Sunday, May 2, 2010

EHR Certification – A Delicate Balance

ARRA requires that EHR systems be certified. ONC published an IFR outlining certification criteria supporting Meaningful Use as defined by CMS. Later on ONC proposed rules for the creation of EHR certification authorities, and NIST is currently defining brand new testing procedures. In the past CCHIT certified EHRs and large portions of CCHIT certification criteria came from HL7’s work on various functional profiles.
All this means is that hundreds of functional points were required to be present, in very specific form, for an EHR system to achieve certification.

There are functional points mandating what data to capture, how it is recorded, how it is stored, how it is displayed and when it should display. Incorporating all these certification requirements into a software application created very comprehensive products with the ability to do many things, or as they came to be known “bloated EHRs”. But there is another, probably unintended, consequence when trying to enforce such incredible detail; the certification process was in effect dictating particular work flows and distinct user interfaces. That was the point where the grumblings about lack of EHR usability and complaints of EHRs not being built with physicians and patients in mind, started gaining steam.

I cannot count the times when my only response to a complaining physician was that the offending piece is required by CCHIT. Many vendors searched for places where the system need only have “the ability” to do something and created customizations allowing physicians to turn off said ability. Nothing more so than the endless, and mostly useless, alerts. At one point you could tell at first glance if an EHR was or was not CCHIT certified. All the certified ones had this strange little dropdown box next to each diagnosis in the problem list, where you could select if the problem was acute, chronic, resolved, bi-lateral, controlled, etc. I have never seen it used in real life. Does anybody think that unless we mark it chronic, there is a danger that a doctor will assume that DM is acute or bi-lateral?

Well, if it’s all so counterproductive, why are we certifying EHR technology? Honestly, I don't know that we should. The original thought was that certification will assure prospective buyers that the system is able and willing to do the job, thus separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, certification acted in a more simplistic way and separated the heavy from the lite, regardless of usability, value and stability.
The new thought at ONC is that certification should provide a guarantee that one can achieve Meaningful Use by employing a certified system. So instead of trying to dictate every detail, the ONC certification is all about the specific criteria of Meaningful Use; 25 criteria for Stage 1. As a result, some small uncertified vendors of very lite EHRs are expressing interest in the ONC certification, if the price is right, of course. CCHIT gracefully turned on a dime and created a much slimmer ARRA certification process. But is it possible that the slimming and trimming process is going too far?

Is it possible to certify too little?

It is probably too soon to tell if the new ARRA certification will be able to strike an acceptable balance between allowing vendors the freedom to innovate and ensuring that Meaningful Use can be achieved with a certified product. However, the proposed NIST test procedures indicate a possibility of certifying too little.
For example, certifying that a piece of software is capable of receiving electronic lab results in discrete format, while allowing the vendor to choose the structured format in which lab results are received could lead to the inability of future users of the software to meet Meaningful Use requirements, if the vendor selects anything other than HL7 for their preferred structured format. Laboratories do not send results out on a regular basis in either CCR or CCD, which are specifically allowed by NIST, or any format other than HL7. An EHR, or EHR module, capable of receiving lab results in a CCD format exclusively, may become ARRA certified, but its proud owner will be unable to become a Meaningful User.

A different and more troubling issue arises from looking at a requirement in a very narrow way and neglecting to account for ramifications not directly related to the particular Meaningful Use criterion. For example, testing for the ability to modify a medication list without concern for historical integrity of the list creates a strange and dangerous situation where adjustments made to the SIG (strength, dosage,etc.) of a particular prescription are allowed to overwrite the entire history of said prescription (think Warfarin). The narrow scope of testing that modifications are possible fails to assert the need for those modifications to be made in accordance to general principles enforcing the integrity of the medical record. Presumably this larger concern is left to vendor discretion. Existing vendors that certified their products under the old regime will probably provide a reliable product anyway, but new innovative vendors, writing software to published specifications and test procedures could easily create a certifiable, yet clinically unsafe product.

We are all aware that an over prescriptive certification process has not produced massive improvements in EHR offerings. The temptation to err on the side of oversimplification is large, particularly since the time is short and we must come up with a temporary certification process sooner rather than later. However, if we look at certification as a process designed to help vendors build better products and assist buyers in selecting tools to achieve Meaningful Use, then we must make sure that, while not overbearing, ARRA certification is indeed meaningful.

24 comments:

  1. Great take as usual, Margalit. It's like many things in life: there's a pendulum, and it's tempting to let it swing too far in either direction simply for the sake of momentum. Finding the balance is tricky and will probably require some time. John Lynn over at EMR and Hipaa expressed some frustration with the certification program as it currently exists, with some points that might bear on the discussion.

