healthy4u: Deborah Peel

The healthcare executive-targeted journal "<a href="http://www.modernhealthcare.com/" target="_blank">Modern Healthcare</a>" has named Dr. Ross Koppel, Dr. Deborah Peel, Dr. Larry Weed, and yours truly as "healthcare IT iconoclasts."  Dr. William Bria corroborated the importance of iconoclasty in this domain. (I would rather see the term "defender of patient's rights" rather then "iconoclast", but I'll settle for the latter if it gets the message out.) Author Joe Conn writes: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... health IT has long had its critics, even among its pioneers and proponents, as these four prominent health IT iconoclasts will attest. All four consider themselves to be proponents of health IT, but they rail against a tide of health IT boosterism. Their targets: misplaced priorities, failing to promote EHR usability and interoperability, inadequate concern for patient safety and privacy, overemphasizing EHR adoption, understating IT costs and overestimating the return on public IT investments. </blockquote> He then profiles the four. On Univ. of Pennsylvania professor and industry punching-bag Dr. Ross Koppel: <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Researcher Ross Koppel started an uproar in 2005 when he and a colleague coauthored an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found a first-generation computerized physician order entry system (CPOE) at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania was simultaneously creating new errors even as it reduced others. Koppel’s bombshell—he’s now an adjunct professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania— brought down the wrath of information technology boosters. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, a health IT trade group, challenged the study’s “methodology and its subsequent outcomes,” and criticized its authors for their “limited view” and not “looking at the big picture.” ... In 2009, he revealed in another JAMA article that health IT vendors’ contracts included “hold harmless” clauses that shielded software developers from legal liability for medical errors their systems caused, even if the developers had been warned about the defects. “That got me major upheaval,” the worst of his career, Koppel recalls.</blockquote> On privacy advocate, psychiatrist Dr. Deborah Peel (no relation to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Peel" target="_blank">Emma Peel</a>, although there are similarities in the "has guts" department): <blockquote class="tr_bq">“Let’s face it,” Peel says, “HHS is the agency that eliminated patient control over electronic medical records and has remained hostile to patients’ rights ever since.” Days before the 2002 revision [HHS redraft of the privacy rule of the HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] went into effect, a group of patients calling themselves Citizens for Health, and more than dozen other plaintiffs, including Peel, sued HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson in federal court, alleging the revisions violated patients’ constitutional rights to privacy. They lost at both the trial and appeals-court levels and were denied a hearing on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006. Peel launched the not-for-profit Patient Privacy Rights Foundation in 2003. ... “Where I’m coming from is, I’ve spent all this time in a profession with people being hurt,” Peel says. “Starting in the 1970s, when I first let out my shingle, people came to me and said, if I paid you in cash, would you keep my records private. Now, we’ve got a situation where you don’t even know where all your records are. We don’t have a chain of custody for our data, or have a data map” to track its location. </blockquote>  On SOAP-note and Medical Informatics pioneer Dr. Larry Weed: <blockquote class="tr_bq">It’s a rotten system,” declares Dr. Lawrence Weed, who