Patient Safety & Quality Healthcare: "Malpractice Claims Analysis Confirms Risks in EHRs"

Two "EHR beneficence is not exactly as advertised" stories in one day.  It's hard to keep up:

After my earlier post today "EHRs: The Real Story" - Sobering assessment from Medical Economics, now there's this.

From the journal "Patient Safety & Quality Healthcare" (PSQH):

Malpractice Claims Analysis Confirms Risks in EHRs
Jan/Feb 2014

Article available at this link.

[Short header on several EHR-related care foul ups]

... Distressing situations like those described above are happening around the country as healthcare organizations adopt electronic health records (EHRs) in growing numbers. Although these systems promise to reduce costs and improve quality and safety, they’ve also ushered in unintended consequences as a result of human error, design flaws, and technology glitches.

Recognizing these emerging risks, CRICO—the patient safety and medical malpractice insurer for the Harvard medical community— is taking action. The Massachusetts-based company has expanded its proprietary coding system to capture EHR-related problems that have contributed to patient harm, and to guide the hospitals, physicians, and other providers it serves toward addressing vulnerabilities in their systems.

I had previously written about another Med Mal insurer who had noted these problems at http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=norcal.

... CRICO recently analyzed a year’s worth of medical malpractice claims in its comparative database and found 147 cases in which EHRs were a contributing factor. Computer systems that don’t “talk” to each other, test results that aren’t routed properly, and mistakes caused by faulty data entry or copying and pasting were among the EHR-related problems found in the claims, which represented $61 million in direct payments and legal expenses.

The article notes this:

... Half of the 147 cases resulted in severe injury.

Patient deaths were a likely result, too, I note.

Note that this is just one insurer's data and assuming a good number of them were local to Massachusetts, could represent a significant percentage of the annual medical malpractice lawsuits in the state (Pennsylvania, a much larger state, has about 1500 med mal lawsuits filed annually). 

Note also that most cases of harm never make it to litigation due to the harsh economics of medical malpractice.

Numbers such as this will be going up as implementation, driven by HITECH incentives and penalties, accelerates in coming years.  This is especially true as medical centers and physician practices with far less clinical IT expertise and savvy than Harvard's become HIT users, and as the ability to capture such events increases.

The ECRI Institute "Deep Dive" study of health IT risk also speaks to a rise in numbers, with its finding of 171 health IT "events" in just 36 hospitals over 9 weeks voluntarily reported (i.e., just a fraction of the total), with 8 injuries and 3 possible deaths as a result (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/peering-underneath-icebergs-water-level.html).

... The team asked its CRICO and Strategies members, “What vulnerabilities are you seeing? What are your risk managers worried about? What are your doctors complaining about?”

It used that feedback to draft a set of EHR-specific codes and then tested them in three datasets: CRICO (Harvard users) and two of Strategies’ larger clients, !e Doctors Company and Princeton Insurance. Based on those results, CRICO revised and approved 15 new EHR codes that went “live” in January 2013.

That means CRICO’s cadre of nurse coders can now identify EHR as a contributing factor to a malpractice claim, instead of using one of the less specific factors available in the past. [It's about time for a dose of transparency in the health IT sector - ed.]  And they can flag whether the problem involved user issues, system/technology issues, or both. “In some cases,” Sato points out, “the system design sets up humans to make errors.”

This should all be no surprise to any reader of this blog.  Read the whole article.

A more comprehensive list of "EHR harm modes" are at my posts "Internal FDA memorandum of Feb. 23, 2010 to Jeffrey Shuren on HIT risks. Smoking gun? I report, you decide" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-gun-internal-fda-memorandum-of.html) and "Cart Before the Horse, Part 3: AHRQ's Health IT Hazard Manager" (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/06/cart-before-horse-part-3-ahrqs-health.html).

The actual Hazards Manager report is at http://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/citation/HealthITHazardManagerFinalReport.pdf. It contains this summary of known hazards:

AHRQ's taxonomy of health IT hazards.  Click to enlarge.

