{"id":4815,"date":"2010-02-18T04:00:38","date_gmt":"2010-02-18T09:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pmedicine.org\/epatients\/?p=4815"},"modified":"2010-03-07T08:13:13","modified_gmt":"2010-03-07T13:13:13","slug":"what-to-do-about-the-cream-of-the-crap-oncs-adoptioncertification-workgroup-meeting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/participatorymedicine.org\/epatients\/2010\/02\/what-to-do-about-the-cream-of-the-crap-oncs-adoptioncertification-workgroup-meeting.html","title":{"rendered":"What to do about “the cream of the crap”? ONC’s Adoption\/Certification Workgroup meeting"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>I’d like your help preparing thoughts and testimony for a policy meeting I’ve been invited to attend in Washington next week.<\/p>\n For these meetings, one needs to submit prepared remarks in advance, for the committee to digest in advance.\u00a0 And from what I’ve learned so far about this, there’s a lot to chew on, and people of all stripes (that’s you) can probably provide valuable input. At very<\/em> least you can express yourself.<\/p>\n [Update 1 pm ET Thursday: <\/em>I haven’t been able to convert the recording mentioned below (which is in RealPlayer format) to display it here, but if you have RealPlayer installed you can play it yourself at http:\/\/real.welch.jhu.edu\/ramgen\/DHSI\/Dec182009.rm<\/a>. The slides are often out of sync with the audio but they catch up. Skip the first 9 minutes; the talk starts around 9:15 and goes 30 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of Q&A. The meat of it is in Dr. Koppel’s talk, but the Q&A has more juice.]<\/p>\n The meeting subject is Health IT Safety.<\/strong> This sounded like an odd topic – considering all the things that go wrong because data is NOT computerized, what are they talking about, re safety risks WITH the technology??<\/p>\n I know I’m in over my head, being “just a patient.” But the more I learned tonight, the more I thought maybe that’s a good thing.<\/p>\n Because tonight I learned there are truly massive problems with the workflow and flow of information in today’s systems.\u00a0 Later Thursday I hope to post a link to a 30 minute webcast with 30 minutes of Q&A from December, documenting what some horrifying failures in today’s big EMR systems.\u00a0 You’ll judge for yourself, but imagine…<\/p>\n Examples of software issues in these multi-million dollar systems, as documented in the webcast:<\/p>\n I’m not making this up; you’ll judge for yourself when the video is up.\u00a0 Pitfalls we wouldn’t tolerate in the simplest word processing program are commonplace in million dollar medical systems.<\/span> Ending up with erroneous data is not unusual.<\/strong><\/p>\n And we want to transmit this data? Yikes.<\/p>\n For the purpose of this post:<\/p>\n Our answers will go to the specific people who will recommend national policy on this. What advice can we give them <\/strong>on how certify a system so that it qualifies for Federal stimulus money?<\/p>\n You software system people out there: what would you <\/em>do?\u00a0 You don’t get to demand a different reality; we have to start where we’re at. What do we do?<\/p>\n You clinicians – the people who have to use the systems: what would you <\/em>want the government to do?<\/p>\n _____________<\/p>\n Here’s one radical idea:<\/p>\n What if a system could only get certified (and thus get the stimulus money) if\u00a0the people who use it say it basically works??<\/strong><\/p>\n (Can a system be meaningful if the users say it doesn’t work?)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Guiding principle: ask the workers who are directly impacted if the system screws up.<\/p>\n _____________<\/p>\n Another idea: since we can’t wave a wand and fix everything instantly, prioritize collecting failure data<\/strong> so we\u00a0 can figure out what needs fixing, and we can prove that a fix has worked. (Software tools to do this are common in high tech.)<\/p>\n Two guiding principles here:<\/p>\n I imagine this has to be combined with amnesty for errors. If people get punished for reporting a mistake, it won’t happen. (I heard the FAA has such a policy, and it’s helped greatly in reducing causes of crashes.)<\/p>\n _____________<\/p>\n A third idea, which would need to be thought out: Allow a second set of eyes<\/strong> to check for obvious mistakes. An obvious resource here is the patient or family or advocate. But given that the systems can be awkward for professionals to use, I’m not sure how to approach this.<\/p>\n I do know, though, that no stakeholder is more motivated. And as cancer widow and 73 cents artist Regina Holliday<\/a> made abundantly clear in December, you might be surprised what a motivated “just a high school graduate” can spot that’s a useful contribution. (And free.)<\/p>\n _____________<\/p>\n What else can we say about achieving safe, reliable data? What policies should they recommend, to cope with the cream of the crap?\u00a0 Comment please.<\/p>\n Some background “footnotey” details follow.<\/p>\n ____________________________________________________<\/p>\n This workgroup’s position in the hierarchy:<\/p>\n This meeting’s agenda:<\/p>\n Adoption\/Certification Workgroup Meeting<\/strong> 9:00 a.m. Call to Order\/Roll Call <\/strong>\u2013 Judy Sparrow, Office of the National Coordinator<\/p>\n 9:05 a.m. Meeting Objectives and Outcomes: Health IT Safety<\/strong> 9:15 a.m. Identifying the Issues 10:45 a.m. Stakeholders 12:15 p.m. LUNCH BREAK<\/p>\n 1:00 p.m. Possible Approaches 2:30 p.m. Summary Comments from the Workgroup <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’d like your help preparing thoughts and testimony for a policy meeting I’ve been invited to attend in Washington next week. For these meetings, one needs to submit prepared remarks in advance, for the committee to digest in advance.\u00a0 And from what I’ve learned so far about this, there’s a lot to chew on, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[114,367,59],"tags":[3452,305,423,3485,3483,613,3474,3478,3479,3476,1616,3475,340,3477,1142,3482,3484,1210,3480,3481],"coauthors":[8260],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nOmni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW, Washington, DC
\nThursday, February 25, 2010, 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.\/Eastern Time<\/p>\n
\n\u2013 Paul Egerman and Marc Probst, Co-Chairs<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n2:45 p.m. Public Comments
\n3:00 p.m. Adjourn<\/p>\n