healthy4u: American Medical News

American Medical News: Dangers of "EHR Sloppy and Paste"

An American Medical News (<a href="http://amednews.com/" target="_blank">amednews.com</a>) article by Kevin O'Reilly appeared entitled "EHRs: 'Sloppy and paste' endures despite patient safety risk."<br /><br />It addresses the dangers of a common feature of EHR's used recklessly:  copy-and-paste. <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2013/02/04/prl20204.htm" target="_blank">EHRs: “Sloppy and paste” endures despite patient safety risk</a><br /><br />Copying and pasting information is common within EHRs,  but the practice sometimes can lead to confusion and endanger patient  care. <br /><div id="Byline"><br /></div><div id="Byline">By <span id="By"><a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/site/bio.htm#o%27reilly">Kevin B. O'Reilly</a>,</span> <span id="Tag">amednews staff.</span> <i>Posted Feb. 4, 2013.</i></div><div id="Byline"><br /></div><div id="Btext1">During the winter holidays, a patient at Yale-New Haven  Hospital in Connecticut had a large pressure ulcer with an abscess. A  surgical intern made a note in the patient’s electronic health record  that said, “Patient needs drainage, may need OR.”</div><div id="Btext1"><br /></div>The problem? The same note appeared for several consecutive days,  even after a surgical team successfully drained the abscess. The intern  had copied and pasted the previous day’s note, but failed to  appropriately update it to reflect the fact that the drainage was done.  The note confused the consulting infectious disease team and nearly led  to an unneeded change in the patient’s antibiotic regimen.</blockquote><div id="Byline"><br /></div><div id="Byline">That's somewhat ironic<i>. </i> I performed my postdoc at Yale Center for Medical Informatics where we discussed, among other issues, potential drawbacks of badly-designed or implemented EHRs.   Unfortunately, I hear from people who've left that the Center is relatively marginalized these days with respect to influence.  (Actually, the marginalization goes way back; if they'd listened to us in the mid 1990's they might have avoided <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=Insufficient%20IT%20management" target="_blank">this multimillion-dollar federal lawsuit for billing fraud</a>.)</div><div id="Byline"><br /></div><div id="Byline">Mr. O'Reilly continues:</div><div id="Byline"><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">The practice of carelessly copying and pasting previous information,  often dubbed “sloppy and paste,” is on the decline at Yale-New Haven  Hospital but is widespread across medicine and can lead to mix-ups that  sometimes harm patients, research shows.<br /><br />“It’s especially problematic when you have multiple teams taking care  of the patient and we’re communicating through the chart, which happens  very often nowadays because physicians don’t see each other as often as  we used to,” said Dr. Horwitz [General internist Leora Horwitz, MD], assistant professor of medicine at Yale  University School of Medicine. “<b>We do rely on the chart in many cases,  and it can lead to genuine confusion.”</b></blockquote><br />When you rely on an information system and the information system contains incorrect information (for whatever reason), patients are put at risk.  That the systems are implemented without simple controls on copy-and-paste (such as permanently embedding substantive metadata in the output) is a significant flaw.<br /><br /><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">From Sec. II of </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Aguilar v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div. of U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec.</span></i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> 2008 WL 5062700 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2008), available at <a href="http://jeffparmet.com/pdf/aguilar-v-immigration.pdf" target="_blank">this link</a>:</span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">... Substantive metadata, also known as application metadata, is “created as a function of the application software used to create the document or file” and reflects substantive changes made by the user. Sedona Principles 2d Cmt. 12a; Md. Protocol 26. <b>This category of metadata reflects modifications to a document, such as prior edits or editorial comments</b>, and includes data that instructs the computer how to display the fonts and spacing in a document. Sedona Principles 2d Cmt. 12a. Substantive metadata is embedded in the document it describes and remains with the document when it is moved or copied. <i>Id</i></span></span></blockquote><br />Microsoft Word's "Track Changes" feature is an example of substantive metadata being displayed.