at age 89 is the dean of healthcare information technology iconoclasts. Weed isn’t disparaging any particular brand of electronic health record system. A dismissive “they’re inadequate” would fairly well cover a Weed-guided tour of today’s EHR systems. “People don’t get the general picture,” he says. “It’s broken. It’s basically an unsound system.” By that he means the entire healthcare system, but not because its providers are using faulty information technology, but because they’re using IT the wrong way, at least in part. ... In 1984, to help physicians cope [with the knowledge explosion], Weed developed a computer-based, diagnostic support system he called the problem-knowledge coupler. The software company he founded, but is no longer with, PKC, now part of Sharecare, still sells the system. Weed still proselytizes with fervor, calling for the use of computers to store, retrieve and apply medical knowledge.</blockquote> On me: <blockquote class="tr_bq">The title of Dr. Scot Silverstein’s teaching website at Drexel University, “Contemporary Issues in Medical Informatics: Good Health IT, Bad Health IT, and Common Examples of Healthcare IT Difficulties,” [<a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/" target="_blank">link</a>] summarizes the veteran physician informaticist’s general outlook on the current state of affairs in health information technology. It tells you nothing, however, of the passion with which Silverstein speaks or writes about the subject. Also a frequent contributor to the popular reformist “Healthcare Renewal” blog, Silverstein writes with the fire you might expect coming from a self-described computer geek who says he has witnessed a faulty electronic health-record system mysteriously drop a single medication from a patient’s medication list. That missing drug led to a medical error that resulted in a year of suffering and, eventually, that patient’s death, he says. Silverstein’s passion is even more understandable when he tells you that patient was the doctor’s own mother. ... The health IT world, Silverstein says, parts neatly between “good IT” and “bad IT.” There are those who push hard for the good and complain about the bad, physicians and other clinicians he calls “pragmatic,” and for whom he has sympathy and respect. And then there are those who stay silent, ignoring or acquiescing to the bad, the “hyper-enthusiasts” for whom he holds only unmitigated scorn. “The doctors who don’t speak up about health IT, who work around it, which can cause its own bad results, those are traitors to the oath they took to first do no harm,” he says. “Physicians are still being accused of being Luddites for not adopting this stuff,” Silverstein says. “Physicians are not Luddites. When it’s good IT, it’s used. I see the tension now between hyper-enthusiasts, who turn a blind eye to the negatives, and pragmatic physicians and nurses who have work to do.”</blockquote> Finally, Dr. William Bria, longtime president of the Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems (<a href="http://www.amdis.org/" target="_blank">AMDIS</a>) sums up the article this way: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... When it comes to the criticism, “the one thing we can’t do with this information is to ignore it." “Many, many technologies have come and gone in the history of medicine over the centuries, and it often has been a maverick physician that has called a timeout on ineffective medications or treatments. “There is little question that, going forward, medicine will be using information tools,” Bria says. “However, I believe it’s becoming also very apparent that we need a modulation and a proper regulation of information technologies used in day-to-day care.” </blockquote> Amen to that. The article is available <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/IT_Iconoclasts.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. -- SS

