Patient Health Information Exchange Research Articles

Asymmetric Interoperability as a Strategy Among Provider Group Health Information Exchange: Directional Analysis

High levels of seamless, bidirectional health information exchange continue to be broadly limited among provider groups despite the vast array of benefits that interoperability entails for patient care and the many persistent efforts across the health care ecosystem directed at advancing interoperability. As provider groups seek to act in their strategic best interests, they are often interoperable and exchange information in certain directions but not others, leading to the formation of asymmetries. We aimed to examine the correlation at the provider group level between the distinct directions of interoperability with regard to sending health information and receiving health information, to describe how this correlation varies across provider group types and provider group sizes, and to analyze the symmetries and asymmetries that arise in the exchange of patient health information across the health care ecosystem as a result. We used data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which included interoperability performance information for 2033 provider groups within the Quality Payment Program Merit-based Incentive Payment System and maintained distinct performance measures for sending health information and receiving health information. In addition to compiling descriptive statistics, we also conducted a cluster analysis to identify differences among provider groups-particularly with respect to symmetric versus asymmetric interoperability. We found that the examined directions of interoperability-sending health information and receiving health information-have relatively low bivariate correlation (0.4147) with a significant number of observations exhibiting asymmetric interoperability (42.5%). Primary care providers are generally more likely to exchange information asymmetrically than specialty providers, being more inclined to receive health information than to send health information. Finally, we found that larger provider groups are significantly less likely to be bidirectionally interoperable than smaller groups, although both are asymmetrically interoperable at similar rates. The adoption of interoperability by provider groups is more nuanced than traditionally considered and should not be seen as a binary determination (ie, to be interoperable or not). Asymmetric interoperability-and its pervasive presence among provider groups-reiterates how the manner in which provider groups exchange patient health information is a strategic choice and may pose similar implications and potential harms as the practice of information blocking has in the past. Differences in the operational paradigms among provider groups of varying types and sizes may explain their varying extents of health information exchange for sending and receiving health information. There continues to remain substantial room for improvement on the path to achieving a fully interoperable health care ecosystem, and future policy efforts directed at advancing interoperability should consider the practice of being asymmetrically interoperable among provider groups.

A Model for a Standardized and Sustainable Pediatric Anesthesia-Intensive Care Unit Hand-Off Process.

Background and Objectives: The hand-off process between pediatric anesthesia and intensive care unit (ICU) teams involves the exchange of patient health information and plays a major role in reducing errors and increasing staff satisfaction. Our objectives were to (1) standardize the hand-off process in children’s ICUs, and (2) evaluate the provider satisfaction, efficiency and sustainability of the improved hand-off process. Methods: Following multidisciplinary discussions, the hand-off process was standardized for transfers of care between anesthesia-ICU teams. A pre-implementation and two post-implementation (6 months, >2 years) staff satisfaction surveys and audits were conducted to evaluate the success, quality and sustainability of the hand-off process. Results: There was no difference in the time spent during the sign out process following standardization—median 5 min for pre-implementation versus 5 and 6 min for post-implementation at six months and >2 years, respectively. There was a significant decrease in the number of missed items (airway/ventilation, venous access, medications, and laboratory values pertinent events) post-implementation compared to pre-implementation (p ≤ 0.001). In the >2 years follow-up survey, 49.2% of providers felt that the hand-off could be improved versus 78.4% in pre-implementation and 54.2% in the six-month survey (p < 0.001). Conclusion: A standardized interactive hand-off improves the efficiency and staff satisfaction, with a decreased rate of missed information at the cost of no additional time.

Communication in the Electronic Age: an Analysis of Face-to-Face Physician-Nurse Communication in the Emergency Department.

We describe the patterns and content of nurse to physician verbal conversations in three emergency departments (EDs) with electronic health records. Emergency medicine physicians and nurses were observed for 2h periods. Researchers used paper notes to document the characteristics (e.g., partners involved, location of communication, who initiated communication) and content of nurse to physician conversations. Eighteen emergency nurses and physicians (nine each) were observed for a total of 36h. Two hundred and fifty-five unique communication events were recorded across three emergency departments spread evenly across day, evening, and night shifts. A qualitative analysis of communication event content revealed 5 types of communication and 13 content themes. Content themes covered a broad range of topics including exchange of patient health information, management of the ED, and coordination of orders. Physician participants experienced significantly more communication events than nurse participants, while nurses initiated significantly more communication events than physicians. Most of the communication events occurred at the physician workstation followed by patient treatment areas. This study describes nature of verbal nurse to physician communication in the ED. Direct communication is still used to communicate important information, such as information about patients' status, in EDs with established electronic health records. Our results provide an overview of information exchanged in the ED which can serve as a basis for designing improved information support systems.

Barriers to Pediatric Health Information Exchange.