<br /><br />The available stats on the phenomenon are of great concern: <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">... A study in February’s <i>Critical Care Medicine</i> found that copying and pasting is the rule in EHRs rather than the exception.<br /><br />Using a software program that can detect identical matching word  sequences, researchers examined the assessment-and-plan portions of more  than 2,000 progress notes for 135 patients created by 62 residents and  11 attending physicians working in a Cleveland medical intensive care  unit. For the residents, 82% of the notes contained 20% or more copied  text, while 74% of attending doctors’ notes also exceeded that rate of  copying and pasting.<br /><br />A similar study in the January-February 2010 issue of Journal of the  American Medical Informatics Assn. found a copy-and-paste rate of 78% in  sign-out notes generated by internal medicine residents. The rate of  copied text in progress notes was 54%, the study said.</blockquote><br /><div id="Byline">An example of physician embarrassment at relaying quite outdated information to a patient's family due to repeated note-copying was cited, and then a case of actual harm:</div><div id="Byline"><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">... Other times, patients are harmed. In a July/August 2007 case study in <i>AHRQ WebM&M</i>,  an online patient safety journal, William Hersh, MD, described the case  of a 77-year-old woman hospitalized for diarrhea and dehydration after  chemotherapy.<br /><br />An intern noted that the patient would receive heparin to prevent  venous thromboembolism. The note was copied and pasted for four days in a  row and signed by a resident and an attending physician, who appeared  to believe the heparin had been ordered and administered. Ultimately,  the patient was discharged without ever receiving the preventive  medicine and two days later was rehospitalized and diagnosed with a  pulmonary embolism. Only then did physicians realize the patient never  got the correct prophylaxis.<br /><br />“The problem is getting worse now with the rise of EHRs,” said Dr.  Hersh, professor and chair of the Dept. of Medical Informatics and  Clinical Epidemiology at Oregon Health & Science University in  Portland.</blockquote><div id="Byline"><br /></div><div>The American Medical News article continues:</div><div></div><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div>HHS OIG (Office of the Inspector General) announced that it plans to review multiple EHR notes for the same  patient by the same physician to see whether doctors are copying and  pasting the identical note from visit to visit. The practice is  sometimes called cloning and could be implicated in fraudulent coding  and billing practices. </div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>That might serve to partially stem the process, but the HHS OIG's resources are not infinite.</div><div><br /></div><div>The article concludes:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div>John Halamka, MD, calls for a more radical fix.<br /><br />“The way we document in medicine has grown up over decades for  medical reasons, for billing, for medical-legal justification,” said Dr.  Halamka, chief information officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical  Center in Boston. “You wind up with 17 pages of replicated and  duplicated and challenging-to-read documentation. I propose we blow up  the way we do documentation altogether and replace it with a  Wikipedia-like structure.”<br /><br />Such an approach would allow physicians to edit the progress note  collaboratively, just as the popular open-source encyclopedia is  updated. Dr. Halamka hopes to pilot-test the idea within the next year. “With that concept, you wouldn’t ever really need to copy and paste,” he said.</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br />An interesting concept and experiment.  My questions:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Do we first rigorously investigate and understand the causes of the  copying, i.e., cryptic and difficult-to-use data entry methods that significantly slow clinicians down?   </li></ul><ul><li>Do we get informed consent from patients for the experiment? </li></ul><ul><li>If so, what do we tell them?  We are conducting an experiment in charting, risk unknown, to solve cheating and risks due to poorly-designed EMRs? </li></ul><ul><li>Would not simpler solutions (such as the embedded-metadata identifiers indicating text has been copied as I described above)  be important to implement first, <u>before</u> experimenting with medical documentation? </li></ul></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>That said, I believe the practice - an unintended and potentially adverse side effect of a new information technology, HIT - must stop.  I think Mr. O'Reilly makes that point clear.  Read his article at the link above.</div><div><br /></div><div>-- SS</div><div></div>

