Archive for February, 2008

“Our patients, not my patients” – UNITE HERE Health Center, New York City

February 29th, 2008 | Popularity: 47%
0 comments | Leave a reply

The quote is from Abigail Chen, MD, who I shadowed yesterday as I was shown UNITE HERE’s implementation of the Ambulatory ICU (you can read more about the A-ICU concept here). Before I get to that though, I arrived in the morning with my usual level of interest in both seeing how patients benefit from health information technology and integrating into the flow of the medical center as unobtrusively as possible.

A few pictures (click on any to see full size). I have to admit I got caught up in learning about the team care concept and didn’t get as many photos as I wanted to. Next time!

Fortunately, Andrew Tzellas, MD, quickly slowed down my CPU and invited me into his team’s huddle for the morning. I was invited to have a seat next to Palmeras and Nancy, team experts on chronic disease management and coverage, and then joined by Jenny, the clinic coordinator, Andrew, and his medical assistant. As they started the huddle, Nancy printed off the day’s schedule and gave them to me so I knew what general issues the team was working on. Each patient in this ambulatory clinic was reviewed by the team across the spectrum – health status, disease management, social and coverage issues. A green tracking slip was pre-filled by Palmeras for each patient and added information about due health maintenance. Andrew and Jenny, each viewing the electronic health record, worked with the team to create the day’s plan. While this was happening, walkie talkies would announce patients’ arrival (I wasn’t paying attention to this, but Jenny pointed out that the whole team was). At one point, as Andrew was talking about the guidance for a particular patient, he said, “I can inform them about my, I mean, our feeling about this issue.” The transition from individual planning to group planning of care was apparent.

I sat in on the next huddle as well, this time for Abigail Chen, MD. Same flow. It reminded me a bit of being a third year medical student on my first rotation in medical school, when I walked into a functioning team (my first rotation was trauma surgery – that requires functioning!) and I was impressed with the cadence and “beat” of the group (or as they say in Japanese, takt). I could tell the teams had spent quite a bit of time forming the approach here.

UNITE HERE serves a very special population. From their web site:

UNITE (formerly the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union) merged on July 8, 2004 forming UNITE HERE. The union represents more than 450,000 active members and more than 400,000 retirees throughout North America.

 

UNITE HERE boasts a diverse membership, comprised largely of immigrants and including high percentages of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American workers. The majority of UNITE HERE members are women.

The Health Center itself is gorgeous, but it wasn’t so very recently. As I talked to staff, I learned about the transformation that has happened in the last 7 years, from a health center that sometimes served 100 patients on a Saturday with wait times several hours long, to a health center where customer service training is the norm, innovative approaches to chronic disease care are standard, and patients are treated with respect. I was told that staff were even trained using callers who role-played actual patients to ensure that each patient was treated with courtesy. That’s an impressive commitment.

I was able to shadow a patient of Abigail’s, where she of course used the Health Center’s state of the art electronic health record, (Centricity, manufactured by General Electric). In the course of the visit, Abigail ordered some screening lab tests for the patient and took the time to explain the purpose of each, in Spanish, the patient’s native language. The patient was immediately referred at the end of the visit for teaching about pre-diabetes, which was performed by medical assistants, all specially trained in a variety of health topics. Great care was placed in involving the entire team in the care, as the quote at the top of the post states, and from my observation, this busy medical center had a more relaxed feel, or at least a feel that everyone was accountable to each patient together. This coordination did not come overnight – it came with support from leaders who encouraged innovation, and in my view of outcomes in the waiting room (where are were publicly posted), it’s working.

