Grand Jury: Ventura County, Calif., Mishandled Electronic Health Records Transition

In Ventura County, California, "the function of the Grand Jury is to act as a civil oversight of county and city government, special districts, governing boards, personnel commissions, school districts, and humane officers. It is their responsibility to insure that government is serving the best interests of Ventura County's citizens" (http://www.ventura.org/grand-jury).

Even under such a grand jury, the need for true Health IT experts (instead of amateurs) seems to have gone unnoticed.

A 2013-2014 Ventura County Grand Jury conducted an investigation in response to information received regarding the implementation of a new Electronic Health Records system by the Ventura County Health Care Agency (VCHCA).

Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report "Healthcare Records Processes and Procedures" (full PDF at http://vcportal.ventura.org/GDJ/docs/reports/2013-14/Healthcare_Records-05.29.14.pdf)

From the May 29, 2014 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report "Healthcare Records Processes and Procedures" (full PDF at http://vcportal.ventura.org/GDJ/docs/reports/2013-14/Healthcare_Records-05.29.14.pdf).  Read the full report.  Any reader of this blog or my Drexel HIT site at http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/ will recognize very familiar patterns.

Here are some highlights:

In April 2012, VCHCA hired an independent Information Technology (IT) consultant to oversee the EHR implementation; however, he was not authorized to be project manager.

An "independent IT consultant" who had no formal Medical Informatics expertise is a likely explanation for all that followed.  (Even if he did, his relegation to "internal consultant" was an attempt to seduce failure into rearing her ugly head.)

The Grand Jury found that, beginning with the authorization of the Cerner contract in October 2011, there was a lack of a dedicated and experienced project manager to oversee, track, and report all tasks related to the EHR implementation. The absence of a recognized standard project plan, as shown in the Project Management Institute’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), contributed to staff being inadequately prepared for using the new system and to a problematic EHR system implementation by VCHCA.

Lack of a "recognized standard project plan" was likely the least of the problems.

The Grand Jury found hiring of “contract staff” did not support project needs. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors’ (BOS) approval of additional funds allowed for the hiring of deployment staff. Hiring did not commence until August 2012, and continued after the VCHCA system “go-live” date of July 1, 2013. This indicated a lack of planning and diligence in pursuing the necessary qualified staff.

Lack of enough "contract IT staff" was likely the least of the problems.

The Grand Jury found that staff training on the new equipment was insufficient, leading to a lack of experience and knowledge with all components of the EHR system. There was a period of inefficient and delayed patient care.

Billing processes were significantly impacted, requiring manual intervention, taking additional time.

These are symptoms of what was likely truly lacking.

The Grand Jury found that VCHCA ordered the user hardware in May and June 2013, too late to allow proper time for configuring of computers, hardware testing, and user familiarization.
 
The Grand Jury found that VCHCA had until the end of December 2014 to implement the new EHR system to avoid federal penalties.

The Grand Jury found that VCHCA had to be on the EHR system for 90 days prior to September 30, 2013, to qualify for full Meaningful Use funding, therefore July 1, 2013 was selected as its go-live date.

It was all about money.  Still, that was not the likely problem.

The problem was likely leadership by healthcare IT amateurs**, lacking formal cross-disciplinary expertise in medicine and clinical computing.

Without that expertise, empowered in top leadership roles, these projects will fail or will be seriously impaired, at great cost.

If you don't believe me, believe the NIH (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/12/onc-defines-taxonomy-of-health-it.html).

While the 'Grand Jury' investigation of a failed health IT project may be a first, and is not a bad development in my mind, perhaps the members of the Grand Jury need to read a bit more.

-- SS

** I am a radio amateur, a formal FCC designation for those licensed to use radio and who have some knowledge, but who are not formal radio telecommunications engineers (unless they have the required formal education, training and experience, of course).

Athens Regional Medical Center: Hospital management is "addressing computer problems" AFTER patients are put at bodily risk, not before, only in response to irate clinicians; then claiming everything will be fixed soon while doctors resign.

(Note: also see my June 16, 2014 followup post at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/06/masters-of-obvious-aat-athens-regional.html)

Maybe hospital management gurus could address these computer problems BEFORE turning them loose on patients?

Physicians in Georgia seem to have more guts than their colleagues elsewhere.  Rather than letting patients be guinea pigs for the naive fantasies of hospital executives about health IT, these physicians said "get these [expletive] computer systems out of our hospital"...

Then they started resigning their appointments:

Athens Regional addressing new computer system problems encountered by doctors

By Donnie Z. Fetter
Friday, May 23, 2014

http://onlineathens.com/health/2014-05-22/athens-regional-addressing-new-computer-system-problems-encountered-doctors

Doctors affiliated with Athens Regional Medical Center (http://www.athenshealth.org/) have expressed concerns that a computer system installed this month at the hospital endangers patients.

Not "may endanger patients."  "Endangers patients."  That's quite direct.

However, the hospital's chief executive said Athens Regional is taking "swift action" to address those concerns.

I'm not impressed.  The executives should perhaps have done due diligence and taken action BEFORE this bad health IT was set loose on live, unsuspecting patients.

It's not as if the issues are unknown (as Google or anyone who actually knows what they're doing regarding health IT will easily demonstrate).  Further, those executives have the legal obligation to maintain a safe healthcare environment.

In a letter dated May 15 and provided to the Athens Banner-Herald this week, multiple doctors noted such concerns as “medication errors ... orders being lost or overlooked ... (emergency department) patients leaving after long waits; and of an inpatient who wasn’t seen by a physician for (five) days.”

Any of these issues and the multitude more I can predict exist can lead to severe injury or death, especially in fragile patients and the elderly.  Trust me, I know both professionally and personally...
 

The letter was addressed to ARMC President and CEO James G. Thaw and Senior Vice President and CIO Gretchen Tegethoff. It was signed by more than a dozen physicians, including Carolann Eisenhart, president of the medical staff; Joseph T. Johnson, vice president of the medical staff; David M. Sailers, surgery department chair; and, Robert D. Sinyard, medicine department chair.

The doctor who provided the letter to the Banner-Herald refused a request to openly discuss the issues with the computer system and asked to remain anonymous at the urging of his colleagues.

Refused a request to openly discuss the issues with the computer system and asked to remain anonymous at the urging of his colleagues ... due to fear the executives would then return the doctor's concerns with genuine love and appreciation, and give him or her a generous promotion and pat on the back, no doubt.  (Actually, quite likely was a fear of retaliation, e.g. sham peer review as at http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/sham_peer_review_resources_physicians.)

Note the educational background of CIO Gretchen Tegerhoff, the executive with fiduciary obligations to implement health IT of the highest quality and to have robustly researched all of the issues involved (and whom the Board should have thoroughly vetted as to required background for health IT leadership):

University of Georgia
Terry College of Business, Executive Program, Finance
2014 – 2014 (expected)

The George Washington University - School of Business
Master of Science, Information Systems Technology
2001 – 2003

West Virginia University
BS, Medical Technology
1993 – 1997

Note the career progression that is the envy of, say, someone who's completed the rigors of medical training (premed, medical school, internship/residency, clinical postdocs) and beyond that, completed an additional PhD, MS or post-doctoral fellowship in Medical Informatics at unknown universities such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, etc. (reverse chrono):

Technical Analyst
STG (9 months)
[Provided U.S. Department of State with systems support and application maintenance.]

