A panel advising the Office of the National Coordinator of Health IT (ONC) said it will heed the overwhelming consensus it has received in recent public comments to develop the simplest possible certification standards for accelerating health IT adoption.

The Health IT Standards Committee’s implementation workgroup reported today that it distilled the testimony of industry organizations within and outside healthcare, as well as contributors to its public blog. The participants provided details of their experiences with adopting standards.

On the blog, physicians and practices have reported that they have difficulty improving quality and productivity with their existing electronic health record systems. As a result, they are looking for the standards to provide a “pathway to success.” The blog will remain live until Dec. 1.

Under the health IT stimulus plan, health care providers will be entitled to receive federal incentive payments only if they purchase electronic health record certified to meet standards for interoperability and other features now being worked out by the committee.

Dr. David Blumenthal, the national health IT coordinator, emphasized that “experience in the field” embodied in the comments will inform how ONC will craft the health IT certification standards that ONC will release later this year.

ONC is expected to publish in late December an interim final rule on certification standards and a notice of proposed rulemaking for the certification process. The standards rule will detail standards for what constitutes a certified EHR.

Dr. John Halamka, vice chairman of the committee, said any  refinements to the standards would likely be applied to standards for 2013 and beyond than for 2011, the first year in which providers will be eligible to receive incentive payments under the stimulus plan. In 2011, providers must adopt standards to share medication lists, medical problems, allergies and laboratory reports.

“I think we have a basic set of requirements, and there may be some polish done to them based on the comments and principles. We’re just beginning the directional cycle for 2013 and 2015,” he said.

Physician and industry comments received by the panel overwhelmingly asked that the simplest standards be put forward to provide business value and rapid adoption.

“Our posts have led to conversations with committee members here who have taken them to their constituents,” said Aneesh Chopra, the administration’s chief technology officer and chairman of the committee’s implementation work group.

Among its guiding principles, the committee should concentrate on getting buy-in from physicians for standards required in 2011 to share medication lists, medical problems, allergies and labs before moving to more complex objectives, he said.

Halamka suggested that the committee continue to gather comments about 2011 information exchanges to determine if there are ways to improve testing platforms and implementation guidance.

Another guiding principle recommends that the committee separate content standards, such as those for continuity of care documents, from transmission standards, as well as separate the network layer standards from application layer standards.

Above article published http://www.govhealthit.com/newsitem.aspx?nid=72450

In my coverage of the healthcare technology industry, I’ve noticed that many software and hardware vendors, clinicians, and even some analysts tend to use the terms EMR (electronic medical record) and EHR (electronic health record) interchangeably. However, according to the National Alliance for Health Information Technology (NAHIT), there is a distinct difference between the two.

The NAHIT defines EMR and EHR as follows:

EMR — The electronic record of health-related information of an individual that is created, gathered, managed, and consulted by licensed clinicians and staff from a single organization who are involved in the individual’s health and care.

EHR — The aggregate electronic record of health-related information of an individual that is created and gathered cumulatively across more than one healthcare organization and is managed and consulted by licensed clinicians and staff involved in the individual’s health and care.

In other words, an EMR is a somewhat siloed record of a single diagnosis or treatment, most likely used by a single practice or specialist. Meanwhile, an EHR is a more comprehensive record that is interoperable with and compiles information from multiple medical providers’ systems.

Don’t Judge A Software Package Based On Name Alone

Despite the NAHIT definitions, it’s obvious that the industry is still unclear on how to delineate EMRs from EHRs. For example, some software vendors brand their technologies as EHR platforms when, in reality, they don’t provide interoperability capabilities and would therefore be more accurately marketed as EMRs. At the same time, other vendors brand their products as EMR packages when they actually provide more comprehensive EHR frameworks. In fact, analysis of software packages currently on the market indicates that the latter is more likely to be the case, as most clinical records software vendors tend to brand their products as EMRs as opposed to EHRs. However, the term EHR does seem to be gaining popularity as it is the phrase used by President Obama in his healthcare stimulus talks and is the prominent terminology used in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

Knowing that the terms used to brand clinical records software aren’t always accurate, you must dig deeper to ensure a software platform you’re assessing is equipped to meet the needs of your facility and your patients. Criteria to consider when evaluating EMR/EHR software include:

• Interoperability with current certification standards (CCHIT [Certification Commission for Health Information Technology], HL7 [Health Level 7])
• An ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability)-compliant relational database for data protection and the ability to recover fully from failure (not just restore from backup)
• Both thin and fat client support (i.e. remote control and direct control) to accommodate for the lower bandwidth of satellite offices
• Ease-of-use at the point of care
• A workflow that matches your practice and specialty

If you purchase a system that matches your requirements, it should provide a speedy ROI regardless of whether or not it is “technically” branded correctly.

Above article published on

http://www.ecmconnection.com/article.mvc/EMR-Or-EHR-Whats-In-A-Name-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO