44% of hospitals reported to HHS that they can delete the contents of their EHR audit logs whenever they'd like?

Modern Healthcare published an article "Feds eye crackdown on cut-and-paste EHR fraud" on Dec. 10, 2013 by Joe Carlson.

The article is about federal efforts to reduce the amount of clinician cut-and-paste from prior notes of a patient - which can even be done between charts of different patients.  This practice can result in overbilling for work not actually performed.  The practice can also result in no-longer-accurate data being carried forward; I have been consultant to cases where that phenomenon, in my opinion, contributed to grave patient injury in cases that have settled out of court.

It is at this link:  http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20131210/NEWS/312109965/feds-eye-crackdown-on-cut-and-paste-ehr-fraud?utm_source=articlelink&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=TodaysHeadlines#

Subscription required, but googling the article title may allow reading it in its entirety.

The article begins:

Federal officials say the cut-and-paste features common to electronic health records invite fraudulent use of duplicated clinical notes and that there is a need to clamp down on the emerging threat. That concern is enhanced by the fact that it's too easy to turn off features of EHR systems that allow tracking of sloppy or fraudulent records.

In an audit report released Tuesday morning (PDF), [HHS Office of Inspector General, "NOT ALL RECOMMENDED FRAUD SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN HOSPITAL EHR TECHNOLOGY"], HHS agencies confirmed that they are developing comprehensive plans to deter fraud and abuse involving EHRs, including guidelines for cut-and-paste features. The issue arises at a time when critics say federally subsidized digital patient record systems are sometimes being used inappropriately by providers to drive up reimbursement.

“Certain EHR documentation features, if poorly designed or used inappropriately, can result in poor data quality or fraud,” according a report from HHS' Office of the Inspector General.

None of this is a surprise to me, and to readers of this blog.

However, the real "money quote" in the article, I believe, is this:

"In addition, only 44% of hospitals' “audit log” systems could record whether cut-and-paste was used to enter data, and an identical percentage of hospitals reported [to OIG] that they can delete the contents of their internal audit logs whenever they'd like."

From page 11 of the HHS OIG Report linked above (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/assets/pdf/CH92135129.PDF):

[In 2006, ONC contracted with RTI International (RTI) to develop recommendations to enhance data protection; increase data validity, accuracy, and integrity; and strengthen fraud protection in EHR technology.]

... Hospitals' control over audit logs may be at odds with their RTI- recommended use as fraud safeguards:

RTI recommends that EHR users not be allowed to delete the contents of their audit log so that data are always available for fraud detection, yet nearly half of hospitals (44 percent) reported that they can delete their audit logs. Although these hospitals reported that they limit the ability to delete the audit log to certain EHR users, such as system administrators, one EHR vendor noted that any software programmer could delete the audit log.

RTI recommends that the ability to disable the audit log be limited to certain individuals, such as system administrators, and that EHR users, such as doctors and nurses, be prevented from editing the contents of the audit log because these actions can compromise the audit log's effectiveness. Hospitals reported they have the ability to disable (33 percent) and edit (11 percent) their audit logs, although they reported restricting those abilities to certain EHR users, such as system administrators or EHR vendors. All four EHR vendors we spoke with reported that the audit logs cannot be disabled in their products, but one vendor again noted that a programmer could disable the audit log.

I further note that, being voluntarily provided, i.e., not part of a formal investigation of any specific organization, those numbers are likely low, perhaps very low considering this issue.

An audit log or audit trail is an automatically-generated dataset, invisible to most users, containing items such as who viewed records, the date/time/location of viewing, and indication of actions they may have performed on the records such as editing/changes/additions/deletions, etc.

As an EHR itself is a collection of magnetized or optically encoded bits on some computer storage medium, it cannot be authenticated as complete and free from alteration by humans.

The audit trail is the only way to authenticate an EHR printout, however (as well as EHR screenshots or any other electronic data turned into a tangible form from those bits) as complete and free from alteration.

If an EHR printout cannot be authenticated as complete and free from alteration, its trustworthiness and perhaps even court admissibility as a business record under an exception to the hearsay rules regarding evidence may be damaged or invalidated.

