy. 

He then reports:

Silverstein defines such cognition as the decision making and problem solving necessary to provide quality health care.

Precisely.

... Silverstein thinks current clinical IT programs focus too much on raw data and not enough on supporting a physician's decision-making abilities. "As a result, valuable time and energy is spent managing data as opposed to understanding the patient," he said. "Ideally, IT systems would place raw data into context with current medical knowledge to provide clinicians with computer models that depict the health status of the patient, including information on how different organ systems are interacting, epidemiological insight into the local prevalence of disease and potential patient-specific treatment regimens."

 
Actually, it's not just that I think and said these things.  The quote came verbatim, as I had indicated, from the prestigious National Research Council of the United States and their 2009 study on health IT, led by healthcare IT pioneers Drs. Octo Barnett and William Stead.

Any time logically consistent, ethics-based, common sense observations and opinions are expressed about health IT, however, one can always rely on a pundit or hospital executive for a misdirecting, illogical, and/or impertinent comment.

The expected came from Kay Takes, vice president of patient care services at Mercy Medical Center-Dubuque:

 ... Kay Takes, vice president of patient care services at Mercy Medical Center-Dubuque, said the hospital finds electronic medical records a help in the critical environment of the ICU.

"Specifically in the ICU, in the last 13 months we've gotten enhancements that allow us to download values from the medical equipment - it's automatically pulled into the medical record," she said "It's been fantastic. The availability of the information is enormously valuable. It's been a lot more of a benefit than a hindrance."

I speak from experience, in having been involved in developing those exact same capabilities in the mid 1990's (or, most accurately, protecting patients from the dangers created by the IT department in the project), that they are a convenience to those who formerly had to collect the data manually and write it on the ICU flowsheet.

The capabilities are also a mild convenience to clinicians who view the data, although the surface area of a paper flowsheet is a great advantage in seeing more data in one's field of view at one time than the usual small computer screen (to illustrate see my Feb. 2012 post EHR Workstation Designed by Amateurs at this link and my Jan. 2012 post An 'Anecdotal Complaint' About An ICU EHR at this link).

From the latter post:

... And we do still talk to each other – but even that doesn’t always “work out”, because we’ve lost our operational minds (collectively) – the shared-by-all compact, visually all data in one place, and temporally arranged – i.e., the shared nurse/doc/resp flowsheet [traditionally in an ICU, a long tabular scroll of paper for "at a glance" patient status overview - ed.] – where everybody was looking at the same page, which we no longer are – as the team is slowly discovering.

And which required no logon for sign-over bedside rounding (~40 minutes for 20-30 babies was the allotted time). The flowsheet needed only a 10-15 second glance to spot developing problems; “the computer” is effectively inaccessible in the time allotted for the twice daily sign-n-out “rounds”.

Ultimately, though, Ms. Takes, if quoted accurately, commits the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

For this convenience does not at all justify the downsides of EHRs, especially in an ICU:  increased time for task completion, increased risk of errors of commission or omission, and the other risks as outlined in sources such as FDA's 2010 Internal Memo on H-IT Risks, and recently by AHRQ in their IT Hazards Manager project (Appendix B).

Let's review those risks and failure modes from the AHRQ report, all observed empirically in the real world.  From the report:

A health IT hazard is a characteristic of any health IT application or its interactions with any other health care system (e.g., the people, equipment and work spaces of an ICU) that increases the risk that care processes will be compromised and patients harmed.

The potential outcomes of these hazards include medical privacy breach/identity theft, medical misadventures such as errors of commission or omission resulting in "close calls" (errors barely averted), or patient injury, or death, stress on clinicians reducing their performance, and documentation errors or data corruption increasing the risk of errors in the short, medium or long term.  In short, nothing you'd likely desire to occur while you or a family member was a patient:

Usability
• Information hard to find
• Difficult data entry
• Excessive demands on human memory
• Sub-optimal support of teamwork (situation awareness)
• Confusing information display
• Inadequate feedback to the user
• Mismatch between real workflows and HIT
• Mismatch between user mental models/expectations and HIT

Data Quality
• IT contributed to entry of data in the wrong patient’s record
• Organizational policy contributed to entry of data in the wrong patient’s record
• Patient information/results routed to the wrong recipient
• Discrepancy between database and displayed, printed or exported data
• Faulty reference information
• Unpredictable elements of the patient’s record available only on paper/scanned documents
• Lost data
• Inaccurate natural language processing
• Virus or other malware

Decision Support
• Excessive non-specific recommendations/alerts
• Faulty recommendation
• Missing recommendation or safeguard
• Inadequate clinical content
• Inappropriate level of automation

Vendor Factors
• Sub-optimal interfaces between applications and devices
• Faulty vendor configuration recommendation
• Unusable software implementation tools
• Non-configurable software
• Inadequate vendor Testing
• Inadequate vendor software change control
• Inadequate control of user access
• Faulty software design (specification)

Local Implementation
• Faulty local configuration or programming
• Inadequate local testing
• Inadequate project management
• Inadequate software change control
• Inadequate control of user access
• Suboptimal interface management

Other factors
• Inadequate training
• Excessive workload (including cognitive)
• Inadequate organizational change management
• Inadequate management of system downtime or slowdown
• Unclear policies
• Compromised communication among clinicians (i.e., during handoffs)
• Interactions with other (non-HIT) care systems
• Physical environment (e.g., hardware location, lighting, engineering)
• Inadequately secured data
• Hardware Failure
• Use error in the absence of other factors

The convenience of automated data collection through an EMR system comes at, one might say, a slight cost that may not be realized by health IT amateurs.** 

Unfortunately, their lack of knowledge of these issues reduces the caution and "pushback" required for good health IT to become the norm, and permits bad HIT to be sold.


