Posts tagged ‘electronic health records’

8 September 2008

From Medical Director to Microsoft – another Australian e-health delay drama

From today’s edition of 6 minutes:

“A pharmacy-driven electronic prescribing project announced with much fanfare earlier this year has hit a setback with one partner, prescribing software company Medical Director, going cold on the project.

“In March the Pharmacy Guild announced a ScriptX project to start in October which would allow GPs to create electronic prescriptions on a central encrypted hub that any participating pharmacy could access and dispense.

“But the project’s creators, pharmacy software company Fred Health, now says it is looking to work with new partners such as Microsoft to develop a similar system, known as eRx Script Exchange, to start next year.

A spokesman for the company, Mr Paul Naismith, told 6minutes that their original partners HCN, the vendors of Medical Director, had decided not to go ahead with the SciptX project as planned.”

Is this the precursor to Microsoft launching its HealthVault product in Australia? Meanwhile, no great surprises that HCN/Medical Director have backed out on the project; if a teacher was to give a report card on HCN, it would no doubt include the comment, “Does not play well with other children”…

10 August 2008

Google, Microsoft, now Amazon?

Call it the commercialization of healthcare online. First it was Microsoft Health Vault and Google Health offering personal health record (PHR) solutions for consumers. Now Internet pundits are saying the healthcare industry should look to Internet giants Amazon for ideas on how to bring healthcare into the 21st century. Anna Maria Virzi, writing on the ClickZ network, says that patients should have access to information about their health records in the same way UPS or Amazon tracks package deliveries.

“A doctor’s follow up communications with a patient – though not exactly marketing – are all part of a customer feedback loop that can help keep a patient and her family informed to make better choices about continuing care,” she writes.

She cites the example of Group Health Co-operative, a Seattle-based managed care organisation. Patients there were first given the opportunity to contact physicians by e-mail about eight years ago and by 2008, ”nearly all of the organization’s 850 physicians communicate with patients online; physicians respond to 97 percent of the queries by or before the next day.

“First and foremost, this is to take better care of patients,” associate medical director Matt Handley said. “It saves a patient in-person visits. It leaves a record for patients to access, and it indirectly improves access [to a physician].” He said it was ”much safer than paper records.” 

“Once patients realized the benefits of e-visits, Group Health Cooperative promoted the initiative in advertisements.

“But, Group Health patients won’t find any ads popping up in the clinical messages they receive from physicians. ‘There is no spamming, no promotional messages to patients through our electronic medical records,’ Dr. Handley said.

“Group Health professionals say the retention rate was 6.5 percent higher for enrollees who used the digital health record system than those who didn’t. ‘Two-thirds of the patients say this is a very important thing to them when they think about where to get their healthcare,’ Dr. Handley said. ‘It’s hard to give this up.’

29 July 2008

Nobody said it was going to be easy – or cheap

David More’s AusHealthIT blog is always a good source of news and comment. Yesterday he wrote about the efforts of a hospital in the US state of Minnesota to introduce electronic medical records (EMRs). Over a four-year period the hospital spent US$250 million and involved 300 staff to implement the project across 11 hospitals and 70 clinics. To operate the electronic system in 2008 they are spending US$17.4 million, including 173 staff. All I can say is yikes!

As David writes, “The five main lessons he provided were:

Lesson 1: Implement enterprise governance—quickly

Lesson 2: Pay for physician leadership

Lesson 3: Avoid design by committee

Lesson 4: Set realistic expectations

Lesson 5: Prepare for ruffled feathers

These seem to me to be lessons all bureaucrats and implementers in Hospital projects in Australia should take very much to heart

The scale of the organisation make for quite sobering reading!”

If that’s what it takes to get it right, no wonder electronic solutions are slow off the mark in Australia.

23 July 2008

$20m for Aussie e-health research

The Australian federal and Queensland state governments have together kicked in $20 million to fund the Brisbane-based Australian E-Health Research Centre (AEHRC) for the next four years.

Established in 2003 as a joint venture between the CSIRO and the Queensland government, the AEHRC has been developing simulated training tools, home monitoring systems for patients recovering from heart problems, improved imaging techniques, data analysis tools and electronic medical records.

11 July 2008

Why Google Health?

“You know that money beats soul, every time.” – Jim Morrison, the Doors

I have been itching to write a post where I can slip in a quote from my favourite anti-hero, Jim Morrison. So what on earth does this have to do with Google Health? As I was researching a story about Google and e-health for my oft-mentioned feature for Australian Doctor, I came across some interesting questions – and potential answers – about Google’s foray into something seemingly so far from their core business:

“When it comes to health, Google has become the main place patients turn to for health information online. As well as anecdotal stories such as the US man who walked into a hospital after a Google search of his symptoms correctly led to a self-diagnosis of a heart attack, research shows that seeking health information has consistently rated among the most popular activities of Internet users (more than 80%), and Google is the place where 70% of them start their search.