My concern is that, if true, and considering the conflict of interest a hospital has regarding hiding potential fraud or malpractice that could cost them millions of dollars, a capability to "delete the contents of their internal audit logs whenever they'd like" and to edit audit trails (which based on the capabilities of relational databases also implies an ability to delete sections of audit logs selectively and/or to substitute false data) is simply alarming.

I don't think the EHR pioneers intended EHRs to be used for purposes of allowing evidence spoliation without traceability ...

-- SS

Dec. 13, 2013 Addendum:

I received the following reply from EHR compliance expert Dr. Reed D. Gelzer.  Re-posted with permission:

Good morning Dr Silverstein,

Thank you yet again for the illumination that you bring to matters of truth in Healthcare Information Technology.

Regarding the OIG report’s source document, the 2007 report to the ONC, I was the Fraud Prevention Workgroup Chair for that project, working under Principal Investigators Dr. Don Simborg and Susan Hanson, former Chair of AHIMA. 

For anyone who is interested in this subject matter, I would recommend that you go to the source document and, among other things, review the list of contributors.  These were all individuals who volunteered time to attempt to mitigate harms of defective HIT, in their capacities of records management systems, nearly 8 years ago now.   Many have gone on into leadership roles in related organizations and domains, some still working towards trustworthy health information technology systems.

I believe that I can say that none of those working on the report then would have believed that it was conceivable that even our most basic recommendations regarding the fitness of audit functions would remain "novel" in the industry in 2013.  One cannot be surprised at the low level of authenticity supports in hospitals’ EHRs systems given that fitness as record management systems for patient care has, to date, been either neglected or presumed, not tested or attested.   I am gratified that our 2007 work was utilized for the OIG report to illuminate the deplorable state of integrity supports in these patient care information systems.  This will undoubtedly spur interest in supportive resources such as the HL7 EHR System Functional Model Standard and the HL7 Records Management and Evidentiary Support Profile Standard.

All of us who worked on that ONC report are, I hope, as gratified as I am that the OIG removed our work product from its designated obscurity.   We developed the guidelines via methods that were more qualitative than quantitative, entirely intended to guide initial implementation backed by more methodical research.   We represented the most informed at that time, including those like myself and my ADIC associate Patricia Trites who had performed compliance testing on over 30 among the leading EHRs at the time and found extraordinary ranges of deficiencies, including audit functions that could be disabled at will.   Standards and tools existed then to support mitigation of risks and those Standards and tools have expanded since.  Now that the events and ONC decisions that led to inactions on the report are now in the past, we can more rapidly achieve the potentials nascent in HIT by rendering it more trustworthy, usable, and safe.

Thank you again for your ongoing vigilance.

Sincerely,

Reed D. Gelzer, MD, MPH, CHCC
Trustworthy EHR, LLC
Co-Facilitator, HL7 Records Management and Evidentiary Support Workgroup

To this I add that I also would not have found it conceivable that my concerns about bad health IT and the risks of patient harm it poses, as well as common healthcare IT project mismanagement, of which I started writing about in 1998 (http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/) would remain "novel" ideas in the industry in 2013.

The Obamacare healthcare exchange website debacle has made the latter issue mainstream.  The former issues still need more sunlight.

-- SS

Johns Hopkins: Thanks to EHRs, time with patients seems “squeezed out” of medical training, investigator says

Question:  Who would have thought it?  That there is yet another potentially deadly unintended consequence of bad health IT and health IT hyper-enthusiasm?

Suggested answer:  anyone who truly understands the issues at the intersection of medicine, information science, information technology, and Social Informatics - which probably excludes 95% of the health IT "experts", pundits and opportunists.

Which only goes to show how dense such people can be - as the medical trainees of today will be treating them, their families, and their children in the future:

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Release Date: 04/23/2013

Time with patients seems “squeezed out” of training, investigator says 

Medical interns spend just 12 percent of their time examining and talking with patients, and more than 40 percent of their time behind a computer, according to a new Johns Hopkins study that closely followed first-year residents at Baltimore’s two large academic medical centers. Indeed, the study found, interns spent nearly as much time walking (7 percent) as they did caring for patients at the bedside.

I can honestly say much if not most of my time in training, several decades ago, was spent at the bedside.