-- SS

** Amateurs in the sense that I am a radio amateur, not a professional, formally trained telecommunications engineer, and would never take a major role in an enterprise telecommunications project, especially a mission-critical one.

8/27/12  Addendum:

A typical, anonymous, irrational response of the type we've seen on this blog before (as for example here and here) has been posted as a comment to the newspaper story:

"nemesis" posted at 1:19 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012. 

He travels the country complaining about existing systems? Perhaps the good prof could spend a little time designing the ideal interface/system and see if he can get anyone interested. Surely his design would win them all over.

The problem with this type of comment, of course, is that it's logically fallacious (a form of ad hominem and an odd "appeal to perfection") and irrelevant.  It is no way responds to or refutes the issues I raise in the article.   

It likely comes from a health IT pundit of some sort, but hopefully not someone in a position of authority.  In medicine, the rule of thumb is simple:  "Critical thinking always, or your patient's dead."

-- SS

9:42 AM

Cart Before the Horse, Part 3: AHRQ's "Health IT Hazard Manager"

(Addendum: the AHRQ hazards manager taxonomy report can see seen at http://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/citation/HealthITHazardManagerFinalReport.pdf.)

In a July 2010 post "Meaningful Use Final Rule: Have the Administration and ONC Put the Cart Before the Horse on Health IT?" and an Oct . 2010 post "Cart before the horse, again: IOM to study HIT patient safety for ONC; should HITECH be repealed?" I wrote about the postmodern "ready, fire, aim" approach to health IT:

In the first post, I wrote:

... These "usability" problems require long term solutions. There are no quick fix, plug and play solutions. Years of research are needed, and years of system migrations as well for existing installations.

Yet we now have an HHS Final Rule on "meaningful use" regarding experimental, unregulated medical devices the industry itself admits have major usability problems, along with a growing body of literature on the risks entailed.

For crying out loud, talk about putting the cart before the horse...

Something's very wrong here...

However, this situation is anything but humorous.

How more "cart before the horse" can government get?

In the second post, I wrote:

... So, in the midst of a National Program for Health IT in the United States (NPfIT in the U.S.), with tens of billions of dollars earmarked for health IT already (money we don't really have, but it can be printed quickly, or borrowed from China) the IOM is going to study health IT safety, prevention of health IT-related errors, etc. ... only now?

Here we go yet again.

The problem with the AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a division of HHS) announcement below of a webinar about a new tool for identifying, categorizing, and resolving health IT hazards, as I have written before, is putting the "cart before the horse" and throwing medical ethics to the wind.

If we've just developed a tool "for identifying, categorizing, and resolving health IT hazards", the magnitude of which others such as IOM admit are unknown to our detriment (e.g., Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care, pg. S-2), then health IT is, it follows, an experimental technology.

If it is an experimental technology, AHRQ and others in HHS should probably be raising the issue of a slow down or moratorium on widespread rollout under HITECH until risk management and remediation is better understood.  At the very least they should be calling for patient informed consent that a device that will largely regulate their care is experimental, that a competency "gap" exists among healthcare practitioners within the "health IT environment" (meaning patients are at risk), and that patients should be offered the opportunity for informed consent with opt-out provisions.  The principals should not just be announcing a webinar:

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:23 PM
To: OHITQUSERS@LIST.NIH.GOV
Subject: Register Now! AHRQ Health IT Webinar "Purpose and Demonstration of the Health IT Hazard Manager and Next Steps" June 11, 2:30 PM ET

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Purpose and Demonstration of the Health IT Hazard Manager and Next Steps

June 11, 2012 — 2:30-4 p.m., EST

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has identified a gap in a health care/public health practitioner’s competency within the health IT environment. This webinar is designed to increase practitioners’ competencies in several areas: improving health care decision making; supporting patient-centered care; and enhancing the quality and safety of medication management by improving the ability to identify, categorize, and resolve health IT hazards.

The Webinar will explore the Health IT Hazard Manager—a tool for identifying, categorizing, and resolving health IT hazards. When implemented, the tool allows health care organizations and software vendors alike to learn about potential hazards and work to resolve them, including the use of data to communicate potential and actual adverse effects. The session will discuss how the Health IT Hazard Manager was tested and refined as well as strategies and implications for deploying it. The target audience includes AHRQ grantees/researchers; health care providers, including physicians and nurses; consumers/patients; and health care policymakers.

... Webinar learning objectives include:

1. Describe the rationale for developing the Health IT Hazard Manager and how it evolved through alpha and beta testing.
2. Explain the process for identifying and categorizing health IT-related hazards.
3. Demonstrate how the Health IT Hazard Manager would be used [i.e., it's not yet in use, despite mandates for HIT rollout with penalties for non-adopters - ed.] within and across care delivery organizations and health IT software vendors.
4. Discuss policy and process implications for deploying the Health IT Hazard Manager via different organizations (i.e., AHRQ; Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT; Patient Safety Organization(s); Accrediting bodies; IT entities).

In effect, HHS seems to be saying "we're working on the HIT risk problem, but roll it out anyway; if you get harmed or killed, tough luck."  This seems a form of negligence.

Have we thrown out all we know about medical research and human subjects protections in face of the magical powers and profits of computers in medicine?

-- SS

1:11 PM