On Generic Management in Health Care: Hospital Chief Information Officers (CIOs) Say Patient Engagement is All About ... Themselves?

To laugh or to cry? - now it seems that hospital CIOs think they "own" patient engagement. 

An article in Medscape summarized a presentation at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Annual meeting that provided a surprising insight into how some hospital managers think.  The survey focused on the concept of patient engagement:

In separate surveys, researchers polled a national sample of 125 chief information officers, 359 primary care physicians, and 2567 patients who visited their doctor in the previous 90 days. Questions centered on beliefs about engagement, the perceived roles of the stakeholders, and barriers.

The patients seemed to have a sensible idea about their own engagement,

From the patient perspective, getting help from a provider they trust is most important, said Mazi Rasulnia, PhD, from M Consulting LLC, who is cofounder of Pack Health, a patient-activation company in Birmingham, Alabama.

What they expect most, according to the survey, is a provider who listens to them and helps them understand treatment options before they make a decision.

'Patients want questions answered around the specificity of their own health, not just what generally happens with 'patients like you' or from a population standpoint,' Dr Rasulnia said.

'What they don't really care for or expect is for providers to 'give me a website so I can access my medical information'.' That, and asking patients about their personal life, ranked lowest on patients' lists of expectations.

They want providers to help them navigate not only their disease, but also the health system. Providing access is important, but that alone won't help patients engage, he explained.

The article did not provide much information about the physicians' responses, but did suggest

When physicians talk about patient engagement, they tend to think in terms of the doctor–patient relationship,...

So in general, the doctors and patients were on the same page, but

doctors believe patients need to take more responsibility for their outcomes, and patients say they can't because their doctors, who are responsible for engaging them, don't spend enough time with them.

Setting aside the causes and approaches to the problem of insufficient time during patient encounters, the chief information officers (CIOs), had a radically different idea,

when healthcare executives talk about the patient engagement envisioned under the Affordable Care Act, they think in terms of transactions,...

Furthermore,

 Chief information officers believe they are responsible because patient engagement involves technology,...

Also,

The chief information officers surveyed 'clearly saw themselves as the owners of patient engagement,' said Lorren Pettit, MBA, vice president of market research for HIMSS Analytics, who reported on the systems perspective.

When chief information officers were asked who is most accountable for patient engagement in their organizations, 46.4% said they were, but 14.4% thought nurses were accountable for patient engagement, not physicians or patients.

Comment - on the Hubris of Generic Managers

I have to assume that the article, presentation, or the survey were hopelessly garbled. If not, what on earth were the chief information officers thinking?

Chief information officers think they are the "owners of patient engagement?"  While "patient engagement" does not seem to be a well-defined term (look here), and seems like an example of bureaucrat speak or politically correctness, it surely seems to be related to communication between patients and health care professionals.  It surely does not seem to be directly about information technology. At best, the health care information technology CIOs manage could support patient engagement.    Furthermore, the explanation apparently offered by the CIOs, that patient engagement involves technology, is not helpful because at this time, all of medicine and health care to some extent "involves technology."

So why would CIOs claim to "own" patient engagement?  Maybe they are simply clueless about what patient engagement really involves.  CIOs rarely interact with patients.  Most CIOs have no direct health care experience, and are not trained as doctors or nurses.  For example, a recent list of "100 Hospital and Health System CIOs to Know" included only 10 with health professional degrees (seven MDs, three RNs).

Why then, not simply admit that the issue is out of their area of expertise, rather than claiming "ownership."  My best guess is this is the bravado, or arrogance of generic managers.

In 1988, Alain Enthoven advocated in Theory and Practice of Managed Competition in Health Care Finance, a book published in the Netherlands, that to decrease health care costs it would be necessary to break up the "physicians' guild" and replace leadership by clinicians with leadership by managers (see 2006 post here). Thus from 1983 to 2000, the number of managers working in the US health care system grew 726%, while the number of physicians grew 39%, so the manager/physician ratio went from roughly one to six to one to one (see 2005 post here). As we noted here, the growth continued, so there are now 10 managers for every US physician.

The managers who first took over health care may have had some health care background.  Now it seems that health care managers are decreasingly likely to have any health care background, and increasingly likely to be from the world of finance.  Meanwhile, for a long time, business schools and the like seem to have teaching managers that they have a God given right to manage every organization and every aspect of society, regardless how little they know about what the particular context, business, calling, etc involves.  Presumably this is based on a faith or ideology that modern management tools are universally applicable and nigh onto supernatural in their powers.  Of course, there is not much evidence to support this, especially in health care.