In the background of all of this, where does patient centered health information technology fit in? UNITE HERE has a state of the art electronic health record. They are preparing to launch a patient portal which will include staff messaging and other features that are being developed now. Unlike Urban Health Plan, there is not a big pediatric population, and there is a clear emphasis on chronic disease management, team care, and a further emphasis on diabetes. The Health Center is already innovating to provide patient-centered care, which is a prerequisite for success in implementing patient-centered health information technology. One of the tenets is “from the board room to the bedside.” In this health center, the board room is just around the corner, so it’s easy to cycle through improvements rapidly. This is the advantage of the small practice over the integrated delivery system – the risk of ideas not counting (or worse, being wasted) is less.

I have not previously seen a patient portal launched off of a Centricity system, so this experience should be valuable both in the population being served and the technology being used. For a health system working to attract Union members across industries and across the geography of New York City, this will add another great reason to choose this team.

This brings the number of patient accessible EHRs coming on line in New York City to three – Institute for Family Health, Urban Health Plan (Part of the Primary Care Information Project), and now UNITE HERE. All will add significant information to the conversation about patient access in a diversity of populations. This is the real thing, and they are all going to do an excellent job, and we’ll be helping along the way. Congratulations to all of the patients in these three leading health systems.

Thank you again to Karen Nelson, MD, MPH, the patients, staff, and physicians at UNITE HERE for the gift of their time and (some of) their knowledge. There is a lot to learn here.

Addition 2/29/08: One thing I forgot to mention that’s really important is the fact that I only shadowed one patient. The reason why is because the team appropriately asked for explicit consent from other patients who stated their preference to not have an observed visit. This is a marker of respect for the patient, because the consent is asked as a question, and the answer is listened to. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that at every site we have visited, at least one patient declines having an observer. What that says to me is that we are at a place where the patient is at the center of care.

Photo Friday: Harris Teeter and Advertising in the Capital

February 29th, 2008 | Popularity: 36%
0 comments | Leave a reply

I like how the advertising is different here, and I pay attention to advertising because it says something about the people who live here, and what can I say, I like to live in a place where people make things happen. In Seattle, advertising is more lifestyle oriented. Here it is more policy oriented, and I snapped a few shots of my favorite car company who are apparently doing a metro station “domination” (that’s the word the execs use) at Union Station, much as Kaiser Permanente did a very nice domination of Powell Street BART over the holidays (with a very cool nod to Kaiser Permanente’s excellence in supporting diversity).

The fun part is figuring out what’s behind this and what policy issue might be up for grabs that would make Toyota want to impress their commitment to the U.S. economy at this time. If anyone in the know knows, feel free to post a comment.

I’m adding one photo of the brand new Harris Teeter that’s about to open in my neighborhood. Apparently artsy photos are popular among the DC Flickr crowd. It’s a Web2.0 thing I guess.

Toyota posters

Toyota posters

Harris Teeter Kalorama

Patient-driven interoperability is promising;Consumers want access to their own health information (Deloitte)

February 28th, 2008 | Popularity: 22%
0 comments | Leave a reply

PCHIT links for February 26th through February 27th:

A few more hoshin kanri tools; Common Examples of HIT Failure; Infamous Chartjunk

February 28th, 2008 | Popularity: 62%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Our National Webcast on using Toyota Management System In HIT and across the enterprise

February 27th, 2008 | Popularity: 25%
0 comments | Leave a reply

I come from a leadership heritage that says, “help others be successful,” so I jumped at the chance to bring two great business partners (Karl Hoover, Executive Director of Quality&Informatics, and Lee Fried, Senior LEAN Consultant) together to conduct a national event on Group Health Cooperative’s work implementing the Toyota Management System across the enterprise. It was fun, and Lee and Karl are always great to listen to (as well to work with).

I attached two slides to the right which are around my contribution to the work, which dramatically changed the way we develop and maintain a statewide electronic health record with linked personal health record. The work was a lot of fun and very challenging at times (which is normal for a LEAN transformation, many peaks and valleys). I like challenges like this in what you learn about yourself in the process. One thing I learned about myself is that I am not afraid to work with people who are smarter than me (Karl and Lee as an example). It’s an attribute I have always looked for in other leaders, and I am happy I developed it, too.