Compared with similar time-tracking studies done before 2003, when hospitals were first required to limit the number of consecutive working hours for trainees, the researchers found that interns since then spend significantly less time in direct contact with patients. Changes to the 2003 rules limited interns to no more than 30 consecutive hours on duty, and further restrictions in 2011 allow them to work only 16 hours in a row.

“One of the most important learning opportunities in residency is direct interaction with patients,” says Lauren Block, M.D., M.P.H., a clinical fellow in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and leader of the study published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. “Spending an average of eight minutes a day with each patient just doesn’t seem like enough time to me.”

An understatement, as most critical information comes from the H&P and ongoing patient interaction - not from cybernetics.  Further, that's probably all the time a butcher spends processing a slab of meat...

“Most of us went into medicine because we love spending time with the patients. Our systems have squeezed this out of medical training,” says Leonard Feldman, M.D., the study’s senior author and a hospitalist at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH).

For the study, trained observers followed 29 internal medicine interns — doctors in their first year out of medical school — at JHH and the University of Maryland Medical Center for three weeks during January 2012, for a total of 873 hours. The observers used an iPod Touch app to mark down what the interns were doing at every minute of their shifts. If they were multi-tasking, the observers were told to count the activity most closely related to direct patient care.

The researchers found that interns spent 12 percent of their time talking with and examining patients; 64 percent on indirect patient care, such as placing orders, researching patient history and filling out electronic paperwork; 15 percent on educational activities, such as medical rounds; and 9 percent on miscellaneous activities. 

Researching the history is made more complex by today's low-usability EHR systems, so much so that I personally know of cases (through my legal work) where trainees and even attendings did not know the patient's history.  In the past, this would have been considered a severe medical faux pas.

The researchers acknowledge that it’s unclear what proportion of time spent at the bedside is ideal, or whether the interns they studied in the first year of a three-year internal medicine training program make up the time lost with patients later in residency. But 12 percent, Feldman says, “seems shockingly low at face value. Interns spend almost four more times as long reviewing charts than directly engaging patients.”

Not to be critical of the Hopkins piece, it is excellent - but academics often use disclaimers and softeners in their conclusions as a custom and tradition.  At a blog I can be more direct:  12% is shockingly low.  No "seems" is actually necessary.

Feldman says questions raised by his study aren’t just about whether the patients are getting enough time with their doctors, but whether the time spent with patients is enough to give interns the experience they need to practice excellent medicine. 

Personally, I would really be nervous under the care of graduates who'd only spent a tenth of their clinical hours actually seeing, speaking to and examining patients, and a majority of their time frittering around with computers.

With fewer hours spent in the hospital, protocols need to be put in place to ensure that vital parts of training aren’t lost, the researchers say.

“As residency changes, we need to find ways to preserve the patient-doctor relationship,” Block says. “Getting to know patients better can improve diagnoses and care and reduce medical errors.” 

As opposed to getting to know the (needlessly complex and confusing) EHR better, which adds little.

The researchers say better electronic medical records may help reduce time spent combing through patient histories on the computer.

After several decades of the health IT industry being in business,  it's sad that an organization of the (deserved) stature of Johns Hopkins has to provide remedial education 101 to that industry in 2013.

Perhaps that's the most important finding of all in this study.

There's some wisdom in this comic strip.  Click to enlarge.

-- SS
 

How the HIT zealots and profiteers have harmed physicians and nurses, not to mention patients, taxpayers, and the government

Any new technology introduced into a complex system, especially when introduced recklessly, has the potential to produce unexpected consequences, and the problems introduced can be worse than the problems the technology was attempting to solve.  This is a fundamental precept and empirical observation in the field of social informatics, a domain that studies information and communication tools in their cultural or institutional contexts.

Idealism combined with zealotry (excess of zeal; fanatical devotion) and/or hyper-enthusiasm that ignores the downsides of an intervention, and silences credible critique,  has also proven to be a dangerous combination.

Characteristic of the health IT hyper-enthusiasts been zealotry, silencing of credible critics, and spreading of illusory memes and technologies not yet fit for purpose; the characteristics of HIT profiteers is similar but for a different motive.  The end result in either case is harm to the interests and well-being of patients, physicians and nurses and other clinicians, taxpayers, and the government.