We have discussed other examples of bizarre proclamations by generic managers and their supporters that seem to corroborate their belief in such divine powers.  Most recently, there was the multimillionaire hospital system CEO who proclaimed new artificial intelligence technology could replace doctors in short order (look here).   Top hospital managers are regularly lauded as "brilliant," or "extraordinary," often in terms of their managerial skills (look here), but at times because of their supposed ownership of all aspects of patient care, e.g., (look here)

They literally are on call 24/7, 365 days a year and they are running an institution where lives are at stake....

If hospital CEOs, who spend lots of time in offices, at meetings, and raising money, really see themselves as perpetually on call, and directly responsible for patients' lives, then maybe it's not surprising that their CIOs think they own patient engagment.

So in summary this latest survey shows the continued hubris of the generic manager, and hence their continued unsuitability to run health care organizations.  It is time for health care professionals to take back health care from generic managers.  True health care reform would restore leadership by people who understand the health care context, uphold health professionals' values, are willing to be held accountable, and put patients' and the public's health ahead of self-interest. 

ADDENDUM (20 April, 2015) - This post was republished on Naked Capitalism. 

2:27 PM

An ironically titled session by ECRI Institute: "Would You Bet Your Mother's Life on the Safety of Your EHR?"

An ironically titled session by ECRI Institute "Would You Bet Your Mother's Life on the Safety of Your EHR?" is being held at the annual Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) meeting by Ronni Solomon, JD and William Marella, MBA of the ECRI Institute on April 13, 2015 (http://www.himssconference.org/event.aspx?ItemNumber=36765).

It is announced in the HIMSS press release below in Healthcare IT News.

I should probably be the keynote speaker to that session, as I am suitably qualified to speak of that exact issue.  My mother and I lost such a "bet" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-ehr-warnings-sure-experts-think-you.html).

It's about time these topics were surfaced, but I still feel there is far too little public awareness of the risks of bad health IT.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/ridding-ehrs-dangerous-often-undetectable-bad-data 
Ridding EHRs of dangerous, often undetectable, bad data

March 13, 2015

As the healthcare industry continues toward its goal of making all patient health records electronically accessible, a health system’s safety increasingly is determined by the quality of its EHR implementation.


Last November ECRI Institute, a non-profit organization that uses scientific methods to test medical products, rated “incorrect or missing data in electronic health records and other health IT systems” as the No. 2 hazard that will put patients at risk in 2015.

“Once inaccurate data gets into the electronic health record, it’s hard to get it out,” said Ronni Solomon, executive vice president and general counsel for ECRI Institute. “That’s a challenge, and the less detectable it is, the higher the risk. You don’t know it’s in there.”

Such incorrect information probably has far more impact than it did on paper, I believe; computer output is often uncritically taken as gospel, and is often cut-and-pasted to newer records without patient interaction, thus propagating an error of omission, commission or data loss or corruption (due to malfunction).

The negative impact of bad data in electronic health records is both immediate and long-lasting. “In the short-run, bad data in the system limits the effectiveness of clinical communications and the effectiveness of decision support,” added William Marella, ECRI’s executive director, PSO operations and analytics. “And basically it undermines people’s confidence in the system.”

Especially the clinicians' confidence, which is already low (e.g., see my Jan. 28, 2015 post "Multiple medical specialty societies now go on record about hazards of EHR misdirection, mismanagement and sloppy hospital computing" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2015/01/meaningful-use-not-so-meaningul.html).

Solomon and Marella will conduct an educational session at HIMSS15 in April on how healthcare organizations can apply safety science to IT and informatics to improve patient safety.

The first step they can take is to strip control of critical health IT decisions from the business-IT personnel and put heath IT under the aegis of medical leadership, especially medical leadership that contains formally-educated Medical Informatics and related professionals.  (This admittedly and unfortunately has a very low chance of happening due to hospital politics and power structures.)

“Would You Bet Your Mother's Life on the Safety of Your EHR?” is designed to help attendees create a framework for planning and implementing IT strategies, processes and tools to increase the safety of healthcare patients.

Both Ms. Solomon and Mr. Marella are aware of what happened to my mother.  I wonder out loud if the title is based on, at least in part, that incident.

... “The promise of these systems is that they’re going to make the health care system more efficient and ultimately more safe,” Marella said. “Now the administrators in hospitals and health systems that have financed these systems want a return on their investment.”

Perhaps the administrators should have done due diligence on the realities of this technology before investing the money.