Enjoy.

PCHIT Personas: Special Report

February 27th, 2008 | Popularity: 21%
2 comments

Note: This post was previously published, but is being reposted today to tie together the special report, which is now published on this site in its entirety. To see all of the parts together, click on this link.

Welcome

Tyriece, Lisa, and Ted...in the background

Tyriece, Lisa, and Ted Eytan, MD, Belair-Edison Clinic, Baltimore Medical System

This is a compendium of personas in our health care delivery system. It’s designed to inform individuals and organizations interested in increasing patient and family involvement in all aspects of care, and has been specifically commissioned by the funders of PCHIT.

At the current time, it is estimated that between 3 and 10 % of Americans have access to their care teams through personal health records (PHR). Also at the current time, there are a host of organizations and individuals working to increase this percentage.

Besides being a compendium of organizational personas, Profiles is also an interim status report on the PCHIT initiative. As such, it has a PDCA format.

Plan

PCHIT Sequence

PCHIT starts at the level of the patient-physician relationship and moves outward

A way to visually consider where PCHIT is focusing its efforts is through adaptation of the “Sequence of HIT Adoption” model proposed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (see Electronic Health Records Still Not Routine Part of Medial Practice, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation).

Our plan was to spend time in a cross section of health care, observing the patient-physician interaction. PCHIT was designed to look at factors present in different care environments at the level of the patient-physician interaction. This is based on the concept of Genchi-Genbutsu. This concept is so central to the design of this initiative that we are including an explanation of it here:

First of all, gen means actuality or reality. When we look at the word gen-ba, it means the actual place. In the terms of manufacturing, we can loosely translate this to mean where the work is done. Why is this meaningful? It is not until we understand the other gen words that this begins to make sense.

Second is gen-butsu. Butsu means, the condition of the thing. In terms of manufacturing and considering the word gen-ba, we ask ourselves, “what are the conditions of things in the workplace, where the work is actually done?” The things we are looking for? The condition of the design, the quality, the process, the people, the methods, the equipment, etc. When we think of genba and genbutsu, we are looking to see if the conditions of our standards are deviating in the workplace. This forms the basis for standardization of all aspects in the business.

Third is gen-jitsu. The actual situation. We are looking for facts so that we may understand the gap between reality and standard. We are not looking for what it should be, we know that. We are looking for actual situations, or the facts. This helps us begin to dig for the actual root cause.

If we only consider the standards we tend to sit in a meeting room wondering why the equipment, the people, the materials and processes don’t meet standards. The only way to truly know, is to go to the actual workplace, observe the actual conditions and collect the facts. This leads to true understanding of reality. Otherwise our solutions we invent in the meeting room are for problems that are not really happening in the workplace. This is the reason why problem solving begins with the saying, “go and see for yourself, in the workplace where the work is actually happening.”

We weighted our interest toward organizations with emerging health information technology initiatives, as opposed to mature, or no health information technology initiatives.

We weighted our interest toward organizations serving diverse populations, including under-insured, safety-net, and minority populations (inclusive of federal protected classes as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals).

We weighted our interest toward organizations situated geographically in areas served by our sponsors, including New York, California, and District of Columbia.

Kaiser Permanente, a sponsor of this effort, is used here as a benchmark, given its maturity in patient centered health informaiton technology. The same is true for Group Health Cooperative.

Do

Over the next several days, we’ll publish our “Persona” description for key stakeholders in the implementation of patient centered health information technology.

We chose to use the persona concept, established in user interface enginering – you can read a little bit about it here.