(Doctors and nurses ... after reading the findings below, be prepared to countersue the health system officers who mandated your use of EHR's for breach of fiduciary responsibilities, including due diligence, if you are sued for EHR-caused medical malpractice.)

---

Medscape 
Business of Medicine
Malpractice 'Discovery' Dangers in Your EHR
Leslie Kane, MA
Jul 16, 2012

Introduction

Picture this: You've been sued, and now the plaintiff attorney has the right to send in an expert to sit at your computer and examine information in your electronic health record (EHR). Besides any mistakes you might have made, system-wide bugs or design flaws that lead to data inconsistencies could be found and held against you in the discovery phase of a malpractice lawsuit.

Doctors are becoming increasingly aware that EHRs can create certain malpractice risks. However, an expert in EHR and liability says there is a new category of malpractice risks in EHRs that most doctors have never considered. These include EHR system issues that you were never aware of and didn't cause.

You may have been coerced into using the EHR system via threat of Medicare cuts -- embedded without a public comment period in the HITECH section of ARRA thanks to the zealots and profiteers -- or via draconian hospital policies set by senior executives that threaten adverse personnel actions or other retaliation for those who refuse to use or are unable to learn to "effectively" use the corporate-chosen EHR (I have seen such policies in print).

These executives have simply taken the word of the sellers that the technologies are harmless, and have likely negligently signed hold-harmless agreements with the sellers as a symbol of their confidence in the assessment.

"Every aspect of EHR selection, implementation, and use may be examined in the course of medical malpractice discovery to uncover the source of the incident, or undermine the records that are being presented in defense of the malpractice claim," says Ronald B. Sterling, CPA, MBA, national EHR expert, Silver Spring, Maryland, and author of Keys to EMR Success (Greenbranch Publishing; Phoenix, Maryland; second edition, 2010). "Anything could be a malpractice issue, from the product itself, the way it was set up, or how you've been using it."

The same applies, I add, to any technology a clinician or healthcare facility might introduce into practice.

For example, authorized software upgrades can unknowingly cause liability problems. Upgrades to the software can change the historical data presentation you've already worked with. "An EHR upgrade can go back and affect data being stored for a patient," says Sterling. "The upgrade can affect the presentation and the reporting and usage of that information. I'm aware of upgrades in which a large amount of data was lost."

I'm aware of numerous "upgrades" that nearly caused catastrophes - in fact they may have caused catastrophes that were not publicized- such as here.

"Even if the practice does everything perfectly, there could be design flaws in the electronic health record or the way the practices uses it or sets it up. This gets exposed in the light of discovery during a malpractice suit. If the plaintiff attorney spots errors in the record -- even if the system, not the physician, creates them -- it calls into question every record you produce and every statement you make."

Considering the evidence spoliation that can and does occur thanks to electronic systems, of which I am becoming aware of an increasing number of incidents, discrepancies ("errors" in the record) should arouse suspicions.   Those "hold harmless" agreements should look less and less appealing....

... "There are all kinds of issues I can now delve into, more than I'd find in the paper world. In the paper world, there is not a lot of supporting information," he says. "However, with an EHR, you can see what time each event or note happened, whether it was before or after another event. These could become critical points in a trial."

Thank the zealots for this, docs.

Sterling described several types of problems that could create difficulties for a doctor in a malpractice liability case.

... System or product bugs (defects). One doctor was using an EHR that had inherent errors in it. It wasn't documenting information correctly. The information being entered was not being stored in the right location, and the patient's medical note was ultimately incorrect. "This now calls into question anything in the note, even if you did the right thing," says Sterling.

Caveat emptor.

Transferring paper records to EHR. What happens to the patient's history that was stored in the paper medical chart? The new EHR form may not specifically account for or match up with every notation you have in the old medical chart. If some information doesn't get transferred in, the plaintiff attorney may ask, "Did the doctor have the full picture of the patient's condition?" The discovery process may include comparing the patient's old paper record (if you still have it) with the history now in the EHR.

Signing notes. Some doctors don't sign their notes. This creates a problem with billing, but it also could prompt the question of whether the doctor actually provided those services to the patient.