The session will cover how organizations can: establish an infrastructure for identifying and responding to patient safety problems; assess safety challenges facing health IT users and implementers; identify partnerships that can accelerate safety improvements; and analyze opportunities to use informatics to prevent adverse events.


“What we’re trying to do in this talk is get in front of the IT leaders of these institutions and help them understand where patient safety people are coming from and how we can bridge these two silos within the health system, because they will both be more effective working together,” Marella said.

I add that all of these goals should have been met prior to a national rollout and, at each organization, prior to subjecting patients to these technologies, but I speak common sense, which in medicine is no longer common.  Thus, sessions like this one in 2015.

Perhaps this could be the theme poster for the session.

-- SS

10:25 AM

Good HIT, Bad HIT, HIMSS And Reckless Technology Advocacy: Will This Hurt President Obama?

HIMSS, the Health Information Systems Management Society, is the large vendor trade group representing healthcare IT sellers.

At the HIMSS blog entitled "Health IT is an essential element to transform the Nation’s healthcare system" (link), Carla M Smith, MA, CNM, FHIMSS writes this with regard to the House  letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius asking her to suspend payments for the EHR Incentive Payments authorized in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009:

HIMSS opposes halting the Meaningful Use EHR Incentive Program. Health IT is an essential, foundational element of any meaningful transformation of the Nation’s healthcare delivery system. 

(Of course, not mentioned is "transformed" into what, exactly; this utopian ideation is a topic for another time.)

A chart is then presented as to "how US civilian hospitals have, since the first incentive payments were made in second quarter, 2011, matured in their use of health IT."  Then this statement is made:

Healthcare providers are adopting certified EHRs and using them for meaningful purposes; thus, achieving Congressional intent to improve the quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness of care in U.S.

Really?  (See my Feb. 2012 post "Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if Certified.")

This non-evidence based, amoral advocacy by HIMSS for health IT may cost the President the November election.  HIMSS has beguiled the president into similar unquestioning advocacy for the technology in its present form, which his opponents are now (rightfully) seizing upon as in the House letter.

The reckless mistakes made by HIMSS and their advocates include these two:

1.   The unquestioned belief that this expensive technology would save billions of dollars in healthcare costs, instead of depleting precious healthcare resources better spent on, say, improvement of healthcare services for the poor.

2.  More importantly, the appallingly naïve belief that any health IT is good health IT, and that any health IT is only capable of good, not bad.

HIMSS has thus failed to recognize - or perhaps worse, recognized but recklessly ignored - the profound difference between good health IT (GHIT) and bad health IT (BHIT).

As I defined at my teaching site on Medical Informatics:

Good Health IT ("GHIT") is defined as IT that provides a good user experience, enhances cognitive function, puts essential information as effortlessly as possible into the physician’s hands, keeps eHealth information secure, protects patient privacy and facilitates better practice of medicine and better outcomes.

Bad Health IT ("BHIT") is defined as IT that is ill-suited to purpose, hard to use, unreliable, loses data or provides incorrect data, causes cognitive overload, slows rather than facilitates users, lacks appropriate alerts, creates the need for hypervigilance (i.e., towards avoiding IT-related mishaps) that increases stress, is lacking in security, compromises patient privacy or otherwise demonstrates suboptimal design and/or implementation.  

I am an advocate of the former, and an opponent of the latter.

Bad health IT is prevalent in 2012 due to lack of meaningful quality control, software validation, usability standards and testing, and regulation of any type - a situation HIMSS long favored.   (The failed National Programme for HIT [NPfIT] in the NHS learned this the hard way, as will Australians needing emergency care, I predict.)

Put bluntly, in the end BHIT maims and kills patients, squanders precious healthcare resources, and drains the treasury into IT industry pockets (see my Oct. 3, 2012 post "Honesty and Good Sense on Electronic Medical Records From Down Under" and this query link on health IT risks). 

Further, the failure to recognize that the technology's downsides need to be understood and remediated before national deployment occurs and under controlled conditions, not after (which uses patients as non-consenting experimental subjects for software debugging), speaks to gross corporate negligence on the part of HIMSS.  It's not as if they did not have advance warning of all of healthcare IT's deficiencies. 

BHIT also permits record alterations after the fact that may be to conceal medical error.  I am aware of numerous instances of such alterations, fortunately caught by critical-thinking, detail-minded attorneys.  However, like health IT harms, the incidences of known alteration attempts likely reflect the "tip of the iceberg."

HIMSS and its fellow travelers have thus led this administration down the Garden Path of health IT perdition.