Clinical Systems Analyst
George Washington University Hospital (3 years 8 months)

Technical Support Specialist/Installer
Intellidata, Inc. (9 months)

Clinical Research Associate
QUINTILES, INC. (9 months)

Information Specialist
THE EMMES CORPORATION (1 year 8 months)

Writer/Editor
ASPEN SYSTEMS CORPORATION (7 months)

Medical Technologist
PROVIDENCE LABORATORY ASSOCIATES (8 months)

This background led directly to:

Chief Information Officer
George Washington University Hospital (6 years 8 months)

and then the current role:

Athens Regional Health System
Vice President and Chief Information Officer
Athens Regional Health System

If you believed that the qualifications required for medical practice - let alone medical leadership roles - is at least an order of magnitude more robust, you'd not be mistaken.

Perhaps even worse, business-IT amateur meddlers in clinical affairs sell the "best practices" that lead to debacles like this, and perhaps to IT-related patient injury and death, via their alphabet-soup "leadership" organizations.  This CIO also holds this credential:

Faculty

CHIME Healthcare CIO Boot Camp (8 months)

It should be noted, and scandalously so considering the negligence that leads to patient endangerment and this kind of physician revolt from the outset, that IT-related patient harms are not uncommon.  For example, per the Harvard community's med mal insurer CRICO, see "Malpractice Claims Analysis Confirms Risks in EHRs" at
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/02/patient-safety-quality-healthcare.html, the ECRI Institute, see "ECRI Deep Dive Study of Health IT harms" at
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/peering-underneath-icebergs-water-level.html as well as "ECRI Institute's 2014 Top 10 Patient Safety Concerns for Healthcare Organizations" at
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-ecri-institutes-new-2014-top-10.html, "FDA Internal Memo on H-IT risks - for internal use only" (uncovered by investigative reporter Fred Schulte) at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-gun-internal-fda-memorandum-of.html, and others as posted at this blog.

“From the moment our physician leadership expressed concern about the Cerner I.T. conversion process on May 15, we took swift action and significant progress has been made toward resolving the issues raised,” Thaw wrote Thursday in an email. “Providing outstanding patient care is first and foremost in our minds at Athens Regional, and we have dedicated staff throughout the hospital to make sure the system is functioning as smoothly as possible through this transition."

This raises several questions:

• How about the moments from the time of decision to acquire the technology?  What safety consideration were in effect during that time? 

• What if the "significant progress" is insufficient to prevent a patient from being maimed or killed due to toxic effects of bad health IT?  Who's responsible? 

• Perhaps most importantly from the human rights perspective - are patients being provided informed consent about these "issues raised" and are they afforded the opportunity to seek care elsewhere until the "swift progress" is completed?  

One wonders if the executives were aware of analytic work on Cerner ED systems such as performed by U. Sydney professor Jon Patrick at "A study of an Enterprise Health information System",  http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146; or this site on health IT difficulties:  http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/, or this blog and others.

It's not as if a simple Google search won't find them, such as https://www.google.com/search?q=healthcare+IT+failure.  Perhaps they need to read more...or hire experts BEFORE go-live.

Back to the article:

The intended goal of the system designed by health care information technology company Cerner is to improve efficiency and connectivity by providing doctors, nurses and other medical professionals with a shared data set and to eventually allow patients online access to their medical records, Athens Regional executives previously said.

Good intentions or not, badly designed and/or implemented technology harms or kills, and those harmed, or the dead, really don't care what the system is 'intended to do.'  Patients are not guinea pigs towards an IT company's or hospital's experiments with computers - regarding which the executives are usually in to at a level way over their collective heads.

But doctors noted the new system often proved too cumbersome to be effective at the time the letter was written.

“The Cerner implementation has driven some physicians to drop their active staff privileges at ARMC,” noted the letter. “This has placed an additional burden on the hospitalists, who are already overwhelmed.

That's just horrendous for safety.

Joint Commission, where are you?
 

Other physicians are directing their patients to St. Mary’s (hospital) for outpatient studies, (emergency room) care, admissions and surgical procedures. ... Efforts to rebuild the relationships with patients and physicians (needs) to begin immediately.”

Doctors voted with their feet.  Bravo.

I suggest they consider the following remedies as well if appropriate, from my post at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html:

... When a physician or other clinician observes health IT problems, defects, malfunctions, mission hostility (e.g., poor user interfaces), significant downtimes, lost data, erroneous data, misidentified data, and so forth ... and most certainly, patient 'close calls' or actual injuries ... they should (anonymously if necessary if in a hostile management setting):

(DISCLAIMER:  I am not responsible for any adverse outcomes if any organizational policies or existing laws are broken in doing any of the following.)

• Inform their facility's senior management, if deemed safe and not likely to result in retaliation such as being slandered as a "disruptive physician" and/or or being subjected to sham peer review (link).

• Inform their personal and organizational insurance carriers, in writing. Insurance carriers do not enjoy paying out for preventable IT-related medical mistakes. They have begun to become aware of HIT risks. See, for example, the essay on Norcal Mutual Insurance Company's newsletter on HIT risks at this link. (Note - many medical malpractice insurance policies can be interpreted as requiring this reporting, observed occasional guest blogger Dr. Scott Monteith in a comment to me about this post.)

• Inform the Joint Commission (or similar national accreditor of hospital safety if not in the U.S.) via their complaint site at http://www.jointcommission.org/report_a_complaint.aspx . Also consider writing the JC senior officers (link to officer's list), whose awareness of HIT issues I can personally attest to via our correspondences.

• Inform the FDA (or similar healthcare regulator if not in the U.S.) via the FDA Medwatch Form 3500 reporting site at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/medwatch-online.htm. An example of such an adverse event report I filed myself (when the involved hospital refused) is at this link in the FDA MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database.

• Inform the State Medical Society and local Medical Society of your locale.

• Inform the appropriate Board of Health for your locale.

• If applicable (and it often is), inform the Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) of your state or region. Example: in Pennsylvania, the QIO is "Quality Insights of PA."

• Inform a personal attorney.

• Inform local, state and national representatives such as congressional representatives. Sen. Grassley of Iowa is aware of these issues, for example.

• As clinicians are often forced to use health IT, at their own risk even when "certified" (link), if a healthcare organization or HIT seller is sluggish or resistant in taking corrective actions, consider taking another risk (perhaps this is for the very daring or those near the end of their clinical career). Present your organization's management with a statement for them to sign to the effect of:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby acknowledge the concerns of [Dr. Jones] about care quality issues at [Mount St. Elsewhere Hospital] regarding EHR difficulties that were reported, namely [event A, event B, event C ... etc.]

We hereby indemnify [Dr. Jones] for malpractice liability regarding patient care errors that occur due to EHR issues beyond his/her control, but within the control of hospital management, including but not limited to: [system downtimes, lost orders, missing or erroneous data, etc.] that are known to pose risk to patients. We assume responsibility for any such malpractice.