Comments are Welcome

Your additional experience, expressed by adding comments on each page of interest, are welcomed

PCHIT Personas: Vulnerable Population

February 27th, 2008 | Popularity: 43%
0 comments | Leave a reply

In many, if not all, of the sites we visited, the question of disparate access to PCHIT was raised. The same question has been raised with regard to EHR’s as well. In its report, the Expert Consensus Panel (see Electronic Health Records Still Not Routine Part of Medial Practice, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 3:27):

(The Expert Consensus Panel) has identified racial and ethnic minority patients and low-income or publicly insured patients as the two highest priority patient populations

The PCHIT Initiative broadens this view of vulnerable populations to include those with documented disparities including but not limited to individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. An additional vulnerable population of interest are returning soldiers (see: Longitudinal Assessment of Mental Health Problems Among Active and Reserve Component Soldiers Returning From the Iraq War).

Available data about Internet access contradicts conventional wisdom

Charts: Click on any to see full size (Sources: Benchmarking Digital Inclusion, ITIF, and Estabrook L, Witt E, Rainie L. Information Searches that solve problems. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2007)

In a review of the literature related to Internet use among vulnerable populations, we discovered that commonly held beliefs about use and access are not true. Even at the lowest educational and income levels, Internet use approaches 60 %, where it was only 10-30 % in 2001.

The following studies shed additional light on this issue:

A more sensitive indicator of patient access to electronic health records is likely to be online banking (see this post on that topic), because online banking requires confidence and convenience as well as access to be successful.

Income And Online Banking 2007.003Online banking use and income level, from Online Shopping, Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2008

East Boston NHC, Administrative Building

East Boston Community

Patient-centered HIT applications do not necessarily require use of a computer on the consumer’s end. For example, a mobile phone may be the most effective vehicle for certain populations, whether the information coming to them is in the form of an automated phone call (which can be delivered in multiple languages), a text message (such as for medication reminders), or a more sophisticated combination of audio, graphics and video. A variety of strategies are profiled in a recent report published by the Georgetown Health Policy Institute’s Center for Children and Families (see Health Information Technology: Innovative Applications for Medicaid).

Outside of patient access to computers or the Internet, there are opportunities

Some analysts shortchange vulnerable populations by suggesting that language barriers, the digital divide, or health literacy pose insurmountable obstacles to effective PHR adoption. Perhaps no population faces a greater panoply of barriers–including Spanish as primary language, health literacy, access to computers and the Internet, geographic challenges, and a lack of care continuity–than migrant farm workers. The tool, MiVia, has demonstrated that PHRs can be effective tools when appropriate accommodations are made, such as using community health workers to help facilitate PHR adoption.

As we consider patient-centered health information technology, the definition should be broadened beyond personal health records, to any technology that provides the benefits and impacts of patient access. These impacts accrue whenever the health system is accountable to those it serves, by providing them the information they generate about them, whether in paper, computer or smart card form.

Unresolved issues

  • It is unclear how pervasive the conventional wisdom of the “digital divide” is, and if there are related factors that would bias toward inaction even if the data were better understood for populations studied (ethnicity, income, education)
  • For populations that are less well studied (e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, returning soldiers), the impact of provision of access to PCHIT in safety net environments is also unknown. With limited funding available to study sexual minority populations, for example, disparities may only be exacerbated in an environment of HIT without PCHIT.

Countermeasures

In 2008, we are emphasizing safety net providers and vulnerable populations in PCHIT work. We are providing the technical assistance of a knowledgeable medical informaticist and patient empowerment advocate to demonstrate the impact of PCHIT in a vulnerable population. We would also like to spend some effort in packaging this data and presenting it in leadership forums. Ted Eytan did this recently for the District of Columbia Primary Care Association, where it was well received (see Presentation to DCPCA, December 18, 2007), as well as on a recent event at Urban Health Plan, in Bronx, New York (see: “We did it! Thanks Affinity Health Plan and Urban Health Plan!“)

Unite HERE!

Ways to Engage

In addition to working with health care and IT leadership on promoting PCHIT as part of HIT, it would be valuable to engage with patients themselves. In 2008, we are hoping to shadow a patient who is part of a vulnerable population as they manage chronic disease. This will most likely happen on our trip to Sonoma, California, in March, 2008.

