Oy. I didn’t read your whole post, plunged into the PHR Workgroup site instead of the one you cited for conversation, then complained about being in the wrong room.

Another existence proof: not everything a patient says is inherently useful.

Back later!

I’d just post a comment on the first posting on phrdecisions.com. As good a place as any.

Mark,

Appreciate the feedback, and the central question: Does this work foster innovation? All of us on the workgroup are there because we want to make sure it does. We’ll look forward to your opinion when you see the draft criteria. I think you are in a good position to provide an informed one given all of your experience – thanks for taking an interest in this and for following along here,

Ted

At the risk of imprecisely repeating myself, I couldn’t find where to do that.

If I’d dug I might have found it, but I’d say I’m an existence proof that some people can’t see where to start, if they want to pitch in (or even suggest posting the definition).

Great web site and wonderful postings.

Thinking about the attributes of certification and their properties seems like a good idea.Who can’t be interested in the potential for robust personal health records?

Certifying PHRs is, in my view, premature. Should there be great concern over privacy and data use? Absolutely! Should other important properties of health information be addressed through legislation and policy? Of course. But certifying a PHR in this early period is a bit like certifying PCs before high-speed internet was prevalent or certifying Web apps before Netscape, Amazon, RealAudio, and Web 2.0? Can you imagine what a blow certification can do to innovation?

CCHIT was formed to assure ambulatory practitioners that their products would meet certain criteria and not leave them in the lurch. It’s right out of the Thompson / Brailer report. Now CCHIT is busy certifying all kinds of things for which we as a society have not yet created a collective understanding. Unnecessary complexity – and unnecessary and premature certification – cripples innovation.

What we need at this critical juncture is more innovation within a loose framework of privacy protection and secondary data use.

Just my two cents’

We both know you are far from foolish….

I suggest you comment right on the site. CCHIT is working to include patient participation and your wisdom will be welcomed and very helpful, just like it is here,

Ted

And I would humbly encourage you to encourage lay participation by prominently posting that definition on the CCHIT PHR site.

I looked around for a place to add my 2c worth someday, and found the nice PARTICIPATE link at the top, but it took me out of the PHR subsite to the rather industrial-formal-sounding Public Comment page. Great for people who are in the standards game, but not too inviting for lay “geek wannabes.”

Okay back to work with me…

Thanks for the update on CCHIT’s PHR timeline. I expect the PHR Certification process will bring credibility and clarification to this area, much as it did for the EHR field.

Thanks,

Jim Tate
jimtate@emradvocate.com