With regard to health IT and its potential negative effects on care, Dr. Jones has provided us with the Joint Commission Sentinel Events Alert on Health IT at http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/SEA_42.PDF, the IOM report on HIT safety at http://www.modernhealthcare.com/Assets/pdf/CH76254118.PDF, and the FDA Internal Memorandum on H-IT Safety Issues at http://www.scribd.com/huffpostfund/d/33754943-Internal-FDA-Report-on-Adverse-Events-Involving-Health-Information-Technology.

CMO __________ (date, time)
CIO ___________ (date, time)
CMIO _________ (date, time)
General Counsel ___________ (date, time)
etc."

• If the hospital or organizational management refuses to sign such a waiver (and they likely will!), note the refusal, with date and time of refusal, and file away with your attorney. It could come in handy if EHR-related med mal does occur.

• As EHRs remain experimental, I note that indemnifications such as the above probably belong in medical staff contracts and bylaws when EHR use is coerced.

These measures can help "light a fire" under the decision makers, and "get the lead out" of efforts to improve this technology to the point where it is usable, efficacious and safe.

More from the article:

Doctors called the time line to install the EHR system too “aggressive” and said there was a “lack of readiness” among the intended users.

For financial incentive reasons in part, I'm sure.  Computers, after all, seem to have more rights than patients...or than physicians and nurses.

Since receiving the letter, Thaw said Athens Regional has added "specialized staff" to meet daily with physicians to discuss computer system and safety issues.

Again, the key word is "AFTER."   A good move, considering the hospital will be up to its head in defections, accreditation inspections and hearings, and possible medical malpractice and corporate liability lawsuits otherwise.

"Regardless of what system we are using, our focus on patient safety is unwavering, and we will never put a system ahead of doing what is right for our patients," Thaw said. "Our team is working around the clock to resolve any remaining issues, and we remain dedicated to delivering outstanding patient care every step of the way."

Feel-good executive boilerplate and an outright lie on its face.  If the focus on safety was unwavering, this problems would not now need emergency remediation.  As I had written many years ago here: http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=Cardiology%20story, this type of shallow executive puffery and rhetoric only makes clinicians angrier.

And while events like this go on, the industry pundits suggest all that's needed is a Health IT 'Safety Center' instead of regulation like the rest of the healthcare industry ("Feds Call For Health IT Safety Center", May 20, 2014, http://www.govhealthit.com/news/feds-call-hit-safety-center?topic=,26#.U4FVDnYsC).  This is sort of like putting the safety of our country's hospitals in the hands of Consumer Reports.

That's not exactly the ticket to a rapid cure to these problems, which are more common than most physicians have the bravery (or career options in the face of retaliation) to admit.

At least nurses' unions are taking action, as at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/11/another-survey-on-ehrs-affinity-medical.html and http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-nurses-union-national-nurses-united.html.

Additional thought:  at least the writer of the article did not use the customary euphemism for problems with patient-endangering bad health IT, specifically: "glitches" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/glitch).

-- SS

May 27, 2014 Addendum:

The CEO has apparently resigned, see http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2014-05-23/thaw-resigns-athens-regional-ceo. 

I also solicit physicians from the area of this hospital to contact me regarding any patient harms that did occur as a result of this debacle, via my email address located here: https://www.blogger.com/profile/03994321680366572701.  I will forward any reports through appropriate legal channels to attorneys who can take action, which in 2014 is probably the only language this industry will actually listen to.

-- SS

May 27, 2014 Addendum 2:

The reader comments at http://onlineathens.com/health/2014-05-22/athens-regional-addressing-new-computer-system-problems-encountered-doctors are interesting, and distressing.

-- SS

May 29, 2014 Addendum:

More here:  http://flagpole.com/news/in-the-loop/james-thaw-out-as-armc-ceo

If I were that's hospital's new leadership, I'd immediately go back to whatever system (whether paper or not) was in place before this implementation, and take the time to implement new health IT properly, safely and carefully.

For at this point, if patient injury or death occurs as a result of a system flaw (whether in design or implementation), I believe charges of criminal negligence against the organization and its leaders would be justified.

The following is an example of one state's statute defining criminal negligence:

''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.''

I believe other states' statutes are similar.

-- SS

June 13, 2013 Addendum:

My post on Athens Regional Medical Center's physician revolt was accessed today by someone at Cerner; note the referring link:  http://cerner.vertabase.com/project/document/index.cfm?&0.12455576848

Vertabase (http://www.vertabase.com/) makes project management software.

Cerner.vertabase.com/project/document is some sort of password-protected document resource.

I find that interesting - perhaps it's for internal communications and they are learning something from me.

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		159.140.254.# (Cerner Corporation)
ISP		Cerner Corporation
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  Kansas City  :  Kansas City Lat/Long  :  39.1111, -94.6904 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Macintosh MacOSX
Browser		Safari 1.3 Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_5) AppleWebKit/536.30.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.5 Safari/536.30.1
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution  :  1440 x 900 Color Depth  :  24 bits
Time of Visit		Jun 13 2014 11:47:42 am
Last Page View		Jun 13 2014 11:47:42 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://cerner.vertabase.com/project/document/index.cfm?&0.12455576848
Visit Entry Page		http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-could-not-make-this-up-if-i-tried.html
Visit Exit Page		http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-could-not-make-this-up-if-i-tried.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-6:00
Visitor's Time		Jun 13 2014 10:47:42 am
Visit Number		1,342,222

 -- SS

Note: also see my June 16, 2014 followup post at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/06/masters-of-obvious-aat-athens-regional.html

"EHRs: The Real Story" - Sobering assessment from Medical Economics

From Medical Economics -

"EHRs: The Real Story",  pg. 18-27, Feb. 10, 2014, available here (PDF).

Full issue at http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/sites/default/files/images/MedicalEconomics/DigitalEdition/Medical-Economics-February-10-2014.pdf - it is large, 12 MB:

... "Despite the government’s bribe of nearly $27 billion to digitize patient records, nearly 70% of physicians say electronic health record (EHR) systems have not been worth it. It’s a sobering statistic backed by newly released data from marketing and research f rm MPI Group and Medical Economics that suggest nearly two-thirds of doctors would not purchase their current EHR system again because of poor functionality and high costs."

Here are other key findings from this national survey:

• 73% of the largest practices would not purchase their current EHR system. The data show that 66% of internal medicine specialists would not purchase their current system. About 60% of respondents in family medicine would also make another EHR choice.

• 67% of physicians dislike the functionality of their EHR systems.

• Nearly half of physicians believe the cost of these systems is too high.

• 45% of respondents say patient care is worse since implementing an EHR. Nearly 23% of internists say patient care is significantly worse.

• 65% of respondents say their EHR systems result in financial losses for the practice. About 43% of internists and other specialists/subspecialists outside of primary care characterized the losses as signifcant.

• About 69% of respondents said that coordination of care with hospitals has not improved.

• Nearly 38% of respondents doubt their system will be viable in five years.

• 74% of respondents believe their vendors will be in business over the next 5 years.

My own views are:

While some might dismiss such surveys as well as reports of harms as "anecdotes" (those same persons conflating scientific discovery with risk management, see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-senior-clinician-down-under.html), I observe that such articles/surveys are increasing in frequency the past few years and are coming from reasonably capable observers - clinicians - .unlike, say, a Fox News survey of pedestrians on complex political matters.

Another physician survey is here:  http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/honest-physician-survey-on-ehrs.html.