The zealots never considered these issues, or didn't care.   "You're going to use EHR's whether you like it or not, because they WILL transform medicine.  So say we all."

... One physician was inadvertently distributing clinical notes that included inappropriate findings (such as results of tests that would not have been given to that patient). When the note was challenged during a malpractice trial, it called the patient's entire record into question.

"Unfortunately, the physician had been using software that contained the test setups from the vendor," explained Sterling. "He was recording information on the screen and printing it, and the printed copy was appropriate when he gave it to the patient, but the electronic record contained inappropriate findings and events. Because the doctor was using the forms that contained the original test data (even though the data were not quite visible), the EHR incorporated these old findings."

Just a "glitch", of course.  

One template affects other screens. When you use templates and you're charting by exception, you're viewing 1 screen. But when you check off items in the box, it sends those data to 5 or 6 other screens, and you may not be aware that the information is now contained on those screens. A doctor may decide to remove the information on 1 screen, but that deleted information has already populated 6 other areas and is still in the patient's medical record.

Why would one expect that using tools of grossly inappropriate provenance would not create problems?

Usage issues. The vendor stored it one way, but the doctor stored information another way, which changed the location in which information was stored. The historical record actually changed.

"What happened when the doctor could not produce the record he gave to the patient because it no longer existed?" asked Sterling. "The attorney would look at it and say, 'This is not the piece of paper you provided.' "Any of these could be the killer issue that ends your chance of successfully defending yourself in a malpractice trial," he says.

Sure, EHRs will 'revolutionize' medicine, once the EHRs actually don't introduce booby-traps to the practice of medicine exposing clinicians to the revolutionary guillotine.

Vendor Says, "Not My Fault!"

One might think that a product defect or design flaw should be the responsibility of the vendor, and the doctor should be held harmless for those types of errors. But it doesn't work that way.

"The doctor can be held liable because most vendors' contracts (signed by the physician) essentially say, 'We do not practice medicine; it is up to the physician to make sure this EHR is being used correctly.' The practices have to understand what they're using and verify that the system is appropriately set up to document the care they provide."

I note that doctors forced to use hospital EHR's never see nor sign those contracts.

In a trial, the doctor would be held responsible for product problems.

But just as scary, doctors could be held responsible for following vendor instructions. "I've seen situations in which the vendor tells doctors to do something, and doctors are relying on vendor and not doing their own proper analysis and design of the EHR that's tailored for their own practice," says Sterling. "The vendor is not the one responsible for maintaining the patient's medical record."

More than $20 billion of taxpayer "incentive" money has already gone to the accountability-free sellers of this technology, I might add. 

Bad News: You Need to Delve Into Technicalities

Most doctors are unprepared to explore the technical elements of working with an EHR. "Doctors have to understand what happens when you push the buttons," says Sterling. That means they have to take the time to work with the EHR and explore various screens and scenarios before they ever use it with a patient.

It would help to have people who actually know what they're doing around, a lesson hospitals have not yet fully learned when they depend on grossly inappropriate personnel of a business-computing background to lead HIT projects and make critical decisions on vendor contracts.

In summary, the HIT hyper-enthusiasts and profiteers have successfully conned the government and healthcare sector into using, or coercing clinicians to use, technologies unproven to provide the fantastical levels of clinical and financial benefit claimed (as in many other posts), that introduce booby-traps to users' legal safety, that can be injurious to patient safety, and that suck money from healthcare that could be better used in, say, care of the underserved.

What an enviable arrangement for the enthusiasts.

-- SS

Some Real-World Lessons for the Health IT Hyper-Enthusiasts

An article was published in Health Leaders Media yesterday by Scott Mace, senior technology editor entitled "Scot Silverstein's Good Health IT and Bad Health IT" at this link.

(Actually, the terms "good health IT" and "bad health IT" themselves came from Prof. Jon Patrick as a result of my discussions with him in Australia about my conviction, presented to the Health Informatics Society of Australia in my Aug. 2012 talk "Critical Thinking on Building Trusted, Transformative Medical Information:  Improving Health IT as the First Step", that to be trusted and do no harm, health IT must be “done well".)