“Doctors like it too. A study published in Australian Family Physician last month revealed that Google was also more popular with Australian GPs surveyed than the next five web sites combined. They said they used Google because of its ability to lead to other web sites of value, its speed and ease of use, its convenience and its wide applicability.

Looking to the future, Google is also positioning itself for a dominant role in a world where medicine is increasingly linked to the Internet with the recent launch of Google Health, an online personal health record service where patients can enter any or all of their medical histories to create a portable data record that can be accessed by a variety of doctors and other health professionals.

“…. Advocates argue that a Google Health personal health record will result in better-informed patients, fewer redundant tests and better-prepared doctors who can get a more complete picture by having their patients’ entire medical history in front of them. Access to crucial information such as allergies and current medications will allow doctors in scenarios such as emergency rooms to avoid many of the medical mistakes that injure patients or land them in hospital for long stays.

Privacy experts, meanwhile, are up in arms about the potential downsides of such a system, particularly in the hands of a company with no history of handling trusted medical data. They have raised strong concerns that private and personal records could be bought and sold by organisations such as pharmaceutical companies.

“…. Like its other services, Google Health is available free to anyone who is willing to take the time to fill out their profile. The “do no evil” cynics have questioned Google’s motives in straying from its core search business. As a Washington Post writer put it: ‘Why would Google take on such a big, difficult project — creating complex data exchange systems and storing all that personal information — if there’s no way to make money?

“’A strong personal health dashboard linked to other Google services, including its cash-cow search business, can make sure those health-seekers stay with Google rather than with the competition. Like Microsoft, for instance.’”

They may seem like they’re just out to provide a useful service to the Internet-using public, but in the long run, making money – and keeping money out of competitors’ pockets – is behind Google Health.

Money beats soul, every time…

10 July 2008

Government dragging the e-health chain in Australia

Excerpted from a special report I wrote for this week’s Australian Doctor

Jim Clark was known as Silicon Valley’s $3 billion man: the first person to start up three companies that were each capitalised at $1 billion or more. Starting in the 1980s with Silicon Graphics, a pioneer of film and CGI animation, he grew bored with that and helped found Netscape, which launched the world’s first widely used web browser, in the early 1990s.

But his timing failed him when it came to the third venture, an attempt to automate health care. In the late 1990s, Clark set up Healtheon, an online platform joining payers, providers and consumers in an effort to squeeze inefficiencies out of the $US7 trillion a year US industry. The company was quickly capitalised at $US20 billion, largely on the strength of Clark’s reputation.

However, Healtheon struggled to get any of its projects off the ground, encountering resistance from every angle. Doctors said they were too busy to learn new things, and besides, they didn’t want better communication with patients — face-to-face was just fine with them. Health maintenance organisations and insurance companies, meanwhile, turned their backs on a no-risk opportunity to save 90% on transaction costs — they didn’t want to make it easy for people to make claims, because the more arcane the rules for reimbursement and the more complicated the claim process, the easier it was to delay payment and the more likely customers would drop lengthy appeals for payment.

As Healtheon’s value tumbled to less than a hundredth of its peak value, in 1999 Clark merged the company with WebMD, an online medical company formed from the combination of several medical information web sites which had turned over only $US75,000 the previous year, and sold down his stockholding of Healtheon, telling reporters at the time: “I was naive — I’ll never invest in health care again.”

Ten years later, a reinvigorated WebMD is a billion-dollar company again, arguably the world’s most popular medical news web site for both consumers and health professionals, reportedly receiving 40 million visits a month as well as offering web-based services including online personal health records to users.

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Google have also entered this space, and thousands of patients are sharing their records electronically with providers, hospitals, pharmacies and general practices in dozens of countries, including Australia. Jim Clark, on the other hand, now spends most of his time building and sailing super-yachts and is perhaps best known in Australia as model Kristy Hinze’s boyfriend.

Clark had the right idea, but back in the last decade he was too far ahead of the curve to make it work. Now, however, e-health is an idea whose time has come.

“E-health is an idea whose time has not only come, it is overdue,” says Associate Professor Ron Tomlins, associate professor of general practice at the University of Sydney, who spent several years as chairman of the General Practice Computing Group.

Professor Tomlins said government and professional initiatives in Australia over the past 10 years that put computers, powerful software and broadband in practices have prepared a foundation that will enable GPs to harness the new online technologies that have been developing independently over the same period.

As more and more doctors turn to the Internet as a professional information source, more than 80% now report that the Internet is essential to their practice, according to research in the US by Manhattan Research. Consumers today, meanwhile, get more health information from the Internet than from their doctors, according to market research firm iCrossing.In Australia, trials of electronic health records and other online applications are under way in most states (see Case studies), while the Federal Government tries to set standards through the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) to ensure consistency, portability and security of records.

In Canada, the government has set a target of 50% of the population to have electronic personal health records by the end of 2009. In Australia, meanwhile, the government is “dragging the chain”, according to Professor Tomlins, with NEHTA recently announcing that it would be another 10 years before personal health records were in established use in Australia. Professor Tomlins said NEHTA is not moving fast enough, pointing out that it underspent its budget by almost $40 million last financial year.

“General practice is frustrated as hell in the lack of interest from the Commonwealth,” Professor Tomlins said. “The state governments are moving things along with projects such as Healthelink in NSW, SHER [shared electronic health records] and secure messaging projects in the Northern Territory and chronic health management programs in South Australia. But there’s a real danger that they won’t be interoperable and we will end up with a rail gauge situation.”

But regardless of that danger, Professor Tomlins says, the increase in data available to GPs puts them in a good position to use new technologies to improve patient care. “GPs have spent the past few years building up electronic databases for their practices,” according to Professor Tomlins. “Tools are now available to use that data to better understand how better care can be delivered to their patients. They can conduct clinical audits to mine that data, both clinical and financial, and benchmark themselves against other practices to find ways to improve the way care is delivered.

3 July 2008

More on Google Health

In researching a feature I’ve been writing about Health 2.0 (more on that next week when it gets published), I’ve been looking into Google Health. While most commentators have focused on the commercial/social/medico-legal aspects of the world’s largest Internet company entering into the murky world of personal health records (PHRs), I came across some technical evaluations of the service. David Kibbe, writing in the Health 2.0 blog, discusses what sets Google Health apart from other online PHR services.

He writes: “Google Health beta makes it possible for machines to accept, read, and interpret one’s health data.  It is one thing to store health data on the Web as a pdf or Word text file, for example one’s immunizations or lab results, where they can be viewed. It is a giant leap forward to make the data both human and machine readable, so that they can be acted upon in some intelligent way by a remote server, kept up-to-date, and improved upon in terms of accuracy and relevance. That is what …Google Health beta achieves for the consumer that is really new and different; this is what HealthVault [Microsoft's PHR offering] and Dossia [a service set up by five big employer groups in the US including Wal-Mart and AT&T] are to date missing.

“Disruptive innovations are often considered simplistic and compared to toys when they first emerge (remember the first Apple computer?) and there is no stopping these developers and these partner companies from making their services more intelligent, more useful, and more convenient to the consumer.”

Take the time to read through the comments on the posting, which are quite interesting. Here’s an example: “As it is, Google PHR is a non-starter for any open-source advocate (“rapid design evolution” [which seems like marketing 2.0 speak] notwithstanding). Patients want options, not “disruptive” technologies. Again, more marketing-speak and hype. Sorry, but most real patients are a little wiser than that.”

2 July 2008

All ages and professions need to get with Web 2.0

This one is a couple of weeks old, but recently came to my attention. Richard Smith, ex-editor of the British Medical Journal, CEO of BMJ Publishing and now involved with open access journals, wrote a terrific blog on the BMJ about how doctors need to expose themselves to the world of Web 2.0/Health 2.0 and the possibilities it presents.

He writes, “Web 2.0 has the potential to improve global health greatly and to solve complex problems in health science. (However,) the barriers to these potential achievements are social and cultural, not technological.

“The machines we can fix. It’s the people – particularly old timers (that’s anybody over 40) – that are the problem.” Smith, who is 56, has some simple advice for his fellow old-timers. “The only way to really understand Web 2.0,” he says, “is to jump in and start using it.”

He recommends everyone sign up for Facebook and concludes, “The essence of Web 2.0 is that it’s bottom up and participative: it’s created by the many, not the few…. Doctors, I fear, are too fond of a top down world – because they are usually at the top. But that top down world is crumbling. Think of Nicolae Ceausescu’s statue being hauled down and smashed. That’s the old world of Web 1.0. Get with Web 2.0 in a serious way or become a yesterday’s person.”

23 June 2008

Hands up if you want an EHR – anyone?

With all the discussion and developments going on in terms of electronic health records/personal health records online, someone has finally asked the question: is this what consumers want? Keith Schorsch wrote on the Health 2.0 blog the other day about “the elephant in the room: Do consumers really care about having online personal health records?”

He cited current evidence suggesting that less than 3% of health consumers maintain a personal health record online (presumably US figures – Australian figures would only be a fraction of that). While Google “trotted out some great enterprise partners” for its recent announcement about its trial of Google Health with the Cleveland Clinic, Schorsch pointed out that there were no consumer testimonials talking about how Google Health would change their lives for the better.

“I struggle to see how it’s creating value for the average health consumer,” he writes. “How much work is required by the user to create this asset? And how important is data portability to the consumer? We all remember the predictions of the paperless office. The ‘paperless record’ feels like this decade’s version of the paperless office.”

“Google Health fels like a good, incremental step toward putting more control in the hands of the health consumer,” Schorsch concludes, but “without a clearly delineated consumer benefit, this is a platform waiting for a killer app.” 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,546 other followers