I warned of this in a Feb. 18, 2009 Wall Street Journal letter to the editor:

Dear Wall Street Journal:

You observe that the true political goal is socialized medicine facilitated by health care information technology. You note that the public is being deceived, as the rules behind this takeover were stealthily inserted in the stimulus bill.

I have a different view on who is deceiving whom. In fact, it is the government that has been deceived by the HIT industry and its pundits. Stated directly, the administration is deluded about the true difficulty of making large-scale health IT work. The beneficiaries will largely be the IT industry and IT management consultants.

For £12.7 billion the U.K., which already has socialized medicine, still does not have a working national HIT system, but instead has a major IT quagmire, some of it caused by U.S. HIT vendors. [That project, the NPfIT in the NHS, has now been abandoned - ed.]

HIT (with a few exceptions) is largely a disaster. I'm far more concerned about a mega-expensive IT misadventure than an IT-empowered takeover of medicine.

The stimulus bill, to its credit, recognizes the need for research on improving HIT. However this is a tool to facilitate clinical care, not a cybernetic miracle to revolutionize medicine. The government has bought the IT magic bullet exuberance hook, line and sinker.

I can only hope patients get something worthwhile for the $20 billion.

Scot Silverstein, MD

Mr. President, again, quite bluntly, the health IT industry took you for a ride, and the damage is done and is continuing due to lack of any meaningful health IT post market surveillance.   (As I wrote here, the untoward results have already been used against the current administration, with more perhaps to follow.)

In the U.S. we have the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in place:

The introduction of this act was influenced by the death of more than 100 patients due to a sulfanilamide medication where diethylene glycol was used to dissolve the drug and make a liquid form.  See Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster. It replaced the earlier Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

It should be honored, not ignored via special accommodation to the health IT industry and its trade group.

HITECH also needs to be put in dormancy until the problems with these unregulated medical devices get worked out in relatively small, controlled settings to minimize risk, with patient informed consent.  This is in accord with human rights documents dating at least to the Nuremberg Code, as in any new, experimental or partly-experimental medical device, pharmaceutical, or therapy.

-- SS
 

7:13 AM

HIMSS Senior Vice President on Medical Ethics: Ignore Health IT Downsides for the Greater Good

The Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) is the large health IT vendor trade group in the U.S.  At a Sept. 21, 2012 HIMSS blog post, John Casillas, Senior Vice President of HIMSS Financial-Centered Systems and HIMSS Medical Banking Project dismisses concerns about health IT with the refrain:

... To argue that the existence of something good for healthcare in many other ways, such as having the right information at the point of care when it’s needed, is actually bad because outliers use it to misrepresent claims activity is deeply flawed.

Through the best use of health IT and management systems, we have the opportunity to improve the quality of care, reduce medical errors and increase patient safety. Don’t let the arguments of some cast a cloud over the critical importance and achievement of digitizing patient health records.

Surely, no one can argue paper records are the path forward. Name one other industry where this is the case. I can’t.

Let’s not let the errors of a few become the enemy of good.

The ethics of these statements from a non-clinician are particularly perverse.

The statement "Don’t let the arguments of some cast a cloud over the critical importance and achievement of digitizing patient health records" is particularly troubling.

When those "some" include organizations such as FDA (see FDA Internal 2010 memo on HIT risks, link) and IOM's Committee on Patient Safety and Health Information Technology (see 2012 report on health IT safety, link) both stating that harms are definite but magnitude unknown due to systematic impediments to collecting the data, and the ECRI Institute having had health IT in its "top ten healthcare technology risks" for several years running, link, the dismissal of "clouds" is unethical on its face.

These reports indicate that nobody knows if today's EHRs improve or worsen outcomes over good paper record systems or not.  The evidence is certainly conflicting (see here).

It also means that the current hyper-enthusiasm to roll out this software nationwide in its present state could very likely be at the expense of the unfortunate patients who find themselves as roadkill on the way to the unregulated health IT utopia.

That's not medicine, that's perverse human subjects experimentation without safeguards or consent.

As a HC Renewal reader noted:

Astounding hubris, although it does seem to be effective.  Such is PC hubris.  Who could ever call for reducing the budget of the NIH that is intended to improve health.  Has health improved?  No.

So why does a group with spotty successes if not outright failure never get cut?  It’s not the results, it’s the mission that deserves the funding.  So it’s not the reality of HIT, it’s the promise, the mission, that gets the support.  Never mind the outcome, it’s bound to improve with the continued support of the mission.

Is this HIMSS VP aware of these reports?  Does he even care?