-------------------

Having written on these issues since 1998 as a "health IT iconoclast" (http://rtg.cis.upenn.edu/MDCPS/Posters/IT%20Iconoclasts.pdf) and having been largely ignored by the cognoscenti, can I now say "I told you so?"

-- SS

Who Would Have Thought, Comrades, That The Most Severe Form of Attempted Internet Censorship Could Originate in a Community Hospital, Abington Memorial, That Alleges Itself A Non-Profit Public Servant?

I would not have thought such an attempt at abridgement of fundamental American rights could originate in a local hospital, until this Motion by the defense in the EHR-related lawsuit initiated by my deceased mother in which I am now substitute plaintiff proved otherwise:

75

E

4/19/2013

Motion

BY ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MOTION TO PROHIBIT COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TO ANY PUBLIC CONTEXT WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW WITH SERVICE ON 04/19/2013

No

9267260

The hospital was attempting to have the Court issue a Motion for Prior Restraint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint), including against my writings here in the Healthcare Renewal blog, in a civil matter.

In my view this attempt sets a very deleterious precedent for others opposed to hospital practices.  A topic frequently discussed at this blog is imperial management.  Hospital management seems to have now become so arrogant that it apparently believes itself to have supra-Constitutional reach.  This bodes poorly for both patients' and clinicians' rights. How many other hospitals might try this, and not just against parties to litigation, hoping to get a favorable ruling?

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place.

Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of censorship in Anglo-American jurisprudence because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all.  Prior restraint ... takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship.

... most of the early struggles for freedom of the press were against forms of prior restraint. Thus prior restraint came to be looked upon with a particular horror, and Anglo-American courts became particularly unwilling to approve it, when they might approve other forms of press restriction.

Excerpts of plaintiff attorney's legal response are below (full PDF of this civil document is available at http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/Abington_Memorial_Hospital_PL%20response%20to%20DF%20motion%20for%20prior%20restraint.PDF).  The response was, in fact, largely right out of the U.S. Constitution.   It is stunning that a community hospital, allegedly a servant of the public, would pull the legal stunts described which seem more akin to the methods of the former Soviet Union:

... as the entirety of the blog describes, Dr. Silverstein was troubled with, and expressed his opinion that, the defendant’s counsel’s repeatedly advancing an argument [that the same attorney had made three years prior regarding a medical malpractice case in the very same hospital - ed.] that was soundly rejected by another court [related to Certificates of Merit that delayed proceedings in my mother's case for almost two years - ed.], and the defendant’s failure to reference that case in any substantive way as opposing authority, was, in his protected opinion, malicious and unethical. As above, Dr. Silverstein’s comments on the matter are, as defendant agrees, his beliefs, opinions and viewpoints, all of which are protected speech under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions; that defendant’s counsel is dissatisfied with protected speech is not a matter for this court to address.

I would expect the defendant's counsel was following the instructions of, or at least was in collaboration with, hospital counsel, hospital senior management and the healthcare system Board of Directors.

... Unhappy that their improper tactics are now being exposed through Dr. Silverstein’s opinions in his blog, defense counsel initially threatened litigation. Now they ask this court to enjoin Dr. Silverstein, via prior restraint, from expressing his views. This extraordinary request comes in spite of the defendant offering nothing but pure speculation as the foundation upon which they ask this Court to strip the plaintiff of his First Amendment rights.

... Their request to strip plaintiff of his First Amendment rights is at odds with the Constitution, the caselaw, and the realities of the jury selection process, which has multiple safeguards in place to remove anyone who may have read and been influenced by Dr. Silverstein’s writings. Importantly, because of the defendant’s procedural tactics, this case, while over two years old, has only just begun discovery and the jury section process is nowhere in the near future.

... The simple fact is that Dr. Silverstein’s blog contains what defendant recognizes are his “beliefs, opinions and viewpoints” and, as such, they are protected. Neither defendant nor its counsel can meet the strict requirements of their unprecedented request to strip Dr. Silverstein of his constitutional rights. Their Motion must be swiftly denied.

Dated: 28 May 2013

The court, a civil Court of Common Pleas in this county in Pennsylvania, in fact did promptly make a decision: hospital motion for censorship denied.