PCHIT Personas: Safety Net Provider

February 27th, 2008 | Popularity: 30%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Sites visited

Union Square Family Health

Union Square Family Health Center, Somerville, MA

An Emphasis of PCHIT

As others studying health information technology adoption have pointed out, the populations served by these providers are of concern, and are being emphasized in this initiative. There is a focused description of the populations we are interested in and disparities in this report (see Persona: Vulnerable population).

There are multiple ways of identifying safety net providers (see Electronic Health Records Still Not Routine Part of Medial Practice, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). Our work focused primarily on community health centers, which are estimated to serve about one in eight uninsured patients. Within CHC’s themselves, about 75 percent of patients are uninsured or on Medicaid.

In terms of adoption of EHRs, there is comparability to physicians in general, with a trend toward lower adoption for physicians with a higher percentage of medicaid patients. There is no comparable data for PHR implementation, unfortunately.

Resilient and Creative

Each safety net provider we visited, sometimes on the same day we visited a non-safety net provider, showed a different light onto health care. This was especially true for a physician accustomed to leading in a multispecialty group with commercial contracts (Ted).

The expectation might have been extreme resource constraint without ability to innovate in health information technology. However, we found organizations that are as technologically savvvy as their non-safety net peers, in an environment where 92% of community health centers nationally do not have electronic health records. This group has access to novel ways of financing improvement (in particular, a limited supply of grants, depending on the region, see Remarks to the National Association of Community Health Centers, HRSA Administrator Elizabeth M. Duke) and many that we visited have state of the art electronic health record systems.

However, few of the organizations above have implemented a personal health record yet. Cambridge Health Alliance was in the process of implementing theirs when I visited in November and has begun a pilot since. Institute for Family Health is about to begin its pilot in New York. At the same time, in conversation with providers and in some cases, patients at these locations, there was a general welcoming of the concept of patient access to the electronic health record, even in a multi-lingual care environment.

Dr. Davis and Dr. Isles using the electronic health record

Dr.’s Davis and Isles, Belair-Edison Clinic, Baltimore Medical System

We learned about the financing model of safety-net providers that makes them ideal care providers in the communities they serve. Specifically, rates of reimbursement for in-person visits may be higher for federally qualified health centers. This environment is changing though, based on health reform efforts underway in states like Massachusetts.

At the same time, current models focus care provision on a physical visit. At La Clinica de La Raza, for example, I attended a celebration of the achievement of a milestone in number of encounters in a particular month. The celebration was a testament to the hard work and will of staff to support the organization’s viability. At the same time, there will be challenges to introduce non-visit based care if the unit of reimbursement is the in person visit.

“Uninsured” does not equal “Uninformed”

An impressive and reassuring finding in observations was that patients receiving care in these environments are getting informed about their care via various means, including the Internet, and are open to connecting with their providers this way. As a patient at Berkeley Primary Care told me, “I want my doctors to meet me half way.” Seeking care among multiple providers in the community with disjointed communication between them is perceptible information gaps for patients who have reduced abilities to tolerate fragmented care.

These information gaps are being addressed by consulting with others in the community, or by becoming disempowered in the care relationship. We saw examples of both, which were displeasing to both physician and patient. In these situations, patients may not be discussing these feelings with their providers in the exam room unless asked, which I also observed.

A recent study measured oncologists’ recognition of empathetic opportunities and found response to these to be low (22 percent with “continuer” statements) (see Pollak KI, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, et al. Oncologist Communication About Emotion During Visits With Patients With Advanced Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5748-52). This finding, among a group of terminally ill patients, may be as relevant for members of vulnerable populations who provide empathetic opportunities to their care system to “meet them half way” through improved interaction and information about their care.

EHR deployments are without PHR deployments

A concerning trend we noticed was the assumption that an EHR deployment in this context should not include patient access or patient-centric health information tool deployment.