Scott Mace observes:

Inevitably, when the subject turns to the pitfalls of bad health IT, you will find Scot Silverstein, MD, ready to comment. He has been writing about health IT difficulties since 1998.

Silverstein is an adjunct professor at Drexel University who I recently interviewed for an upcoming HealthLeaders magazine story on physician resistance to health IT.

A recent Silverstein blog post caught my eye for the following statement: "It is impossible for people, especially medical professionals, to be 'ready' for a system that 'is not ready for them.'"

I wanted to learn about the good doctor's thinking and so I gave him a call. We spoke for two hours and it felt like scratching the surface of issues that healthcare will be facing for a good while to come.

Indeed, the issues we discussed were just scratching the surface.  The real world is ever so complex.

Also noted was my observation that:

... Silverstein says it is wrong to think of the tension in healthcare as being IT modernists versus Luddites ... [he says] "I believe the proper framing of this tension between technologists and physicians is that of technology hyper-enthusiasts, who either are unaware of or deliberately ignore the downsides and ethical issues of healthcare information technology in its present state, versus pragmatist physicians who just want to get a job done."

The hyper-enthusiasts largely ignore the real world. 

Two recent "real world" posts on other blogs by practicing physicians caught my eye, that help illustrate the concepts of health IT's disruption of clinicians and of clinical care.  These disruptions increase risk of error (even under normal circumstances; in an emergency scenario, I fear the disruptions will become far more destructive).

These disruptions need to be thrust in the face of the hyper-enthusiasts as characteristic of a very flawed approach to healthcare improvement.

The real-world observations, courtesy KevinMD blog (who reposted them from the source bloggers), with my comments are in [red italics]:

Information overload for doctors increases malpractice risk
Wes Fisher, MD
January 1, 2013

I have used the electronic medical record (specifically EPIC) since 2004.  I have grown accustomed to its nuances, benefits and quirks.  There are parts about it I really like.  There are parts of it I’d like to do without but accept that they are necessary evils in our current health care climate.  I know that there will always be parts of any modified computer system that will suffer growing pains.  For any new and adapting technology this is understandable.

But there is a little-appreciated issue that I see brewing: doctors (and maybe even patients) are quietly being buried by electronic information overload.  As a result, I believe doctors are being placed at an increased liability risk. [Not just doctors, but all clinicians, and the acquirers and implementers of the technology, and those who force the use of it on the clinicians - ed.]

Let me explain.

In the past era of medicine, nothing happened without a doctor’s order.  Nothing.  If you wanted a medication, lab test, invasive procedure, opportunity to participate in rehab classes – anything – you needed a doctor’s order.   For the years of paper records and independent doctors offices, this work flow assured that doctors (1) knew what was happening with their patients, (2) saw their patients, (3) prescribed the proper therapy, and (4) assumed the risk for the intervention or treatment prescribed.  Information proceeded in a logical linear fashion and the doctor was always at the head of the information line.

But we are no longer in the old days in medicine.  We are in the era of near-instantaneous information flow, multi-directional electronic communication, and geographically disparate order entry by “caregivers,” (think nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice nurses, clinic operators, registrars, etc.) who help us take messages, continue care, and order things.  In this electronic process, messages are no longer passed from just one individual to another, but rather are passed to two, three, four, or more individuals simultaneously from any one of several different clinical locations – some of which might be many miles apart.  There is an incredible amplifying effect of all of these messages, orders, and notifications — so much so that even the most tech-savvy doctors are struggling to keep up. [This observation about an "amplifying effect" gives life to my own observation that the terms "EHR" and "EMR" are anachronistic and suggest to the layperson an innocuous file cabinet, when in reality today's "EHR" is an enterprise healthcare resource and clinician control system, with all that implies in terms of potential adverse unintended consequences - ed.]

In fact, it is not uncommon for a doctor these days to work for two hours on a procedure and return to the computer to find twenty or thirty new notifications, e-mails, or orders have been deposited there.  Head back in for the next case and then another thirty items appear.  Pretty soon, it’s an avalanche of items.  Worse: doctors must click on each one of these notifications individually to “verify” he or she has looked at each and every single one.  [Looking at the computer has likely become a source of dread to many clinicians; I used to get the same feeling when facing up to a day's emails in Pharma, sometimes more than a hundred - ed.]