Here's an interesting ad hoc survey of nurses:  http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/07/candid-nurse-opinions-on-ehrs-at.html.
.
This is not what the Medical Informatics pioneers intended, and is not due to physicians being Luddites (a topic I addressed at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html).

In my opinion, organizations that have the expertise to change the current trajectory of this technology such as the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) needs to leave its tweed-jacket academic comfort zone and become more proactive - or perhaps I should say aggressive - in combating the industry status quo.  

The health IT industry trade associations such as HIMSS have no such qualms about aggressively and shamelessly pushing their version of EHR utopia, an agenda that has led to massive profits for the industry... but to clinician survey results such as above.  And to injured and dead patients.

-- SS

Over At The Health Care Blog, Aneesh Chopra Distorts IT Failure Reality

I feel sorry for President Obama.  I really do.  He's been deceived by IT hyperenthusiasts who, in addition to their hyperenthusiasm, probably heaped him a big helping of plain old lies.

I warned of this in my Feb. 18, 2009 Letter to the Editor published in the Wall Street Journal (at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123492035330205101, third letter):

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 National Programme for IT in the NHS or NPfIT, was since 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.

Now, more spin and misinformation by Aneesh Chopra, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the former U.S. chief technology officer in the Obama Administration over at the Health Care Blog at a piece "What's Next For Healthcare.gov?" (http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/10/25/whats-next-for-healthcare-gov/).

Like a cybernetic Rasputin, Chopra writes:

The launch of HealthCare.gov certainly didn’t go as planned. Due to technical errors, millions of Americans were sent to the functional equivalent of a waiting room before they could enter the shopping portion of the site.

Historically, projects of such complexity and demand have encountered early problems yet still often achieve great success. While much of the commentary has focused on coding problems, the site still has the potential to spur innovation — be it public or private —  that will result in quality improvement and lower costs.

(Note the definitive "will", without evidence.  Mr. Obama's probably been hearing a lot of non-evidence-based wishful thinking about health IT in recent years.)

The statement about future success is belied, for example, by the National Programme for IT in the NHS (NPfIT) failing and going "pfffft" as just one example (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/npfit-programme-going-pffft.html and other links).

More generally, there's this article by Shaun Goldfinch, formerly at the U. Otago in New Zealand:

"Pessimism, Computer Failure, and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector."  (Public Administration Review 67;5:917-929, Sept/Oct. 2007, Shaun Goldfinch, University of Otago, New Zealand). 

Unfortunately it's not freely available, but a free first-page preview is at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4624644?uid=3739864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102828298677:

Summary:

The majority of information systems developments are unsuccessful. The larger the development, the more likely it will be unsuccessful. Despite the persistence of this problem for decades and the expenditure of vast sums of money, computer failure has received surprisingly little attention in the public administration literature. This article outlines the problems of enthusiasm and the problems of control, as well as the overwhelming complexity, that make the failure of large developments almost inevitable. Rather than the positive view found in much of the public administration literature, the author suggests a pessimism when it comes to information systems development. Aims for information technology should be modest ones, and in many cases, the risks, uncertainties, and probability of failure mean that new investments in technology are not justified. The author argues for a public official as a recalcitrant, suspicious, and skeptical adopter of IT.

Article start:

The majority of information systems (IS) developments are unsuccessfu1. The larger the development, the more likely it will be unsuccessful.

Though the exact numbers are uncertain and depend to some extent on how success is measured, something like 20 percent to 30 percent of all developments are total failures in which projects are abandoned. Around 30 percent to 60 percent are partial failures in which there are time and cost overruns or other problems. The minority are those counted as successes (Collins and Bicknell 1997; Corner and Hinton 2002; Georgiadou 2003; Heeks and Bhatnagar 1999; Heeks 2002, 2004 ; Iacovou 1999; James 1997; Korac-Boisvert and Kouzmin 1995 ; Standish Group 2001, 2004).

A U.S. survey of IS projects conducted by the Standish Group in 2001 found that success rates varied from 59 percent in the retail sector to 32 percent in the financial sector, 27 percent in manufacturing, and 18 percent in government. Overall, the success rate was 26 percent. In all, 46 percent of projects had problems, including being over budget and behind schedule or being delivered with fewer functions and features than originally specified. Another 28 percent failed altogether or were cancelled. Cost overruns averaged nearly 200 percent. Th is success rate varied dramatically by total project budget: For projects under US$750,000 the success rate was 55 percent; for those with budgets over US$10 million, no projects were successful (SIMPL/NZIER 2000).

More recent Standish Group (2004) estimates saw a success rate of 29 percent, but 53 percent of projects had problems and 18 percent failed. A New Zealand government study judged 38 percent of government projects a success, while 59 percent involved problems and 3 percent were a complete failure or were cancelled. Government success rates, at 31 percent, were slightly higher than private sector success rates. Above the NZ$10 million mark, however, the success rate for both was zero (SIMPL/ NZIER 2000). One study of hundreds of corporate software developments found that five out of six projects were considered unsuccessful, with one-third cancelled outright. Of the two-thirds that were not cancelled, price and completion times were almost twice what had originally been planned (Georgiadou 2003). The Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Computer Society (2004) found that 84 percent of public sector projects resulted in failure of some sort.

The sums involved in such projects can be staggering.  A study of IS developments in the British public sector estimated that 20 percent of expenditures were wasted, and a further 30 percent to 40 percent led to no perceivable benefits (Wilcocks 1994). In 1994, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that spending of more than US$200 billion in the previous 12 years had led to few meaningful returns.

The article is extensively referenced, and nothing has changed since it was published.  While the article's cost from the jstor.org site is $25 (US I think), it is well worth reading for anyone involved in large public sector IT projects.

Especially, the President of the United States and his staff.

It is my belief the same actors who've misled him about health IT and the supposed ease of building a national insurance portal for 300 million+ people are going to mislead him about remediation of the latter, resulting in yet more embarrassment, and perhaps eventually patient harm and death when someone, somewhere, is denied care or has delayed care due to insurance loss.

Finally, I note this in Chopra's bio at the Health Care Blog Piece:

Aneesh Chopra is a senior advisor at The Advisory Board Company

The Advisory Board Company (http://www.advisory.com/About-Us) is:

... a performance improvement partner for 165,000+ leaders in 4,100+ organizations across health care and higher education.

The Advisory Board Company has been an advisor on hospital management and technology for decades.

Perhaps they're another piece in the puzzle as to why hospital executives are implementing bad health IT (http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/) technology in droves, such as in the ED where many underprivileged people get primary and emergency care.  (See "Quality and Safety Implications of Emergency Department Information Systems: ED EHR Systems Pose Serious Concerns, Report Says" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/10/quality-and-safety-implications-of.html, for example.)

After all, with senior advisors to a major healthcare organization consultant in denialist roles, if the IT's bad now, it will be just great in ver. 2.0.

(See "The Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts" by Chris Jay Hoofnagle, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962462.)

The same Denialist Deck of Cards is being played, I fear, to frustrate taxpayer attempts at hemming in waste ... and to frustrate the President of the United States' efforts to leave a good legacy.