182

6/24/2013

Order

OF 6/20/13 DANIELE,J MOTION IS DENIED; CC

No

9343590

The First Amendment lives, at least in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

However,  as the stories aggregated on this blog and others increasingly show, hospitals' mission of public service increasingly seems to be dying.

Attempted use of courts to abridge First Amendment rights by a hospital seems like the pinnacle of abandonment of pretenses of public service and accountability.  Corporate interests come first, not patients. 

This is a reason I increasingly am of the belief that hospital management cannot be trusted.  Accordingly, in my opinion, patients - especially acute inpatients - should have 24x7, independent advocates following every aspect of their care, receiving a daily full printout of any electronic records generated, and (if legal) even using one of the many new, small video/audio recording devices in encounters with hospital personnel.

"He said/she said" is no longer an option when dealing with a Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик mentality.

Click for Patriotic music!

Perhaps Abington Memorial Hospital should consider adopting the rousing music above for their HR morale-building exercises.

I was a Medical Resident there in 1985-87.  Like Lev Davidovich Bronshtein, I guess I've been excommunicated for failure of obedience to the Party line.

My old residency ID.  I've now been excommuncated.

Da Svedanya for now, Comrades!

-- SS
 

Another Sign of Resistance? - Doctors Sue Hospital Systems Alleged to Put Money Ahead of Mission

In two recent instances, physician groups have filed lawsuits against hospital systems alleging that managers were directly putting revenue ahead of patient welfare.  Although so far this is all about allegations, and nothing has been decided in courts of law, the details provided in the current news coverage are disturbing.

We will present the cases in the order that news reports were published.

Prime Healthcare Services

California Watch reported on a lawsuit filed against Prime Healthcare Services, a California based for-profit hospital system that has got its share of unfavorable media coverage.  In summary,

A dozen Southern California doctors are accusing the leadership of a Prime Healthcare Services hospital of refusing to notify them about their patients because they won’t engage in profit-driven practices, according to a request for a restraining order filed this week.

The San Bernardino County physician group suing Chino Valley Medical Center and its director say it has been asked to needlessly admit patients from the emergency room into hospital beds, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in San Bernardino County Superior Court. The group’s doctors also have been urged to document patient conditions as more complex or severe than they are, the filing says.

The doctors suing the hospital maintain that both practices are meant to drive up hospital bills. The result of their refusal to go along, they say, is that they’re not receiving what they characterize as legally mandated notifications when their patients land in the hospital.

 The physicians have asked the judge to lift the alleged freeze in communication, saying it puts fragile patients in danger. 

The article described one particularly concerning incident

[The lawsuit] ... claims one patient with a serious breathing condition was admitted without her doctor’s knowledge. During her stay, Chino Valley staff operated to remove her gallbladder.

'Because (Inland) was not contacted, no doctor gave the required pulmonary clearance nor did the patient receive proper respiratory treatment prior to surgery,' the lawsuit says.

The suit alleges that such practices put patients 'at serious risk of injury and even death.'

The article also described allegations that at the root of the problem was the hospital system's management's insistence on revenue ahead of all other concerns:

The physician group suing Chino Valley holds contracts with about a dozen managed care firms that expect group doctors to handle local members’ care in the case of a hospitalization.

The Inland doctors say that instead, they’ve been stonewalled. In their lawsuit, they say the silence is a result of their refusal to follow the direction of the hospital’s president and chief medical officer, Dr. James Lally, a defendant in the case.

Lally suggested that the physicians document serious medical conditions, such as a certain type of pneumonia that Medicare pays hospitals a premium to treat, the suit says.

Lally also discouraged doctors from putting patients on 'observation' status, according to the suit. That means a doctor will monitor a patient’s condition, rather than sending him or her home or admitting the patient to a hospital bed.

The lawsuit alleges that Lally prefers doctors to admit patients into the hospital so the hospital can receive 'significantly higher Medicare reimbursements.'