Modern Healthcare: "Health IT Iconoclasts"

The healthcare executive-targeted journal " Modern Healthcare " has named Dr. Ross Koppel, Dr. Deborah Peel, Dr. Larry Weed, and y...

Đọc thêm »

At <a href="http://www.economist.com/">The Economist</a>, an online "debate" entitled Health 2.0 has been posted (<a href="http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/189">link</a>). It poses a debate between two experts. In this case, the debate is between Peter Neupert, Corporate vice-president, Microsoft Health Solutions Group, vs. Deborah Peel, MD, Founder, Patient Privacy Rights and leader of the Coalition for Patient Privacy. The readers are asked to vote upon whether they agree or disagree with this statement: <blockquote>This house believes that any loss of privacy from digitising health care will be more than compensated for by the welfare gains from increased efficiency.</blockquote>Note the phrase "will be." Readers are also permitted to post comments. My response was as follows: <div style="height: auto;" class="text"><blockquote>30/11/2010 19:16:26 pmDear Sir, The premise of this entire debate is logically fallacious, in fact begging the question. This statement implies proven or inevitable "gains" from health IT. This is far from certain. Health IT such as electronic medical records systems and computerized order entry systems (CPOE) remain highly experimental medical devices. They are unregulated devices as well. Their effects on medical care can be toxic, and patients are exposed to these effects without informed consent. The "gains" attributed to them are increasingly doubted in a growing body of literature. See "Common examples of healthcare IT difficulties" at <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/">http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/</a> and "2009 a pivotal year in healthcare IT" at <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=2009" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=2009">http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc...</a> for exposure to some of this literature. In essence, management information systems and other business computing-derived approaches, customs and traditions for software design, development and lifecycle have proven ill suited in healthcare. Clinical computing and business computing are conflated; yet, they are two fundamentally different subspecialties of computing. Further, medicine is a scientific discipline, yet the approach to IT in healthcare has been nearly devoid of science and critical thinking. Sacrificing privacy for a dream that may or may not be true is not good social policy. In the aftermath of the latest Wikileaks disclosures, a scientific approach - such as assertions about the beneficence of IT in healthcare not being made without strong, robust scientific evidence and without consideration of the downside evidence not being proferred so freely - would be a fine start. S. Silverstein, MD Drexel University College of Information Science and Technology Philadelphia, PA USA.</blockquote> </div> I found the position of Peter Neupert (Corporate vice-president, Microsoft Health Solutions Group) defending the motion particularly concerning: <blockquote>Consumers must trust that the organisations they are engaged with are accountable and will respect—and protect—the privacy of their data. </blockquote>"Must trust?" I find this remarkable in the context of repeated violations of "trust" I've noted at this blog such as at my posts: <ul><li>"<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/02/networked-emrs-and-healthcare.html">Networked EMR's and Healthcare Information Security: Practical When Massive IT Security Breaches Continue</a>?",</li></ul><ul><li>"<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/02/networked-interoperable-secure-national.html">Networked, Interoperable, Secure National Medical Records a Castle in the Sky?</a>",</li></ul><ul><li>"<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/it-flaws-and-coverups-of-same-why-i.html">Operation Aurora And a Widespread Reluctance to Discuss IT Flaws: Is Universal Healthcare IT Really a Good Idea in 2010?</a>",</li></ul><ul><li>"<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/10/medical-data-breach-of-week-but-your.html">Medical data breach of the week - but your EMR data is secure, trust us, we're IT experts</a>", </li></ul><ul><li>"<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/11/insurers-test-data-profiles-to-identify.html">Insurers Test Data Profiles to Identify Risky Clients</a>",</li></ul><ul><li>and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/medical%20record%20privacy">others</a>.</li></ul> Neupert's view is especially paternalistic and naive in the context of Wikileaks repeatedly and recently leaking hundreds of thousands of supposedly secure documents, stolen from U.S. intelligence by at least one known person and probably others. If the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence cannot keep information secure, how can lowly hospital IT departments? The moderator's initial comments are also disturbing: <blockquote> ... Supporters argue that health information technologies have advanced to the point that such [security] concerns are vastly overblown. After all, do not financial data flow freely and with little incident over digital systems? On this argument, any loss of privacy will be more than offset by efficiency gains. In arguing for the motion, Peter Neupert of Microsoft, a software firm, insists that digital medicine must be centred on the patient—rather than, say, the doctor or the insurer, as is often the case today [this 'centered on the patient' meme sounds good, but what exactly does it mean? - ed.] —and that medical information must be as mobile as the patient. If that is the case, he argues, it is not merely the efficiency of health systems that will improve but also the value of health care—and perhaps health outcomes too. MR VIJAY V. VAITHEESWARAN Correspondent, The Economist </blockquote> Note the statements of absolute certainty - "will be more than offset by efficiency gains", "will improve", etc. They remind me of the statements made in the NEJM by the Director of ONC, Dr. David Blumenthal, as I wrote at "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-england-journal-on-meaningful-use.html">Science or Politics? The New England Journal and The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records</a>": <blockquote>The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice.</blockquote> On that I had commented: <blockquote>Even though it is a "perspectives" article, I once long ago learned that in writing in esteemed scientific journals of worldwide impact, statements of certainty were at best avoided, or if made should be exceptionally well referenced. I note the lack of footnotes showing the source(s) of these statements.</blockquote> The meme of technological determinism, that computerization in medicine is synonymous with, and will deterministically provide "improvements", no matter what the evidence, is quite concerning coming from a company as profoundly large and influential as Microsoft. Further, the complete omission of consideration of the adverse clinical consequences (let alone mere information breaches) that may occur along the way to cybernetic utopia in healthcare is very disturbing. These are experimental medical devices, are unregulated, and are used without patient informed consent. Yet the IT industry seems to opine as if these systems are only to be used on experimental lab rats. These systems produce "legible gibberish" of no clinical use to clinicians, but take clinician time to generate through distracting "clickorrhea." For example, just the placement of an IV and fluid infusion generates a half page of nonsense: <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtByU1K1iP0RfJ3rbrjuRw0u3T8ZCBTTqAfXkBy90OI3zTdxJoluEtGYTitYSFoZ5LncrGI-TYMjttrvxyE4fXyqWIkIl2wioDf80CBKScT4w8zRTmykrrQfb6ccVkjsmcSRBkMIkKQR_6/s1600/ed1a.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5548339448503998978" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtByU1K1iP0RfJ3rbrjuRw0u3T8ZCBTTqAfXkBy90OI3zTdxJoluEtGYTitYSFoZ5LncrGI-TYMjttrvxyE4fXyqWIkIl2wioDf80CBKScT4w8zRTmykrrQfb6ccVkjsmcSRBkMIkKQR_6/s320/ed1a.jpg" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 254px;" /></a>Actual "legible gibberish" from an ED EHR report, major health IT vendor. Half a page on how an IV was started and a saline infusion given. (How many distracting clinician mouse clicks did it take to produce this?) Click to enlarge. </div> Addendum 12/8/10 - From "<a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/589724">Hidden Malpractice Dangers in EMRs</a>", Steven I. Kern, Esq., Medscape.com:<h4></h4><blockquote><h4>Too Much Information</h4>... Pages of repetitive documentation can be more time-consuming to review than brief, handwritten notes. When important information is embedded in paragraphs of boilerplate, it can easily be overlooked. The chance of missing critical data increases.Overlooking important information is, of course, a significant cause of malpractice. A positive finding embedded in a string of negative findings can easily be missed. </blockquote> Ironically, my relative was injured as a result of EHR-related disruption not long ago. Further, just the initial two and a half weeks of hospitalization generated more than 2,800 laser printed pages of "legible gibberish" (which cost just under $1000 to obtain; Kinko's should only have it so good). A fellow physician I know well related: <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr">From: [redacted name of MD] </div> <div dir="ltr"> Good Lord! I am so sorry to see this and hope your Mom gets better. You must be furious. </div> <div dir="ltr"> May I add to the cacophony? My wife went to [another local hospital's] ER for emergency transfusion. Their Emr displayed someone else's info under her name & SSN. Had I not been there she would have received incorrect treatment. My wife went to [yet another hospital] for hip replacement. After surgery, while she slept off her anesthesia, a nurse came in and started injecting her. I asked and learned it was insulin. I stopped the nurse (with difficulty). My wife's not diabetic. Her screen showed someone else's orders. Had I not been there she might have died.</div> <div dir="ltr"> So keep up the good work... please! </div> <div dir="ltr"> </div> <div dir="ltr">[redacted name of MD]</div></blockquote> How many other patients have been injured or killed as a result of EHR's? In fact, we really don't know how many adverse events related to EHR's occur. As the Joint Commission itself admits in its Sentinel Events Alert #42, <a href="http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinel_event_alert_issue_42_safely_implementing_health_information_and_converging_technologies/">Safely implementing health information and converging technologies</a>: "There is a dearth of data on the incidence of adverse events directly caused by HIT overall." I further wrote on this issue in a paper "A Dearth of Data on Unintended Consequences of Healthcare IT" <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28747771/Remediating-an-Unintended-Consequence-of-Healthcare-IT-A-Dearth-of-Data-on-Unintended-Consequences-of-Healthcare-IT">here</a>. Is this a proper environment for national rollout of these clearly experimental medical devices, one should ask? The memes of technological determinism and health IT "white-as-driven-snow" beneficence seem as difficult as vampires to eradicate. Yet if this technology is to achieve the benefits of which it is capable via remediation of current IT industry customs, traditions and practices, these memes must be challenged and defeated. Regarding health IT in the real world, reality matters. -- SS

The Economist, Information Privacy, Microsoft, and Technological Determinism: An Online Debate

At The Economist , an online "debate" entitled Health 2.0 has been posted ( link ). It poses a debate between two experts. In th...

Đọc thêm »