-- SS

Drudge Report, Oct. 10, 2013, 9 AM EST: All that needs to be said about government, computing and healthcare

Per Drudge Report. Oct. 10, 2013, 9 AM EST:

From the same people who brought us HITECH, the stimulus bill for rapid rollout of commercial electronic medical records, order entry, results reporting and other components of enterprise clinical "command and control" software for hospitals through which every transaction of care must pass.

More IT malpractice.  The Drudge links, as they appear on the page:

Obamacare website cost more than FACEBOOK, TWITTER, LINKEDIN, INSTAGRAM...
'How can we tax people for not buying a product from a website that doesn't work?'
Major insurers, Dem allies repeatedly warned Obama admin...
REPORT: WH knew site might not be ready...
POLL: Just 1 in 10 report success...
DNC head says site designed for 50,000 max...
Once you get in, you can't get out...
Crazzzzzzzy code...
'It looks like nobody tested it'...
WASHPOST: Not code, but 'outdated, costly, buggy technology'...
CARNEY: 'I Don’t Know' If Obama Has Tried Website...
Hawaii forced to relaunch after zero sign-ups...

I won't comment any further; I don't think I need to.

Drudge Report, Oct. 10, 2013, 9 AM EST.  Click to enlarge.

Of course, the Anecdotalists [1] and Denialists [2] will probably say this is all a "glitch" and that things will be great in ver. 2.0.

Fools all.

Oh, and the cost, via Drudge, per the linked story.  A mere:

$634,320,919

-- SS

[1]  See "Health IT: On Anecdotalism and Totalitarianism" at  http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/09/health-it-on-anecdotalism-and.html)

[2]  See "The Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts" by Chris Jay Hoofnagle, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962462)

Oct. 10, 2013 addendum:

Also see "Analysis: IT experts question architecture of Obamacare website" at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/05/us-usa-healthcare-technology-analysis-idUKBRE99407T20131005.  If the allegations here are even partially true, every programmer and manager who ever worked on this system should be summarily fired and never permitted to touch another computer involved in healthcare - ever.

-- SS

Monetary losses and layoffs from EHR expenses and EHR mismanagement

More on monetary losses and layoffs from EHR expenses and EHR mismanagement:

1.  Layoffs to balance the budget...

http://www.news-record.com/news/local_news/article_da765340-d912-11e2-9eac-001a4bcf6878.html

... Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center [Winston-Salem, NC] said in November 2012, that it would cut 950 jobs — 6 percent of its total staff.

Electronic records programs continue to push costs higher. The Winston-Salem Journal reported that Wake Forest’s Epic [EHR] program caused $8 million in work interruptions during the 2012-2013 year alone. Wake Forest is cutting costs at least through June 30 to make up for some of Epic’s expense. Its efforts include furloughs, wage reductions and other cuts.

2.  Cerner EHR Project Loses U.K. Hospital 18 Million Pounds

http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/electronic-medical-records/ehr-project-loses-uk-hospital-18-million/240157036

... Royal Berkshire Foundation Trust's implementation of Cerner Millennium electronic health record system is costly to maintain and hard to use, causing patient backlogs ... British hospital's attempt to implement an electronic health record (EHR) system has been so disastrous that it has had to write off £18 million ($28 million).


... "Unfortunately, implementing the [EHR] system has at times been a difficult process and we acknowledge that we did not fully appreciate the challenges and resources required in a number of areas," said the hospital's chief executive, Ed Donald. 

In 2013, I find the statement "we did not fully appreciate the challenges and resources required in a number of areas" remarkable.

Dear Mr. Donald, please allow me to introduce you to a novel concept:

A Google search.  (Free, no less.)

Try this, for example:  https://www.google.com/search?q=healthcare%20IT%20failure

(I note that competent experts in my field, Medical Informatics, given appropriate executive presence - including hiring and firing authority, instead of the usual 'internal consultant' roles - could have prevented your organization's mistakes, and for a mere fraction of the £18 million.)

A campaign against public sector waste in Britain, The Taxpayer's Alliance, has seized on the hobbled project as an especially egregious example of bad procurement. "[NHS] trusts must work a lot harder to get a good deal for the taxpayers footing the bill," it warned.  [I guess money doesn't grow on trees in the UK as it seems to in the US -ed.]

The row comes in the same week British Parliament members expressed frustration that the funding scheme that supported other British hospitals' investment in EHRs, the controversial £9.8 billion ($15.2 billion) National Program for IT cancelled in 2011, continues to cost the country millions, with contracts in some cases not set to expire for 12 more years. [NPfIT in the NHS - see query link http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/NPfIT - ed.]

Berkshire, however, opted out of that program in 2008 and had instead linked with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to help it implement Millennium.

I am merely the messenger here...

-- SS

"Computer problems" force docs back to paper charts at Memorial Hospital - From June 11 until at least June 24?

More on the wonders and dependability of commercial health IT, as implemented in hospitals, which are generally an IT backwaters:

Computer problems force docs back to paper charts at Memorial Hospital

Published: June 17, 2013 

BELLEVILLE (Illinois) — Computer problems have caused Memorial Hospital (http://www.memhosp.com/Pages/Home.aspx) staff back to the old days of using paper to chart patients' treatments.

The hospital's computer system, Meditech, went down late on Tuesday, June 11 and is not expected to be fully restored until at least Monday, June 24, according to the hospital. In the meantime, staff will be recording patients' medical records unto traditional paper charts.

"While the duration of this down time is unfortunate, all hospital services continue utilizing the backup process we have in place for occasions such as this," Memorial President Mark Turner said in a prepared statement. "I am extremely proud of the way our employees and medical staff have pulled together to maintain quality care and patient safety."

Once the system is up and running again, the information from the paper charts will be transferred into each patient's electronic medical record. The same standards for patient confidentiality and safety are being met, according to the hospital.

The computer problems are believed to result from upgrades added to the system in preparation for a major upgrade in July.

"The duration of this down time is unfortunate?"  This mission-critical system went down June 11 and won't be fully restored until June 24?  How is this even possible?  What, exactly, were their maximal-uptime, redundancy, disaster recovery and business continuity strategies?  Was there a natural disaster in that area I don't know about?

Regarding the hospital President's statement that:

"I am extremely proud of the way our employees and medical staff have pulled together to maintain quality care and patient safety."

I would translate that to read:

"Our IT incompetence is all on you, clinicians.  You're liable for any patient harm that results in the messy transitions from IT to paper, and back from paper to IT."

-- SS

Addendum - a question I've asked before - if everything is just fine, business as usual, with no safety impediments after reverting to paper due to emergency ... then why spend $100 million+ on EHRs?

Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2013/06/17/2660472/computer-problems-force-docs-back.html#storylink=cpyA

IT Specialist and the job he wouldn't take: hospital management's health IT "plan" is a checklist for failure

Received unsolicited on June 14, 2013 from a computer professional whose identity I am redacting.  Posted with his permission:

Dr. Silverstein,

Thank you very much for the many insights and helpful references provided on your "Contemporary Issues in Medical Informatics" (http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/) web site! In performing my due diligence for a position as an IT Director at a small rural hospital, I have come across your writings. 

I originally applied for this position in the hopes of leveraging my IT, project management, compliance and security experience to gain new expertise in healthcare IT. After my initial phone interview with the "CIO" and HR Director, at which I discovered that I would have the responsibility to implement a poorly conceived new EMR project, without the authority or resources to make it successful, additional red flags were raised which required further research. This led me to you.  