This is not the first time that Prime has been accused of mischief:

A yearlong California Watch series documented high rates of lucrative and severe medical conditions at Prime hospitals, as well as an aggressive approach to admitting ER patients into hospitals, rather than treating them in the ER and sending them home.

State hospital data analyzed by California Watch showed that Prime hospitals admitted about 63 percent of Medicare-funded ER patients into hospitals in 2009, compared with 39 percent at the state’s other leading for-profit chain, Tenet Healthcare Corp. In response, Prime said the analysis 'utterly fails to consider the medical basis for admissions.'

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating Prime’s billing practices, according to a document the chain filed as part of a hospital purchase plan. Dr. Prem Reddy, founder of the Ontario, Calif.-based chain, has overseen rapid growth since Prime’s 2001 start as the company expanded into a coast-to-coast 21-hospital chain.

Also,

Prime Healthcare has been criticized for aggressively admitting paying patients since its founding. Reddy once referred to an ER as a 'gold mine,' according to court testimony from the medical director of the first hospital taken over by the Prime founder. The reference, which the medical director said during a 2005 trial, was to numerous Kaiser and Medicare patients who could be admitted for further care.

Another doctor told the Orange County Board of Supervisors in 2006 that when Prime took over Huntington Beach Hospital, doctors were urged to admit insured patients with maladies as minor as a headache.

Yet, Prime Healthcare claims to honor the value of compassion:

 We provide an environment that is caring and conducive to healing the whole person physically, emotionally and spiritually. We respect the individual needs, desires and rights of our patients.

Dignity Health

Our second story comes from Nevada courtesy the Las Vegas Sun.   It involves Dignity Health, a multi-state non-profit health system.  The story basics are:

Two former St. Rose Dominican Hospital emergency room doctors say they were forced to transfer patients from one St. Rose hospital to another so its owners and their boss could profit — at the expense of patient safety.

The doctors allege in similar lawsuits that the frequent patient transfers among the three St. Rose hospital campuses — Rose de Lima and Siena in Henderson and San Martin in the southwest valley — put profit ahead of patient care. When they resisted, they say they were retaliated against and eventually fired.

The 3-year-old ambulance company that was used to shuttle patients was partly owned by both the hospital company and the director of the emergency department at the Siena campus at the time, Dr. Richard Henderson. According to their lawsuits, Henderson pushed hard in emails to ER doctors to promote patient shuttling and authorized bonuses to doctors who transferred the most patients to other St. Rose facilities.

Again, there was one telling incident:

Both lawsuits invoke the case of a gravely sick 16-day-old baby who arrived at St. Rose de Lima hospital, where a doctor determined the child needed pediatric critical care services at the Siena campus and requested a Henderson Fire Department unit for transport.

But according to the lawsuits, Henderson ordered that Community Ambulance transport the child instead. He made the request despite longer wait times for Community Ambulance compared to Henderson Fire Department’s quicker response times of 10 minutes or less, according to the lawsuits.

This article also described how money allegedly came before patient care:

The court papers include email exchanges between Henderson and the other doctors in the ER group. In a November 2010 email, he discusses ways to punish doctors who do fewer patient transfers and reward those who tally more transfers:

'(T)op quarter $1,000, next quarter $500. Bottom quarter up or out talk at annual evaluation.' In other words, according to doctors who received the email, Henderson proposed that doctors would be divided into strata based on who recommended the most transfers, with the top group winning bonus money while those who performed the least would eventually be terminated.

Transferring patients was such a priority that doctors were ordered to fill out non-transfer forms, explaining a decision not to transfer patients.

In another email, Henderson expressed concern that doctors were too quick to rule out transfers: 'How do you weed out the people that call a runny nose ‘unstable for transfer’? The performance we (admin) are looking for are transfers. Suggestions?'

A former member of the medical staff put it this way: There was constant pressure to transfer transfer transfer.'

Note that Dignity Health was until recently called Catholic Healthcare West (look here).  It still claims the mission:

 We are committed to furthering the healing ministry of Jesus. We dedicate our resources to:

• Delivering compassionate, high-quality, affordable health services;
• Serving and advocating for our sisters and brothers who are poor and disenfranchised; and
• Partnering with others in the community to improve the quality of life.

