It appears they may have been successful.
Note their apparent boilerplate "recommendations" regarding § 170.314(a)(9) - Electronic notes. This comes from the numerous filings with the accidentally unredacted "Informational Comments for Organizations Using Epic (remove before submitting to ONC)" note, and others without. Pay specific attention to the "Tertiary Recommendation":
Major Concern
As detailed in our introduction, we are significantly concerned that the scope of the certification program is endangering some of the goals of Meaningful Use by introducing unnecessary overhead and burden.
As electronic notes are not proposed as a Meaningful Use objective with the rationale that electronic notes are already in common use, we do not think certification on this criterion is necessary, and suggest removal. Introducing unnecessary certification criteria creates expense for ONC, certifying bodies, and EHR developers, and does not provide significant value to the marketplace.
Recommendation
Keep consistent with CMS and remove this criterion from the Final Rule.
Secondary Recommendation
If this criterion is retained in the Final Rule, we suggest that the criterion should be an optional certification for the same reasons, and we make the following suggestions:
We agree with your assessment that having notes be searchable provides increased value over notes that are part of a scan or other formats that are not able to be searched. Our experience shows that note search capabilities is complex with potential for innovation in how information is found and displayed. Prioritization of such capabilities is best left to the marketplace. Search is not essential to meet the not-proposed objective drafted by CMS. Focus certification on the minimum floor set of capabilities required to complete meaningful use objectives. Therefore, we suggest that search capabilities be excluded from certification.
Tertiary Recommendation
If this criterion is retained in the Final Rule and is not made optional, a reasonable requirement for certification would be the ability to search for a free-text string within a particular open note. Other search capabilities should be left as competitive differentiators within the marketplace. Specific certification requirements could interrupt innovative ways to do effective chart search and information display.Informational Comments for Organizations Using Epic (remove before submitting to ONC)
We’ve heard your requests for a chart search feature, and our desire to see this certification criterion removed does not mean we don’t want to develop such a feature. In a future version of Epic, we want to develop the best possible chart search feature based on your input. However, if this criterion stays in the Final Rule, we worry we’ll have to divert attention from future chart search features you’ve requested to focus on a simplified, less valuable version of the feature to meet certification.
Our comments [presumably, those above - ed.] stem from the fact that we believe that you prefer we focus our attention on the more sophisticated chart search feature you have requested in a future version.
The ability to search for a free-text string within an already open [on-screen] note is not of very much value (near useless perhaps?) compared to the ability to search an open patient's record for all notes that contain a string, or across a set of many records, for free-text strings or other values. Think Windows 7 "Search programs and files" at the Start menu, the MS Win XP add-on Windows Search 4.0 for Windows XP, or MacOS's Spotlight.
(Is there, I ask, a commercial EHR that cannot search for a free-text string within a "particular open note"? Further, any web browser can search screen contents for text strings, I add, so if the EHR is using a browser, that feature comes as a freebie.)
Now note from the MU Stage 2 NPRM (Proposed Rule as in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) that appeared in the Federal Register on Mar. 7, 2012. The relevant passage about note searching is highlighted in green:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
45 CFR Part 170
RIN 0991-AB82
Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology
AGENCY: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
§ 170.314(a)(9) - Electronic notes
• Electronic notes
MU Objective Record electronic notes in patient records. 2014 Edition EHR Certification Criterion § 170.314(a)(9) (Electronic notes)
The HITSC recommended a certification criterion similar to the 2014 Edition EHR certification criterion we propose at § 170.314(a)(9) (with specific reference to "physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner" electronic notes) to support the MU objective and measure recommended by the HITPC. CMS has not proposed the MU objective and measure for Stage 2, but has requested public comment on whether the objective and measure should be incorporated into Stage 2.
Consistent with our discussion in the preamble section titled "Explanation and Revision of Terms Used in Certification Criteria," we have replaced the terms "modify" and "retrieve" in the recommended criterion with "change" and "access," respectively. Additionally, we are providing the following clarifications for the electronic "search" capability. "Search" means the ability to search free text and data fields of electronic notes. It also means the ability to search the notes that any licensed health care professional has included within the EHR technology, including the ability to search for information across separate notes rather than just within notes. We believe that this certification criterion would encompass the necessary capabilities to support the performance of the MU objective and measure as discussed in the MU Stage 2 proposed rule.
Note the robust "search" capability proposed - the ability to search the notes that any licensed health care professional has included within the EHR technology, including the ability to search for information across separate notes rather than just within notes.
Now, finally, note the Final Rule:
On pg. 300 of final rule at http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-21050_PI.pdf it says:
Stage 2 Measures:
Enter at least one electronic progress note created, edited and signed by an eligible professional for more than 30 percent of unique patients with at least one office visit during the EHR reporting period.
Enter at least one electronic progress note created, edited and signed by an authorized provider of the eligible hospital's or CAH's inpatient or emergency department (POS 21 or 23) for more than 30 percent of unique patients admitted to the eligible hospital or CAH's inpatient or emergency department during the EHR reporting period.Electronic progress notes must be text-searchable. Nonsearchable notes do not qualify, but this does not mean that all of the content has to be character text. Drawings and other content can be included with searchable text notes under this measure.
pg. 553:
Enter at least one electronic progress note created, edited, and signed by an eligible professional for more than 30 percent of unique patients with at least one office visit during the EHR reporting period.
Enter at least one electronic progress note created, edited and signed by an authorized provider of the eligible hospital’s or CAH’s inpatient or emergency department (POS 21 or 23) for more than 30 percent of unique patients admitted to the eligible hospital or CAH’s inpatient or emergency department during the EHR reporting period.Electronic progress notes must be text-searchable. Nonsearchable notes do not qualify, but this does not mean that all of the content has to be character text. Drawings and other content can be included with searchable notes under this measure.
It would appear, and readers, please correct me if I am mistaken, that the very short criteria specified here - "Electronic progress notes must be text-searchable" - would be satisfied by "the ability to search for a free-text string within a particular open note" per the vendor-authored Tertiary Recommendation, shown supra.
I've searched the MU Stage 2 Final Rule (Adobe Acrobat can do that, but I probably could have used Windows search itself depending on document length) seeking terms from the NPRM such as "search", "information across", "notes", "free-text" etc. However, I cannot find anything approaching the NPRM § 170.314(a)(9) clarification regarding the meaning of "electronic search capability."
I ask: what was the role of the Tertiary Recommendation received by ONC from multiple EPIC user organizations?
-- SS