I cannot help but chuckle at the organizational, social and project management dysfunctions in medical IT, as described in your "Ten Critical Rules for Applied Informatics..."  (http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=tenrules).   I have encountered similar dysfunctions in the world of military and commercial IT.  With a little tweaking, your lessons learned are applicable across a wide range of IT disciplines and a good reminder of how to avoid IT project and career failures and achieve successes.

Yet, I understand and have come to appreciate your thesis that medical IT is fundamentally different from business IT. Even though I am convinced that I could do better than most, I have concluded that it is probably wiser for a competent healthcare informaticist to lead HIT implementation projects. I wonder how many such competent informaticists there can be! Unfortunately, since I have no background in medicine, it is probably a little late for me to become one. 

I certainly will not engage in this particular opportunity. What I know of the hospital management's "plan" at this point is a checklist for failure. The reality of this rural hospital, and apparently thousands of similar situations, is unnecessarily and depressingly tragic for patients and clinical professionals. I appreciate your crusade to raise the bar for healthcare IT, and therefore IT in general. Thank you for saving me from jumping in to an untenable situation.

Ironically, and sadly, this letter is similar to others I have received dating to 1999.  Little has changed in nearly 15 years, except that with the rush to implement this unregulated, experimental technology thanks to the HITECH Act, there's likely going to be a lot more patient harm, especially at smaller hospitals new to this endeavor.

-- SS

Financial woes at Maine Medical Center: Reading this blog might have saved them millions of dollars, and prevented massive "cost saving initiatives"

In this article, the euphemistic and almost endearing term "hiccup" is used instead of the more traditional "glitch" to describe obvious major information technology malfunctions.  It is likely the knowledge at this blog and at my health IT dysfunction teaching site could have helped prevent most of these problems:

Financial woes at Maine Medical Center
New England health system facing $13 million loss, initiates plan to save $15 million
NEW GLOUCESTER, ME | May 2, 2013

In a memo to its employees last week, one of Maine’s largest health systems said it has suffered an operating loss of $13.4 million in the first half of its fiscal year.

“Through March (six months of our fiscal year), Maine Medical Center experienced a negative financial position that it has not witnessed in recent memory,” Richard Petersen, president and CEO of the medical center, wrote in the memo to employees. A copy of the memo was sent to MedTech Media, publisher of Healthcare Finance News.

A "negative financial position" (translation: we lost big money) that it has not witnessed in recent memory?  What are the reasons?

In order to bring the medical center to breakeven by year’s end, the health system’s leadership has determined $15 million needs to be saved.

In the memo, Petersen said the operating loss is due to declines in inpatient and outpatient volumes because of the hospital’s efforts to reduce readmissions and infections; “unintended financial consequences” due to the roll out of the health system’s Epic electronic health record and problems associated with being unable to accurately charge for services provided; an increase in free care and bad debt cases; and continued declining reimbursement from Medicare and MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program.

That rings a familiar tune - from the mid 1990's at Yale, as well as more recently.

Many of the reasons for Maine Medical’s financial woes are similar to those hospitals across the country are facing.

A recovering national economy, continued budget restrictions and restraint and the realization that, while electronic health records may have efficiencies and cost savings over time, the costly transition to EHRs may take years to recoup.

Especially when not done well.

In his memo to employees, Petersen said the hospital has identified many of the hiccups contributing to the charge capture problems and a team of hospital employees and Epic technicians are working to resolve those issues. In the meantime, the remaining roll out of the Epic EHR to the rest of the health system is on hold.

Hiccups? Health IT has a euphemistic language all its own.  Only apostates would dare to call the "hiccups" for what they really are, in medical parlance:  IT malpractice.

To save $15 million by year’s end, Maine Medical is immediately instituting a number of cost-saving initiatives including selective travel and hiring freezes, putting the operating contingency budget on hold and reducing overtime. Petersen appealed to employees to curb discretionary spending and contact management with any cost-saving ideas.

All, of course, will have no impact on patient care....

“I’m confident that we’ll confront this test, beat back the issues we face, and reverse this negative financial picture,” Petersen wrote in the conclusion to the memo.

Test?  Test of what, IT competence?

Of course, "C" officers would never write that "I'm not confident we'll confront our screwups."

Maine Medical did not reply to an interview request by deadline. The Maine Hospital Association declined to comment for this story.

Silence is golden.

A newspaper letter from Stuart Smith, Selectman, Town of Edgecomb, St. Andrews Regional Task Force (a software developer himself) tells more:

STUART SMITH'S LETTER TO THE REGISTER
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - 7:30pm
Save St. Andrews Hospital

As the Boothbay Peninsula moves forward with the effects of a MaineHealth/Lincoln County HealthCare decision to close St. Andrews Hospital, I have served on the 4 Town Regional Task Force. This has been an unprecedented cooperation between 4 towns in this region that has generated many continuing activities that will benefit all towns in our region.

Apparently an entire hospital is closing as a result of these debacles.

[May 8, 2013 addendum: a family physician in Lincoln County where St. Andrews hospital is located and a member of the Board of Trustees, Dan Friedland, M.D., writes me that the EHR had nothing to do with the hospital closing - ed.]

But let me get back to the MH/LCH decision. We are told that MaineHealth has spent over $150 million on an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system that helps all of its “subsidiaries.” I can appreciate this because my work is in software development.

I do question the $150 million figure. I think it is extremely high and Portland has had a real failure in its implementation. So much so that it looks like LCH will not have a real integrated EMR until 2015 and financial software problems exemplify a major failure of MH to create any real benefit to the State. Millions of dollars have been charged to member hospitals and staff time (salaries and mileage) over the past 2-3 years with no benefit.

I'd questioned the high cost of these commercial EHR systems as far back as 2006 ("Yet another clinical IT controversy: UC Davis" and "External oversight needed for hospital EMR implementation?" - Lancaster General Hospital and "$70 million for an Electronic Medical Records system [quasi endpoint]?- Geisinger).

One might think healthcare systems have money to burn ...

The system failure also adds operational costs going forward that were not planned for and regional consolidation of finance will now be delayed. The cost to Maine Health Center is huge in improper service and supply charges. Information Technology leadership has been fired, but MH administration is truly accountable.

For once, someone in IT leadership did not get a a promotion for failure.  It is true that MH administration is accountable, however - they had the fiduciary responsibility to hire the best talent, and to oversee that talent as needed to assure success.  If "C" leadership didn't understand IT, that's their failure as well.  In my view in 2013 everyone in a position of organizational responsibility should have a good understanding of IT, which is now, after all, a commodity.

I'm hopeful EPIC, with its apparently revolutionary hiring practices akin to the hiring of physicians, will have the "hiccups" fixed in no time.  From this link at the "Histalk" site on staffing of health IT projects, Aug. 16, 2010. Emphases mine:

Epic Staffing Guide

A reader sent over a copy of the staffing guide that Epic provides to its customers. I thought it was interesting, first and foremost in that Epic is so specific in its implementation plan that it sends customers an 18-page document on how staff their part of the project.