Note also that under its former name, Catholic Healthcare West has received our previous attention, for accusations that it overcharged uninsured patients (look here),  which it later settled (look here), and for settling a lawsuit claiming the system filed false Medicare claims (look here). 

Summary

 Just another day at the office....  Here are two more examples of how large health care organizations, in this case, large hospital systems, seem to put short-term revenue ahead of all other concerns, and in particular, ahead of patient welfare.  In both cases, the alleged practices seemed to make a mockery of the hospital systems high-flown mission or values statements.  In both cases, the hospital systems had records of past questionable behavior.  Yet many hospital systems have grown rich and powerful, and made their leaders personally rich, by trading on their reputation for community care and service, and marketing their warm and fuzzy missions and values. 

Over the years, we have documented over and over how leadership of health care organizations have subverted their organizations' missions and the values of health care professionals.  Yet for a long time, many health care professionals just kept their noses to their grindstones, ignoring what was going on or suffered in silence.  Now at least a few have broken the silence.  Health care professionals and society at large needs to hold large health care organizations' leadership accountable for their missions, and push out leaders who put their own pocketbooks and their organizations' revenue ahead of patients' and the public's health. 

More on the lengths a hospital will go through to protect their EHR from discovery

At "The lengths a hospital will go to in order to protect their EHR - Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Objections" I wrote about obstruction of litigation by the defense regarding a case where an EHR contributed to patient injury and death.

The major basis for the new "Motion for Reconsideration" (a request for the court to reconsider its prior denial of an earlier Motion for Reconsideration of an initial court decision to dismiss defense objections to the Complaint) is this.  From the actual filing (emphases mine):

(click to enlarge)

Here is likely why the court "never addressed the issue":  they don't have time to address frivolous claims.  Neither does the Superior court that also declined to hear this argument.  (It's actually the defense who never addressed the following in all their filings):

From the official publication of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee in the state, effective a decade ago:

That's pretty clear.  One certificate for non-defendants for whom the defendant is vicariously liable.  Further, a decade ago recommendation 200 also was approved and added to the note; the medical professional providing the justifying statement doesn't even need to name the 'other professionals who deviated.'

The mandated Certificate was timely filed, as was a separate Certificate of Merit for direct corporate liability in the malpractice suit.

Further -  from the actual mandated Certificate of Merit document, direct from the State code:

I don't think the Courts expect parties to edit their documents to accommodate their own whims.

The only option for identifying those sued is “Name of Defendant.”  No fields are present specifying “Name(s) of Defendant’s agent, employee (etc.) for whom Defendant is being held vicariously liable”, or similar, nor is some other multi-labeled Certificate of Merit for such purposes in existence.

This is some rather inventive lawyering and misuse of court process, either to needlessly prolong the case, or to harass the plaintiff.  The judges will likely not be amused.

On the other hand, the delays have allowed me to be able to see and review metadata (e.g., audit trails and other "data about data") produced from the very same EHR system that was in use at this hospital, via my legal support work in another case in the state.  It took time for that production to occur.  This will make it much harder for the hospital to pull the wool over my eyes regarding metadata discovery.

That's one reason why I'd been patient with all this.

My patience is now long expired.

My mother, the original plaintiff, is unavailable for comment.

-- SS

The lengths a hospital will go to in order to protect their EHR - Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Objections

My mother was injured and then died as a result of an EHR foul-up.  She sued the hospital where the mid-2010 accident occurred while she was still lucid, and I am now substitute plaintiff.  Yet the case has been held up through the defense (mis)using court process to stall.

It seems the lengths a hospital will go to in order to protect their EHRs (i.e., from Discovery by an expert such as myself, which could show many problems) are amazing.

To wit, their latest filing, in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the legal discovery process:

2/1/2013

Motion

BY [redacted] HOSPITAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 17, 2013 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT ORDER DATED JUNE 22, 2012 WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW WITH SERVICE ON 02/01/2012

They've filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision that denied their mid-2012 motion asking the Court to reconsider its denial of their objections to the legal paperwork.