Doctors understand that the reason we have to click on all these orders is because (a) no one gets paid in our system unless a doctor orders whatever-it-is [not the best motivation - ed.] and (b) someone has to be the fall guy if there’s a problem with a nurse, medical assistant, or lab technician that “orders” something on behalf of the physician.  [Ditto; the "social issues" of health IT include factors like these  - ed.]  There is even a trend to auto-order things (like a pneumovax vaccine, for instance) that assure the hospital maintains excellent public reporting metrics whether the doctor ordered them or not with the order later appearing in our inbox to be clicked.  [This observation gives life to my own that the computer is increasingly becoming the intermediary between doctor and patient - ed.]

But worst of all are the silent notifications sent from fellow physician colleagues buried amongst the other notifications. They tell of an important story, one that needs fairly urgent attention, but because people no longer pick up the phone, are not immediately noticed or highlighted. It’s like a landmine sitting in a doctor’s inbox waiting to be stumbled upon.

* Click* *Click* *Click* * Click* *Click* *Boom*  [The "silent silo" syndrome, as I called it, also affects lab results reporting.  It should be clear that health IT does not "automagically" improve communications over Alexander Graham Bell's invention - ed.]

With all these people and devices ordering and sending, the limited number of doctors out there are being bombarded from multiple directions.   It is getting harder to keep up these days.  Orders and notices come to us on names we don’t recognize or have been long forgotten.  (Computers don’t forget that you saw the patient eight years ago).  [These observations should put an end, once and for all, to the oversimplifications of comparing health IT to, say, mercantile or banking IT - ed.] And once an order is placed and acted upon without our knowledge these days, we click on the order to clear our notices and thereby assume all the legal risk for the care. The legal buck still ultimately stops with us.

Doctors need to speak up about this problem.  [I could not agree more - ed.] We are not in the old days any longer.  We are in the fast-paced, electronic medical record era where things happen (literally) at the speed of light.  We need the electronic medical record companies, payors, hospitals and legal community to come together to help us find a solution to this current information overload crisis that maintains patient safety and improves efficiencies while limiting legal risks to the doctors who are doing their very best just to keep up.

Wes Fisher is a cardiologist who blogs at Dr. Wes.

The above "anecdote" (I use that term somewhat satirically, see here) is likely characteristic of the lives now lived by most clinicians using today's health IT.  Hyperenthusiasts, take note.

The second real-world illustration of the naivete of the hyper-enthusiasts is as below.  I'd observed most of the points made in my own writings after my CMIO period in the late 1990's, which I highlight.   It is quite interesting to see these same points come from others without Informatics expertise, directly from the clinic:

Explaining the epic failure of EMRs
Kiran Raj Pandey, MD
December 19, 2012

It is no news a lot of doctors like to stick up a rather snotty nose to EMR. The defenders of the EMR tend to label such doctors as archetypal Luddites, sticking to their archaic ways and unbecoming of change and the new times. [In reality, the tension is between the hyper-enthusiasts or 'Ddulites' vs. pragmatist clinicians with real-world patient care responsibilities and obligations - ed.] But as is usually the case with any two heated but opposite arguments, the truth likely lies somewhere between the two extremes.

On an objective basis, there is no denying that automatisation of medical record keeping is the new way forward. In theory, if the machine could keep records for you and give it back to you when and where you want it, thus freeing up valuable time for the patient encounter, that should be winsome for everyone. That alas, is a vision of the EMR utopia [the path to Utopia usually has very bad unintended consequences, and Utopia never reached - ed.], and let alone being anywhere close to such utopia, it is difficult to ascertain if we are even set in the road leading us there. [As I've opined, we're on a speeding bullet train on a quarter-mile track - ed.]

Sometime ago, exasperated at the sheer waste of time that the clunky new discharge module was causing because it would not work the way it is supposed to (my hospital is means challenged, so they are building a patchwork of cheapskate EMR suite on top of their legacy system from the 90s, just to placate the gods of CMS [and the Lords of Kobol - ed.]), I complained to the IT guy that the thing barely works! The guy was sympathetic and said, “look I know the discharge module sucks, just bear with it until the end of the year when we should be able to weed out the bugs.” [Hospitals and clinics, as I've written, are NOT the proper place for software alpha and beta-testing - ed.]