Epic emphasizes that many hospitals can staff their projects internally, choosing people who know the organization. However, they emphasize choosing the best and brightest, not those with time to spare. Epic advocates the same approach it takes in its own hiring: don’t worry about relevant experience, choose people with the right traits, qualities, and skills, they say.  The guide suggests hiring recent college graduates for analyst roles. Ability is more important than experience, it says. That includes reviewing a candidate’s college GPA and standardized test scores.

I am forwarding links to this post, blog, my teaching site (begun in 1998) and additional material to Selectman Smith.

I'd offer to help, but the management of the organization would likely find, as did management at this one (a major denominational chain), that I have too much experience for the organization.

-- SS

The HIT Scam

Worth a read -

The HIT Scam By Greg Scandlen

Notable in the piece are these observations:

 ... even the editors of the Washington Post have come to agree the whole [national health IT] project was a fiasco — but only after we wasted $27 billion of taxpayer money.

Yet, those who are enriching themselves on the $27 billion are just happy as clams over the program. John Hoyt, the Executive Vice President of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) was quoted in a recent Health Change Bulletin as saying −

This data suggests that the HITECH portion of the 2009 stimulus law is achieving its intended result of encouraging increased implementation and meaningful use of electronic health records among hospitals. Facilities…are laying the groundwork for interoperability to occur. Stage 6 and Stage 7 hospitals are fully prepared for provider-to-provider or facility-to-facility interoperability, as well as increasing the provider or facility’s ability to provide electronic health data reporting to public health and immunization registries to support population health review and syndromic surveillance.

There, aren’t you greatly reassured? By the way, the New York Times piece cited above reported that –

RAND’s 2005 report was paid for by a group of companies, including General Electric and Cerner Corporation, that have profited by developing and selling electronic records systems to hospitals and physician practices. Cerner’s revenue has nearly tripled since the report was released, to a projected $3 billion in 2013, from $1 billion in 2005.

No doubt the companies that paid for the RAND study are also members of HIMSS. And General Electric certainly has what might be called a “special” relationship with President Obama.

I've been writing on similar issues for more than a decade.

It's well past the time when the same rigor that applies to pharma and medical devices be applied to the health IT sector.  And the marketing hype, along with bad health IT, abolished.

-- SS 

Allegheny Health System Computer Crash (Again) and Paper Backups

I reported on a health IT crash in my May 2011 post "Twelve Hour Health IT Glitch at Allegheny General Hospital - But Patients Unaffected, Of Course..."

Now, there's this at the same healthcare system:

Computer system at West Penn Allegheny restored after crash 
Liz Navratil
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
October 2, 2012

The computer system at West Penn Allegheny Health System crashed about noon today, temporarily leaving doctors and nurses to work off of paper records instead.

Kelly Sorice, vice president of public relations for the health system, said all systems have since been restored. She said the servers crashed about noon today when the system experienced a power surge.

Doctors in the health system keep paper copies of almost all of their records so they can reference them during power outages or scheduled maintenance times, Ms. Sorice said.

Some systems were up eight hours later and others were expected to come online overnight, according to a report at HisTalk.

Assuming the statement about "doctors keep paper copies of almost all their records" was not spin control regarding skeletal paper records, a question arises.

Why, exactly, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on computing if paper records are kept, and are perfectly sufficient to accomplish the following, the usual refrain in health IT crash scenarios?

Ms. Sorice said she did not know of any procedures that had been rescheduled and added that, "Patient care has not been compromised."

As a physician/ham radio enthusiast who did an elective in Biomedical Engineering in medical school, I also want to know:

1)  What caused the “power surge?”
2)  Why were the systems not protected against a “power surge?”
3)  Exactly how did the “power surge” affect the IT?

Note: I've created a new, searchable indexing term for HIT outage stories with the usual refrain along the lines that "patient care has not been compromised." 

See this query link using the new indexing term.

-- SS

Addendum Oct. 3:

Australian EHR reseacher and professor Dr. Jon Patrick opines:

Even if [the paper records are] skeletal they suggest an endemic lack of confidence. I think the hospital spokesperson hasn't seen the implication of their statement.

-- SS

ONC and Misdirection Regarding Mass Healthcare IT Failure

In my keynote address to the Health Informatics Society of Australia in Sydney recently, I cautioned attendees including those in government to be wary of healthcare IT hyper-enthusiast misdirection and logical fallacy (a.k.a. public relations).

In the LA Times story "Patient data outage exposes risks of electronic medical records" on the Cerner EHR outage I wrote of in my post "Massive Health IT Outage: But, Of Course, Patient Safety Was Not Compromised" (the title, of course, being satirical), Jacob Reider, acting chief medical officer at the federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is quoted.  He said:

"These types of outages are quite rare and there's no way to completely eliminate human error."

This is precisely the type of political spin and hyper-enthusiast misdirection I cautioned the Australian health authorities to evaluate critically.

As comedian Scott Adams humorously noted regarding irrelevancy, a hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

Further, when you're the patient harmed or killed, or the victim is a family member, you really don't care how "rare" the outages are.

Airline crashes are "rare", too.   So, shall they just be tolerated as a "cost of doing business" and spun away?

(As I once wrote, the asteroid colliding with Earth that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was a truly "rare" event.)

It seems absurd for me to have to point out that paper, unless there is a mass outbreak of use of disappearing ink, or locally hosted clinical IT, do not go blank en masse across multiple states and countries for any length of time, raising risk across multiple hospitals greatly, acutely and simultaneously.   Yet, I have to point out this obvious fact in the face of misdirection.

Locally hosted health IT, of course, can only cause "local" chart disappearances.  "Local" is a relative term, however, depending on HC organization size, as in the example of a Dec. 2011 regional University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) 14-hour outage affecting thousands here.

Further, EHR's and other clinical IT, whether hosted locally or afar, had better offer truly major advantages, without major risks and disadvantages, over older medical records technologies before exposing large numbers of patients to an invasive IT industry and the largest unconsented human subjects experiment in history.

Unfortunately, those basic criteria are not yet apparent with today's systems (see for instance this reading list).

EHR's and other clinical IT, forming in reality an enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control apparatus, have introduced new risk modes including mass chart theft (sometimes tens of thousands in the blink of an eye); also, mass chart disappearances as in this case - all not possible with paper.

At the very least, if hospitals want enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control systems, these should not be relegated to a distant third party.  Patients are not guinea pigs upon whom to test the ASP software model ("software as a service") that, upon failure for any reason, threatens their lives.

Finally, these complications are a further example why this industry cannot go on without meaningful oversight.  The unprecedented special medical device regulatory accommodations must end.

-- SS

Vermont: Despite $70 million investment, health IT systems a long way from prime time - "Problems are appropriate"

Preliminary note:  This post is rich with hyperlinks.  At minimum I recommend opening them in another window and at least scanning their contents - SS

No surprises in this article, including an amorality alien to the healing professions, but common in technology circles:

Despite $70 million investment, health IT systems a long way from prime time
VTDigger.org
Andrew Nemethy
July 18, 2012

The state’s efforts to digitize the world of health information, a costly multi-year endeavor that is approaching a $70 million pricetag, got a lousy diagnosis Tuesday.

Instead of creating cost efficiency and improving payment flow to doctors and treatment for patients, it’s creating stress and a lot of headaches for physicians, according to both lawmakers and state officials overseeing the effort. [It's also creating increased risk for patients, a factor - the most crucial factor - rarely mentioned in articles such as this - ed.]