* Abbreviations: CMS — : Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DM — : direct messaging EHR — : electronic health record HIE — : health information exchange MU — : meaningful use ONC — : Office of the National Coordinator The Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) included in stage 2 meaningful use (MU) the requirement for eligible providers to transmit a summary of care record electronically for at least 10% of patients referred or transferred to another setting of care or provider of care.1 The transmission of summary of care records, particularly from ambulatory pediatricians to specialists in tertiary care centers or in hospitals caring for children, would be extremely helpful to children and pediatricians and would improve safety and quality of care. Such transmissions would also reduce costs through avoidance of unnecessary testing, duplicate procedures, and allergic reactions, as well as radiation exposure from unnecessary duplicate radiology tests. Regrettably, means to exchange health information among health care entities remain complex, inefficient, and grossly underutilized.2–5 Outpatient pediatricians have 3 ways to exchange records: (1) participate in the Nationwide Health Information Network; (2) use exchange capabilities available through regional delivery networks through electronic health record (EHR) systems with some health information exchange (HIE) capabilities; or (3) direct messaging (DM), a secure and relatively inexpensive method designed for exchange of patient health information across different networks theoretically available to every provider or facility using a certified EHR. None of these options is widely pursued. Neither referring organizations nor outpatient pediatricians have made participating … Address correspondence to Christoph U. Lehmann, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Suite 1475, 2525 West End Ave, Nashville, TN 37203. E-mail: culehmann{at}gmail.com

Information Blocking: Is It Occurring and What Policy Strategies Can Address It?

Policy Points: Congress has expressed concern about electronic health record (EHR) vendors and health care providers knowingly interfering with the electronic exchange of patient health information. These “information blocking” practices would privately benefit vendors and providers but limit the societal quality and efficiency benefits from EHR adoption. We found that information blocking is reported to frequently occur among EHR vendors as well as hospitals and health systems, and that it is perceived to be motivated by opportunities for revenue gain. Because information blocking is largely legal today, the most effective policy response likely involves a combination of direct enforcement and the altering of market conditions that promote information blocking. ContextCongress has raised concerns about providers and electronic health record (EHR) vendors knowingly engaging in business practices that interfere with electronic health information exchange (HIE). Such “information blocking” is presumed to occur because providers and vendors reap financial benefits, but these practices harm public good and substantially limit the value to be gained from EHR adoption. Crafting a policy response has been difficult because, beyond anecdotes, there is no data that captures the extent of information blocking.MethodsWe conducted a national survey of leaders of HIE efforts who work to enable HIE across provider organizations. We asked them about the frequency of information blocking, its specific forms, and the effectiveness of various policy strategies to address it. We received responses from 60 individuals (57% response rate). We calculated descriptive statistics across responses.FindingsHalf of respondents reported that EHR vendors routinely engage in information blocking, and 25% of respondents reported that hospitals and health systems routinely do so. Among EHR vendors, the most common form of information blocking was deploying products with limited interoperability. Among hospitals and health systems, the most common form was coercing providers to adopt particular EHR or HIE technology. Increasing transparency of EHR vendor business practices and product performance, stronger financial incentives for providers to share information, and making information blocking illegal were perceived as the most effective policy remedies.ConclusionsInformation blocking appears to be real and fairly widespread. Policymakers have some existing levers that can be used to curb information blocking and help information flow to where it is needed to improve patient care. However, because information blocking is largely legal today, a strong response will involve new legislation and associated enforcement actions.

Health information exchange policies of 11 diverse health systems and the associated impact on volume of exchange.

Background: Provider organizations increasingly have the ability to exchange patient health information electronically. Organizational health information exchange (HIE) policy decisions can impact the extent to which external information is readily available to providers, but this relationship has not been well studied. Objective: Our objective was to examine the relationship between electronic exchange of patient health information across organizations and organizational HIE policy decisions. We focused on 2 key decisions: whether to automatically search for information from other organizations and whether to require HIE-specific patient consent. Methods: We conducted a retrospective time series analysis of the effect of automatic querying and the patient consent requirement on the monthly volume of clinical summaries exchanged. We could not assess degree of use or usefulness of summaries, organizational decision-making processes, or generalizability to other vendors. Results: Between 2013 and 2015, clinical summary exchange volume increased by 1349% across 11 organizations. Nine of the 11 systems were set up to enable auto-querying, and auto-querying was associated with a significant increase in the monthly rate of exchange (P = .006 for change in trend). Seven of the 11 organizations did not require patient consent specifically for HIE, and these organizations experienced a greater increase in volume of exchange over time compared to organizations that required consent. Conclusions: Automatic querying and limited consent requirements are organizational HIE policy decisions that impact the volume of exchange, and ultimately the information available to providers to support optimal care. Future efforts to ensure effective HIE may need to explicitly address these factors.

Show Us the Data: The Critical Role Health Information Plays in Health System Transformation.

Truly transforming the healthcare delivery and payment system turns on the ability to engage in the interoperable electronic exchange of patient health information across and beyond the care continuum. Achieving transformation requires a legal framework that supports information sharing with appropriate privacy and security protections and a trusted governance structure.