American Medical News: Dangers of "EHR Sloppy and Paste"

An American Medical News (amednews.com) article by Kevin O'Reilly appeared entitled "EHRs: 'Sloppy and paste' endures despite patient safety risk."It addresses the dangers of a common feature of EHR's…

Đọc thêm »

04 Feb 2013

New York Times: "In Second Look, Few Savings From Digital Health Records", and AMA Med News on EHR Harms

This post should perhaps be entitled <i>"I told you so."</i><br /><br />A letter I wrote in response to the Wall Street Journal's "<a class="" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431432273870909.html">A Health-Tech Monopoly</a>", Feb. 11, 2009 was <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492035330205101.html">published</a> Feb. 18,  2009 under the header <span style="font-weight: bold;">Digitizing Medical Records May Help, but It's Complex</span>.<br /><br />I wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Dear Wall Street Journal,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I have a different view on who is deceiving whom. In fact, <b>it is the government that has been deceived by the HIT industry and its pundits.</b> Stated directly, the administration is deluded about the true difficulty of making large-scale health IT work. <b>The beneficiaries will largely be the IT industry and IT management consultants.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <b>The government has bought the IT magic bullet exuberance hook, line and sinker.</b><br /><br /><b>I can only hope patients get something worthwhile for the $20 billion.</b><br /><br />Scot Silverstein, M.D.<br /><i>Faculty, Biomedical Informatics</i><br /><i>Drexel University Institute for Healthcare Informatics</i><br /><i>Philadelphia</i></blockquote><br />I also had penned essays on the need for a moratorium on HITECH (Nov. 2008, "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/11/should-us-call-moratorium-on-ambitious.html" target="_blank">Should The U.S. Call A Moratorium On Ambitious National Electronic Health Records Plans?</a>" and Jan. 2009, "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-ask-again-should-us-call-moratorium.html" target="_blank">I Ask Again: Should The U.S. Call A Moratorium On Ambitious National Electronic Health Records Plans?</a>").  My theme was that the issues with implementation of good health IT and elimination of bad health IT, and the issue of how to implement most efficiently, needed to be better understood before a national rollout.  Hold off multi-billion dollar national initiatives "<span style="font-weight: bold;">until we know how to get HIT right</span>", I wrote.<br /><br />Now the New York Times has this, citing a new RAND paper:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/electronic-records-systems-have-not-reduced-health-costs-report-says.html" target="_blank">In Second Look, Few Savings From Digital Health Records</a></b></span><br />By REED ABELSON and JULIE CRESWELL<br /><br />January 10, 2013<br /><br />The conversion to electronic health records <b>has failed so far to produce the hoped-for savings in health care costs and has had mixed results, at best, in improving efficiency and patient care,</b> according to a new analysis by the influential RAND Corporation.<br /><br />Optimistic predictions by RAND in 2005 helped drive explosive growth in the electronic records industry and encouraged the federal government to give billions of dollars in financial incentives to hospitals and doctors that put the systems in place.<br /><br />“We’ve not achieved the productivity and quality benefits that are unquestionably <span style="color: red;"><i><b>["unquestionably?" why?- ed.] </b></i></span> there for the taking,” said Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, one of the authors of a reassessment by RAND that was published in this month’s edition of Health Affairs, an academic journal.</blockquote><br />Noted is the provenance of the 2005 report that created the windfall for the electronic records industry:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">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.</blockquote><br />A retraction: <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The report predicted that widespread use of electronic records could save the United States health care system at least $81 billion a year, a figure <b>RAND now says was overstated.</b> The study was widely praised within the technology industry and <b>helped persuade Congress and the Obama administration to authorize billions of dollars in federal stimulus money in 2009 to help hospitals and doctors pay for the installation of electronic records systems ... </b>But evidence of significant savings is scant, and there is increasing  concern that electronic records <b>have actually added to costs</b> by making  it easier to bill more for some services.</blockquote><br />In my Feb. 2009 WSJ letter, I'd written that "<i>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.</i>"  It appears I was correct. <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />Officials at RAND said their new analysis did not try to put a dollar figure on how much electronic record-keeping had helped or hurt efforts to reduce costs. But the firm’s acknowledgment that its earlier analysis was overly optimistic adds to a chorus of concern about the cost of the new systems and the haste with which they have been adopted.</blockquote><br />Not mentioned are harms that bad health IT is creating.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The recent analysis was sharply critical of the commercial systems now in place, many of which are hard to use and do not allow doctors and patients to share medical information across systems. “<b>We could be getting much more if we could take the time to do a little more planning</b> and to set more standards,” said Marc Probst, chief information officer for Intermountain Healthcare, a large health system in Salt Lake City that developed its own electronic records system </blockquote><br />A "little more" planning?  How about several years' worth, to ensure the technologies are safe, effective and properly vetted, along with a system for post-market surveillance as exists in other healthcare sectors?