More than one individual in safety net environments expressed the following sentiment in our travels: “PHRs won’t work for this population, because of inaccessibility to computers/the Internet.” However, the data behind this assessment was hard to come by. The impact of statements like this, made in some cases from vendors of EHRs supporting these organizations, is that PHR deployment is not included in implementation plans. This is the case even when it is in other organizations’ rollout for the same product.

Our concern is that this is a significant missed opportunity and may result in the hastening of an exacerbation of differential HIT adoption and ultimately health disparities.

Observations and discussion with support staff again showed that there is more potential internet use and uptake than commonly believed. At a recent discussion hosted by the District of Columbia Primary Care Association, one clinic administrator said, “Whenever I walk into the waiting room, there is always someone using the computer (referring to a community-wide program to make computers available in local clinics),” and “we’ll never know if people will use this if we don’t set it up.”

No EHR deployments are planned in some, impact on physician recruitment?

La Clinica

Several safety net providers we visited have no EHR deployments planned at all, and I (Ted) witness varying degrees of discomfort with this situation, based on previous use of EHRs by staff physicians. Those that had direct use of EHRs in their past appeared more eager to adopt the technology. Bina Patel, MD, at La Clinic de La Raza lamented that when she chose to move to California to practice in a CHC, she interviewed at 7 different organizations only to find that she would have to practice on paper at each of them. A situation like this has the potential to impact future recruitment of young physicians to these environments. There are California CHCs that are implementing EHRs, such as Redwood Community Health Coalition (see Network of Community Health Centers Utilizes Electronic Medical Records System, Patient Portal and Electronic Health eXchange to Improve Patient Care).

An EHR is not a prerequisite, though

We discovered that having an EHR is not a prerequisite for using Patient Centered Health Information Technology. Prior to rollout of its EHR, pharmacists at Whitman Walker Clinic in Washington, DC are using freely available web tools such as MedactionPlan.com to prepare visual medication regimens for their patients. It is therefore possible to begin using tools that inform and activate patients in their care, very economically, and at a level comparable to EHR-equipped institutions.

Queens Health Network in New York City also demonstrates this idea through the use of smart cards, that patients can carry to providers without EHR’s, but with an inexpensive card reader that plugs into any PC.

Unresolved Issues

  • Impact of reimbursement model on forward movement
  • Awareness of digital divide issues
  • Place of PHR deployment alongside EHR deployment – disparities in implementation plans between safety net and non-safety net providers is of concern
  • Impact of disparities in technology use on recruitment of physicians in these environments
  • Opportunities to implement patient-accessible HIT outside of an EHR implementation

Countermeasures

IMG_0102.JPG

Provider collaborating using a state of the art electronic health record, East Boston Neighborhood Health Center, Boston,MAk

We plan to continue a focus on these organizations in 2008. Our next site, Urban Health Plan, in New York City, has a functioning EHR and is planning to rollout an associated PHR. We are working to arrange co-visitation with its payer, to explore financing models “on the shop floor.” In addition, we are separately preparing information about digital disparities, and are actively engaging with safety-net organizations that are implementing EHR’s now (see DC Primary Care Association – Improving Access and Quality using health information technology) or are about to implement PHR’s (Institute for Family Health) in the interest of changing perceptions in this community of care organizations.

Ways to Engage

At the current time, there are several organizations with active EHR programs with an interest in PHR deployment, and we will continue to work with them (Institute for Family Health, Urban Health Plan, Cambridge Health Alliance). It seems most appropriate to spend time studying their experience and generalizing to other similar providers. Conversations with payers as part of this engagement would also be useful.

A Different Kind of Patient Access to HIT at Queens Health Network

February 26th, 2008 | Popularity: 34%
0 comments | Leave a reply

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was beckoned to the borough Queens, NY, shortly after my presentation at the United Hospital Fund. Despite the snow, the trip wasn’t that difficult (in fact, Rachel’s advice to stop and get shoe covers made all the difference in the world).