Yes, that probably needs to be read several times in order to be understood; I cannot simplify it any further ...

The new motion is a mere 521 pages in length (the original Motion for Reconsideration was a slim 485; of course they charge the hospital by the hour for document preparation and electronic filing with the Court).

The major objection about the paperwork is, in essence, that a "Certificate of Merit" (a certification of case merit by a qualified medical professional) needed to be filed not just for Defendant (the hospital) but for each and every employee/agent for whom the Defendant is vicariously liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior:

Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the "Master-Servant Rule", recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

A major problem with this claim is that the law simply says otherwise.  Also, Certificates of Merit have, under the identification field where the sued party's name is penned in, the label "defendant" ... not "defendant, employees, agents, their uncles and aunts, and their little dogs too for whom defendant is vicariously liable."  Not to mention, among other issues, that such misconceptions are specifically put to rest by the actual Civil Procedural Rules Committee rules as published by the state's court administrative body:

"The [certificate of merit] rule requires the filing of only a single certificate of merit as to a claim against a defendant that is based on the activities of licensed professionals who are not named in the action."

Such a certificate was timely filed.  In fact, one Certificate was timely filed against the defendant hospital for corporate negligence, and another timely Certificate was filed for defendant's vicarious liability.

That's why the court threw out the objections, and the Motion for Reconsideration of its denial of the objections..

In defense of their position that Certificates for each person for whom the defendant is vicariously liable should have been filed (which is an especially frivolous argument since there is a statement in the law that they do not need to be named), the hospital defense ignored all plaintiff's arguments regarding the filing of the Certificates of Merit such as above.  It then cites two cases where the Certificates of Merit were filed over a year late (there is a 60 day limit) or not filed at all.  

But they didn't stop there.  The defendants also wanted the (local) court to 'certify' (give permission for) them to appeal the denial of their objections to Superior Court (the certification may be done if the issues at law are felt possibly controversial).  The local court threw that request out, too.

The defense appealed to Superior Court anyway, apparently claiming manifest injustice was done by the local court.  Several hundred more pages, more fees.  The Superior Court dismissed the appeal - or, perhaps stated more accurately, refused to even consider it.

All this eats up time.

Now, I'm not an attorney, nor do I have access to the major legal databases.  However, Google is getting to be very good at pulling up legal cases due to its indexing of many other resources, such as legal books and publications and public case docket repositories.

When I Google "Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Reconsideration" or "Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Reconsideration", very little comes up.  One case is from the early 1990's in the High Court of American Samoa. (If you know where that is without looking it up, you're more geographically literate than I.)

When all else fails ... throw a monkeywrench into the Wheels of Justice  ... and be paid handsomely for it!

The Defense stalling maneuvers have served to help me advise other Plaintiff's attorneys in EHR-related medical malpractice and evidence spoliation matters (the motion above will be presented at my upcoming talk at the American Association for Justice Winter Conference in Florida as an example of how far a hospital will go to protect their EHR).  

The stalling has also been serving as a useful learning experience for me regarding the working of the Court system, enhancing my abilities to assist the Plaintiff's side.  Perhaps I should be paying tuition to the Defense in my mother's case ...

(The Plaintiff's Bar - and injured patients - need help.  I have, for instance, learned in sworn testimony of hospital IT experts that some major commercial EHR's permit a clinician to alter their notes prior to their final "signoff" and resultant "record lock" -- which can be days later -- without leaving an electronic trail or any evidence whatsoever of the changes.  I have learned that some EHR's permit late-entered notes to appear in apparent chronological sequence in an EHR printout with whatever apparent time is desired.  I have learned that the audit trails and other metadata themselves of major commercial EHRs can be altered by someone with sufficient database privileges with no trace, save for perhaps database engine transaction logs on backup tapes, highly difficult to retrieve.)

In effect, one motive for hospitals to acquire EHR's might be the EHR's abilities to facilitate "retroactive risk management" through, in essence, alteration of history.

Finally, I hope I won't have to see a "Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of objections to the paperwork."

-- SS