Does he believe patients harmed or killed as a result of bad health IT (and I know of a number of cases personally through my advocacy work, including, horribly, infants and the elderly) are gladly sacrificing themselves for the greater good of IT progress?

It's difficult to draw any other conclusion from health IT excuses such as proffered, other than he and HIMSS simply don't care about unintended consequences of health IT.

Regarding "Surely, no one can argue paper records are the path forward" - well, yes, I can.  (Not the path 'forward', but the path for now, at least, until health IT is debugged and its adoption and effects better understood).  And I did so argue, at my recent posts "Good Health IT v. Bad Health IT: Paper is Better Than The Latter" and "A Good Reason to Refuse Use of Today's EHR's in Your Health Care, and Demand Paper".  I wrote:

I opine that the elephant in the living room of health IT discussions is that bad health IT is infrequently, if ever, made a major issue in healthcare policy discussions.

I also opine that bad health IT is far worse, in terms of diluting and decreasing the quality and privacy of healthcare, than a very good or even average paper-based record-keeping and ordering system.  

This is a simple concept, but I believe it needs to be stated explicitly. 

A "path forward" that does not take into account these issues is the path forward of the hyper-enthusiastic technophile who either deliberately ignores or is blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

If today's health IT is not ready for national rollout, e.g., causes harms of unknown magnitude (e.g., see this query link), results in massive breaches of security as the "Good Reason" post above, and mayhem such as at this link, then:

The best - and most ethical - option is to slow down HIT implementation and allow paper-based organizations and clinicians to continue to resort to paper until these issues are resolved.  Resolution needs to occur in lab or experimental clinical settings without putting patients at risk - and with their informed consent.

Anything else is akin to the medical experimentation abuses of the past that led to current research subjects protections such as the "Ethical Guidelines & Regulations" used by NIH.

-- SS

5:55 AM

HIMSS: Hospital CIO's Should Not Only Manage Healthcare IT, But Also Biomedical Engineering

I have written in the past about the territoriality of the IT department in hospitals, observing that the departments I was exposed to seemed more political than the clinical departments themselves. This territoriality came at the expense of clinicians' and patients' best interests.

This phenomenon seems to go beyond the confines of the hospital IT shop, perhaps as a manifestation of the IT culture. For example:

Other have observed - unapprovingly so - how the health IT trade group HIMSS, via a massive lobbying effort and via its offspring, the CCHIT, has sought to gain hegemony over health IT through a "certification" process, a service for which CCHIT desires to be the sole provider.

It's become worse. Now control over biomedical instrumentation (which includes such safety critical devices as ventilators, cardiac and other physiologic monitors, heart-lung machines, radiological devices, etc.) is sought.

In the June 2009 HIMSS analytics report "Devices in Hospitals" (link to PDF):

Page 7:

... It appears that the IS department [a.k.a. IT department, or Management Information Systems department - ed.] is becoming the key support department for interfaced intelligent medical devices. This is a natural extension as IS departments build and support a cadre of interfaces to improve the collection and use of data within the hospital.

Then at the end of the report, in the Conclusion, a leap of logic of gargantuan proportions:

What is less clear at this time is whether the biomedical operations will be placed under the IS department for management. We believe that it should be , ala the movement of responsibility for telecommunications to the CIO when telecommunications and information technologies merged in the last 15 years .

Au contraire ... it is very clear to those who know what they're doing that this is a very bad analogy and suggests HIMSS does not understand the vast differences between the discipline and functions of biomedical engineering, versus the IT department role of management of computer and other ICT's (information and communications technologies). I find this astonishing.

Having done a clerkship in biomedical engineering in medical school, and being somewhat knowledgeable about electronics as an FCC-licensed radio amateur at the Extra class (highest certification attainable by a series of FCC examinations), I find the HIMSS Analytics position risible and dangerous. It suggests a desire to expand territory even further into an area for which CIO's and hospital IT personnel are even less qualified - indeed, far less qualified - than clinical IT.

Apparently, CCHIT wants to have hegemony over "certification" of clinical IT, and the parent organization HIMSS through its research arm opines IT should also take over "medical devices" (while still excluding clinical IT from that categorization to avoid regulation, of course).

As I first asked over ten years ago after observing IT personnel in hospitals :

Who, exactly, are the IT personnel in hospitals, and what, exactly, in their backgrounds qualifies them for major involvement in clinical affairs, let alone leadership roles regarding safety-critical clinical devices?

Perhaps the Joint Commission, FDA, and other regulators need to start asking the same question.

-- SS

5:09 PM