But that’s not all, I said, even if it were working just the way it is supposed to, the discharge still takes me longer than what it used to with paper. “That’s something you will have to learn to live with,” he retorted. “Computer records do take a longer time than paper, and there is nothing I can do to change that.” [This reflects healthcare IT culture's of arrogant acceptance of bad health IT, largely ignoring ways to ease human-computer interaction - ed.]

Right there, I think is where EMR loses a lot of ground against paper records. At any practice, time is the most valuable resource, and anything that doesn’t offer a straight off benefit to save time will have a hard time being adapted. [The reverse is also true - ed.] Add to that the inertia people have about their old ways and you have a deal breaker right there.

That’s not all. Driven by the constant government whip to adopt EMR, and an EMR industry that is hell bent upon imposing itself on healthcare [long ago I began writing of a territorial invasion of healthcare by the IT industry - ed.], a lot of makeshift EMR adoption has taken place. So you have hospitals where one part is using one system while the other is using a completely different one. At one clinic I recently worked at, we had to switch between 3 different EMR systems, just to get the patients records. And there still was the paper records not to mention the dictation.The constant juggling not only made the patient encounters time consuming and cumbersome [and surely tiring - ed.], it literally made us curse at the computers and ruin an otherwise perfectly normal day at work. [And increase risk of cognitive overload and error substantially - ed.] Patient volumes have gone down from 15-16 patients per day to a half of that after EMR adoption.

What’s wrong with the current adoption of EMR? Why are even the converted like me questioning EMR? [Converted to what? - ed.]

I think there are two reasons for such seemingly epic failure. First, how we interface with an EMR. Second how the EMR tries to impose its will on to us instead of the other way around. [I've written that HIT should work like the clinicians work, not the other way around.  Again, the IT has become the cybernetic 'governor' or 'regulator' of care, and is not just an innocuous records system - ed.]  A keyboard and a point and click device may well have worked for many other interactions with the computer, but with an EMR it doesn’t always appear to be nifty.

... On the same note, no EMR is going to be see a faster adoption if something like writing a prescription takes a minute when in paper it barely takes 10 seconds. Right now doing something as simple as writing a prescription feels like running through a bunch of fire breathing hoops. Someone may argue, you can at least read it better [when bugs and 'glitches' due to sloppy industry practices don't cause faulty output such as occurred here - ed.] , but don’t get me started on how the EMR can come up with its own ludicrous set of errors, something that would never be possible with paper. ["not possible with paper" is a theme I've written about as well - ed.]

Trying to impose a ready made architecture on to health care will not work. “It works for retail and banking,” some people seem to offer cluelessly [Business/mercantile computing and clinical computing are two different subspecialties of computing, I've long observed - ed.]. But a patient encounter is no visit to your bank cashier. And human body is not your bank account, it is way more complicated and it is bound to generate way more complex information that is difficult to straight jacket into the rigid and rudimentary pipeline of set information pathways. An ideal EMR is supposed to be a seamless body-glove; today they feel like the hangman’s cloak, not only are they cumbersome, dark and dreary and suffocating, under their apparition, they force things you to do things you wouldn’t otherwise do. [Hyper-enthusiasts don't really seem to care; if it's a computer, it must be better - ed.]

Such forced behavior modification may make the administrator, the insurance company, and the government happy [it does - ed.] but I can’t understand how selecting a dozen pesky radio buttons while doing the discharge makes the patient lead a healthy life or make his doctor particularly enamored with the EMR, just because the government said so, or that it made the IT companies a few million dollars richer. [Doctors are just supposed to obediently accept this technology by the hyper-enthusiasts and profiteers - ed.]

Kiran Raj Pandey is an internal medicine resident who blogs at page59.

I feel "anecdote" #2 is also quite common, and the sentiments shared by a large number of clinicians forced into using this technology in its present state.

Hyper-enthusiasts and other health IT promoters and grandstanders need to read the above accounts well.  They need to understand that the real-world effects of the technology, recklessly pushed, can be toxic, and not result in the utopia of better care and cost-savings they naively believe will deterministically occur. 

-- SS