Money, of course, grows on trees, and physicians, hospitals and government have nothing better to do with $70 million than conduct experiments on patients with alpha and beta software ...

There's the usual excuses from the usual actors:

But Health Information Technology (HIT) coordinator Hunt Blair said that’s to be expected considering the difficulty of the “incredibly challenging” task of getting such disparate groups as doctors, hospitals, other health care providers, insurance companies, the state and federal government on the same digital page.

Let alone (per Social Informatics) the organizational and sociological challenges of implementing any new information or communications technology (ICT), that's somewhat akin to saying it's hard to get people to consume arsenic as an aphrodisiac.  Not mentioned is the deplorable state of health IT in terms of quality, safety, usability, unregulated nature etc.

“We’re talking about an extremely complex undertaking and I think it’s important to recognize the state of Vermont was way out in front,” Blair said.

“We’re on the bleeding edge,” he told a legislative Health Care Oversight Committee Tuesday at the Statehouse.

That prompted Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison, the panel’s chairwoman, to ask him to clarify if he meant “leading.”

He stuck with “bleeding.”

"Bleeding edge?"

Aside from the very poor choice of terms, this attitude is the polar opposite of the culture of "first, do no harm."  It is not a clinician's attitude.  It is an attitude of someone who seems to forget that patients are at the receiving end of the "bleeding edge" (which usually implies a rocky course) technology:

Bleeding edge technology is a category of technologies incorporating those so new that they could have a high risk of being unreliable and lead adopters to incur greater expense in order to make use of them.  The term bleeding edge was formed as an allusion to the similar terms "leading edge" and "cutting edge". It tends to imply even greater advancement, albeit at an increased risk of "metaphorically cutting until bleeding" because of the unreliability of the software or other technology.The phrase was originally coined in an article entitled "Rumors of the Future and the Digital Circus" by Jack Dale, published in Editor & Publisher Magazine, February 12, 1994.

Wonderful.

Considering the risks to patients, this claim brings to mind the definition I posted of the health IT Ddulite ("Luddite", the common canard against cautious doctors, with the first four letters reversed):

Ddulite:  Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

On the other hand, did critic VT Sen. Kevin Mullin read my Drexel website on health IT failure and mismanagement?

That doesn’t surprise Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, who had tough questions about the state’s effort to oversee and promote use of electronic medical health records and a statewide health information exchange.

“I hear genuine frustration from providers who are spending time and resources trying to modernize and make their offices more efficient, and prepare for the future, and yet every one of them feels like they’ve been burned,” he said.

“Basically we’re not getting any results for these millions and millions of dollars that have been pumped into IT (information technology),” he said after the meeting.

“We should be a lot further along,” he said. “I just don’t think the leadership’s in place.”

He's on the right track, but I'm not sure Vermont (or any state government) really understands what levels of leadership are truly needed, e.g., as outlined by ONC a few years ago here.

More excuses:

... Mark Larson, commissioner of the Vermont Health Access Department and a former House representative from Burlington, oversees management of Vermont’s publicly funded health insurance programs and the effort on digital medical records and a new medical information exchange.

... Larson told lawmakers he hears the same message they do, that there’s “a lot of confusion in the field.” He said that is an inevitable part of the complex process.

“These are not systems where you just plug that in and they work perfectly on day one,” he said. “Problems are appropriate along the path to get where we want." [I note this is an implicit admission that experimentation is being performed - ed.]


“We just have to work through that,” he said.

"Problems are appropriate?"  ... Really?  In a mission critical field such as medicine?  That's a maddeningly reckless and cavalier ideology, to put it mildly.   In what other safety-critical domain would such a happy-go-lucky attitude that "problems are appropriate", outside of the laboratory, be tolerated? 

"We just have to work through that?" ... "Just work through that?"  Really?

That should be really easy,  just like the failed £12.7bn (~ US $20 billion) National Programme for IT (NPfIT) in the NHS, a program that went "Pffft" last year.

... Based on testimony Tuesday, the issues that medical practitioners and the industry face in digitizing information are familiar ones for anyone who deals with technology: Software that is problematic, digital files that don’t translate and can’t be read by other systems, lost time spent on technological issues that detract from what doctors are paid to do, which is treat their patients. [And create increased risk that leads to maimed or dead patients - ed.]

"Familiar to anyone who deals with technology?"  As in, say, mercantile/management computing that runs Walmart's stock inventory system, or the Post Office?  Is that an appeal to common practice of some type?  This brings to life my observation that there is an utter lack of recognition (either due to ignorance, or opportunism) that HIT systems are not business management systems that happen to be used by clinicians, they are virtual clinical tools (with all that implies) that happen to reside on computers.

How utterly amoral and alien to the ethics of medicine these attitudes are.  No regulation of the technology is in place.  No systematic postmarket surveillance of patient harm or death is conducted. 

Further, the literature on health IT is not entirely as optimistic and tolerant as the VT government.

Is the VT government aware of that literature?

Just a few specific examples - the National Research Council wrote that  "Current Approaches to U.S. Healthcare Information Technology are Insufficient", do not support clinician cognitive processes (then what, exactly, is health IT supposed to do?) and may result in harm. 

The ECRI Institute indicates health IT systems are among the top ten technology risks in healthcare.

Reports from the Joint Commission, FDA and AHRQ indicate that risk is known, but magnitude of risk unknown ("tip of the iceberg" per FDA).

A report from NIST indicates that usability is lacking and promotes "use error" (technology-promoted error, as opposed to "user error").

A report from IOM on safety of health IT states that:

... While some studies suggest improvements in patient safety can be made, others have found no effect. Instances of health IT–associated harm have been reported. However, little published evidence could be found quantifying the magnitude of the risk.

Several reasons health IT–related safety data are lacking include the absence of measures and a central repository (or linkages among decentralized repositories) to collect, analyze, and act on information related to safety of this technology. Another impediment to gathering safety data is contractual barriers (e.g., nondisclosure, confidentiality clauses) that can prevent users from sharing information about health IT–related adverse events. These barriers limit users’ abilities to share knowledge of risk-prone user interfaces, for instance through screenshots and descriptions of potentially unsafe processes. In addition, some vendors include language in their sales contracts and escape responsibility for errors or defects in their software (i.e., “hold harmless clauses”).

The committee believes these types of contractual restrictions limit transparency, which significantly contributes to the gaps in knowledge of health IT–related patient safety risks. These barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety.

(Institute of Medicine, 2012. Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care. PDF.  Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pg. S-2.)

Human subjects protections?  Not needed here ... it's just one big, unconsented, happy $70 million medical experiment.

What is not mentioned, and either deliberately ignored or lost on these politicians, is the effects of this turmoil on patient care in terms of risk and adverse outcomes, and that being on the "bleeding edge" in this experimental technology is not desirable.  

Slow, skeptical and cautious approaches are essential.  Physician education on health IT risks and patient informed consent might be nice, too.

It seems mass social re-engineering experiments are fine, even if the consequences include wasted resources the healthcare delivery system can ill afford, physicians being distracted by major defects, and outcomes like baby deaths, adults suffocating at the bedside, and graveyards.

-- SS