It was, of course, well worth the trip. I came to Elmhurst Hospital Center, part of Queens Health Network, where they have been using smart card technology to enable better patient care.

First, pictures (click on any to see full size):

As the images show, patient ID cards for the network have embedded smart chips in them that store 64K worth of information, in read-only format. A new version is being rolled out that will store 128K worth of information and be read-write. Given that 22 different languages are spoken by the borough’s 3 million residents, it is easy to see that having a portable version of a medically-understandable health record could be useful. The Network has outfitted local emergency rooms with card readers.

In an innovative program with the Queens Library, patients will be able to access card readers there to see what is on their smart card. What I was shown was a concise clinical summary of health care activity, that included medications, recent tests, and ongoing medical conditions. I could imagine how this could reduce the stress of relaying a person’s medical history to a new doctor or a doctor in an emergency situation. Within the hospital, the patients’ records are available on a state of the art electronic health record; the card is just for portability. Outside of the emergency room environment, a PIN code is used to access the data.

The commitment is there to make this work. Clinics have machines that generate the special ID cards. Card readers are attached at key points in the clinical workflow to ensure updating of the latest information from the EHR. Challenges remain, including making sure that updating of the card occurs at every visit. We did not discuss in detail the impact of a read/write card, and how that would bring data back to the Health and Hospitals’ Corporation electronic health record.

During my visit I was also shown Queens Health Network’s work to improve chronic disease care using registry systems linked to their electronic health record, by Rand David, MD. They have made significant gains in the last 5 years in both process and outcome measures for diabetes, which is what I was shown. Alfred Marino, Glenn Martin, MD, and Amelia Shapiro, are the team working on the smart card piece, in addition to several operations leaders who are integrating this into the workflow. Besides the interest in the technology, they have an interest in the distinct attributes of the population they are working to serve, which came across very clearly to me.

What strikes me as very interesting about this idea is that it supports a simple and “interoperable” health record that is under patients’ physical control. In my own work, I had not considered the value of a smart card linked to our electronic health record, but why not? If it improves the comfort with which a patient is able to seek care, especially in a multicultural community, I think this could fill an important niche.

There are definitely challenges regarding workflow and community support of this program, which are both being actively worked on. The work of Queens Health is a very nice demonstration that patient access to their own health information is not just about having Web or Internet access, and it can make a difference in supporting good health care.

New York Business Group on Health at United Hospital Fund

February 26th, 2008 | Popularity: 33%
1 comment
United Hospital Fund

United Hospital Fund, Empire State Building, New York City

On our last day in New York City, Rachel and the United Hospital Fund arranged for a presentation on patient-centered health information technology to the New York Business Group on Health, at UHF-NYC headquarters in the Empire State Building.

As I do with most presentations, I started with a thought provoking question, and this day’s was “When was the last time you looked at your medical record?” The responses, as expected, were extremely varied. Most had never seen their medical record, or seen it in disconnected parts. There were some answers that went like this: “I have seen my claims data in a PHR, but not my medical record.” I thought it was interesting that people were able to differentiate between claims data and a medical record.

At the same time I said, “I wouldn’t be here talking about this if I didn’t think you could do it,” and I meant it. As I posted previously, New York is having great success implementing EHR’s through their PCIP project, and are about to add patient access to these systems. A strong purchaser community can bring the next level of integration – that of a wellness ecosystem.

Several audience members pointed out, accurately, that there are things that can be done in an integrated health system that cannot be done in a dis-integrated one. At the same time, there was sharing of some innovative projects that are happening in the health plan community as well as the purchaser community. I left as impressed with the possibilities as I was when I came.

When I looked out the window at the brewing snowstorm at the end of my talk, Rachel reminded me, “You’re still going to Queens.” Of course I was, and I’m glad I did. More on that in the next post.