    There will have to be some form of certification, if only because tax payer money is being used for the incentives. However, how that certification will work in the wild and be perceived remains to be seen. Personally I think that while the 25 MU goals are all laudable, they're a bit too much too soon for Stage 1. The number of reporting goals, especially, seems extraneous to the purpose of getting a safe, usable system up and running. I think providers who adopt the best EHR for their practice and get started on using it effectively will be in a better position in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Margalit: I tend to agree with Michelle. I think ONC is acutely aware of the problems created by CCHIT certification (which you have described), and also understands that the major tranformation providers need to make is from paper to an EHR. That's why their Stage I criteria may not satisfy you...they've deliberately set the bar low to encourage the transformation to EHRs. Look for criteriia in Stage 2 and 3 that will address the "lite" problems you've described.

    Thanks,
    Glenn Laffel MD, PhD
    Sr VP Clinical Affairs
    Practice Fusion
    www.practicefusion.com
    Free, Web-based EHR

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad to see you here Glenn.

    My concern is not with the criteria being too lite. I agree with Michelle that the quality reporting portion of Stage 1 is a bit complex and frankly, I have a problem with quality reporting and P4P that goes beyond MU, but that's another story.
    My current concern is that we are certifying, just so we can say that we are certifying. I am not very optimistic as to the amount of buyer assurance provided by ARRA certification, particularly when it comes to modules.
    I also hope very much that I am wrong....

    ReplyDelete
  4. My problem is that the EHR certification provides too much assurance. Doctors are relying far too much on EHR certification. The core problem though is that the EHR certification in reality doesn't provide any real assurance. This false sense of assurance is scary when you consider the impact years down the road.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trying to post through a free proxy... Google is toast through AT&T in the Midwest...

    There is a big difference between the previous CCHIT certification and ARRA certification. ARRA certified doesn't imply quality. It only certifies that 25 capabilities are there to allow meaningful use. That shouldn't be so hard to do, but if not done right and doctors purchase a "certified" EHR only to find out that they cannot connect to Quest, will CMS send them stimulus checks anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  6. great article, in my opinion very useful. this is importannt.

    Sarah Jolie

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is a big difference between the previous CCHIT certification and ARRA certification. ARRA certified doesn't imply quality. It only certifies that 25 capabilities are there to allow meaningful use.

    ReplyDelete
  8. its really very nice and informative article thanks for sharing this with us.. i want to share some information about Oracle 1z0-042 with you by my site.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I couldn't agree more with you, Margalit. Certifications should be done properly and by the right authorities without limiting its true capabilities. Here at work, we are using a certified EHR system and a complimentary practice management software to help us track our insurance billing records and other billing inquiries. Without them, it would be difficult and time-consuming to process something. In my opinion, the medical billing companies that produces these tools only desire to render quality service by means of providing assistance to health care practitioners.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I couldn't agree more with you, Margalit. Certifications should be done properly and by the right authorities without limiting its true capabilities. Here at work, we are using a certified EHR system and a complimentary practice management software to help us track our insurance billing records and other billing inquiries. Without them, it would be difficult and time-consuming to process something. In my opinion, the medical billing companies that produces these tools only desire to render quality service by means of providing assistance to health care practitioners.

    ReplyDelete
  11. nice post.. i would like to read more in the future

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Everybody,
    You really did a great job. I found your blog very interesting and very informative. I think your blog is great information source & I like your way of writing and explaining the topics. Keep it up. I'm going to follow your blog.

    regards..
    astermeds.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very interesting discussion glad that I came across such informative post. Keep up the good work friend. Glad to be part of your net community.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please continue to write more because it’s unusual that someone has something interesting to say about this. Will be waiting for more…

    ReplyDelete
  15. Such a useful stuff with amazing approach,I appreciate your work.Testking VCP-410

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for not only taking the time to write this, but to even improve the information by Online Pharmacy making it easy to read and understand.

    ReplyDelete
  18. i truthfully enjoy your own writing kind, very remarkable,
    don’t give up as well as keep writing due to the fact that it simply just worth to follow it. looking forward to see a whole lot more of your current well written articles, enjoy your day
    London Chartered Accountants

    ReplyDelete
  19. Really great post, Thank you for sharing This knowledge.Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same level of content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  20. its really a nice one.thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The more technology the better, as we need to bring costs down in healthcare and outcomes need to be better and that can be done through more efficient information sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wow! This can be one particular of the most beneficial blogs we have ever arrived across on this subject. Actually Magnificent. I am also a specialist in this topic so I can understand your hard work.

    Computer Accessories | buy webcam

    ReplyDelete
  23. Opting for Certified EHR Systems instead of the usual manual operations would definitely be a big leap for the medical field.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Levitra (Vardenafil) is used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence; inability to get or keep an erection) in men. Vardenafil is in a class of medications called phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors. It works by increasing blood flow to the penis during sexual stimulation. This increased blood flow can cause an erection. Vardenafil does not cure erectile dysfunction or increase sexual desire.

    ReplyDelete