<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Technology “is only a tool,” said Dr. David Blumenthal, who helped oversee the federal push for the adoption of electronic records under President Obama and is now president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health group. “Like any tool, it can be used well or poorly.” While there is strong evidence that electronic records can contribute to better care and more efficiency, Dr. Blumenthal said, the systems in place do not always work in ways that help achieve those benefits.</blockquote><br />Dr. Blumenthal seems to be triangulating from his <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-england-journal-on-meaningful-use.html" target="_blank">earlier 2010 NEJM statement that</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">... <span style="font-size: 100%;">The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States <span style="font-weight: bold;">is inevitable</span>. EHRs <b>will</b> improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they <b>will demand</b> nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have <b>already seen these benefits</b> in their clinical practice.</span></blockquote><br />Meantime, in the real world signs of my expressed concerns about a quagmire are appearing:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">... Late last year, a physician practice in Panama City, Fla., filed a lawsuit against the health care technology firm Allscripts after the company stopped supporting an electronic records system called MyWay that it had sold to 5,000 small-group physicians at a cost of $40,000 per physician. The lawsuit said that the system had problems and that the physician group was unable to meet the criteria for federal incentive money. A spokeswoman for Allscripts said it would defend itself vigorously.</blockquote><br />A clue as to the candidness of the new report: <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">... The new analysis was not sponsored by any corporations, said Dr. Kellermann, who added that some members of RAND’s health advisory board wanted to revisit the earlier analysis.</blockquote><br />Finally, this from the horse's mouth:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Dr. David J. Brailer, who was the nation’s first health information czar under President George W. Bush, said he still believed tens of billions of dollars could eventually be squeezed out of the health care system through the use of electronic records. <b>In his view, the “colossal strategic error” that occurred was a result of the Obama administration’s incentive program.</b></blockquote><br />I repeat my admonition from 2009 that <i>I can only hope patients get something worthwhile for the $20 billion</i>, which by now is probably many times that amount.<br /><br />Finally, I note the American Medical News cites me in a <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2013/01/14/prsa0114.htm" target="_blank">Jan. 14, 2013 article</a> as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">... Other experts on health IT said the Pennsylvania [PA Patient Safety Authority] study probably underestimates the extent of health IT safety problems. They say that is because the research is based on voluntary reports and that health professionals are unaware that a patient safety incident was caused by an EHR failure.<br /><br />“These systems are incredibly complex,” said Scot M. Silverstein, MD, a consultant in medical informatics at Drexel University in Philadelphia. “They’re not just huge filing cabinets, they are enterprise resource management systems. There are many ways that things can go wrong that may not be seen as the computer having caused the mess-up in the first place.”<br /><br />For example, he said, it would be difficult for a practicing physician to detect when data are missing from a record or that an alert failed to pop up.</blockquote><br />Yet the title of the article is "<a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2013/01/14/prsa0114.htm" target="_blank"><b>EHR-related errors soar, but few harm patients</b></a>" with a table at the bottom labeled "<b>How rarely EHR problems harm patients</b>." More evidence that EHRs always receive special accommodation.  <br /><br />I was an invited reviewer of the PA Patient Safety Authority report, and wrote about the major deficiencies of its dataset at my posts Dec. 13, 2012 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/12/pennsylvania-patient-safety-authority.html" target="_blank">Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority:  The Role of the Electronic Health Record in Patient Safety Events</a>" and a follow-up Dec. 19 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-very-signifcant-additonal-observation.html" target="_blank">A  Significant Additional Observation on the PA Patient Safety Authority Report -- Risk</a>."<br /><br />My major point was that one simply cannot know what one cannot know, when using a very incomplete dataset gathered in a setting of <b>systematic impediments to accuracy and completeness</b>.  For instance, as I wrote in those earlier posts, through my work I personally know of cases of harms up to and including death that should have been in the PA database, but apparently are not - and I'm just one person.<br /><br />We simply don't know in 2013 how many EHR errors harm patients, and the effects of increasing adoption by organizations and physicians less technology-able than current adopters.  I hope the magnitude of harms is truly small, but hope is not enough; this study and report was just a 'dipping of the toes into the water' towards understanding the realities.<br /><br />Incidentally, we also don't know how severely the known toxic effects of bad health IT might affect care in times of duress, e.g., an epidemic.  However, I am certainly not sanguine about EHRs in their present state as robustly facilitating national emergency preparedness.<br /><br />My dreaded prediction for the future?  A 2016 AMA News story entitled "<b>Known EHR-related harms soar</b>."<br /><br />-- SS

New York Times: "In Second Look, Few Savings From Digital Health Records", and AMA Med News on EHR Harms

This post should perhaps be entitled "I told you so."A letter I wrote in response to the Wall Street Journal's "A Health-Tech Monopoly", Feb. 11, 2009 was published Feb. 18, 2009 under the header Dig…

Đọc thêm »

15 Jan 2013

Load more posts