Contra Costa's $45 million computer health care system endangering lives, nurses say

I am reproducing this story almost without comments - few are needed - merely highlighting familiar themes I have written about at this blog:

Contra Costa's $45 million computer health care system endangering lives, nurses say

By Matthias Gafni

Contra Costa Times (CA)mercurynews.com

Posted:   08/14/2012 05:30:07 PM PDT

August 15, 2012 3:55 AM GMTUpdated:   08/14/2012 08:55:52 PM PDT

MARTINEZ -- A new medical computer system used at Contra Costa correctional facilities recommended what could have been a fatal dose of a West County Jail inmate's heart medication last week, an incident that a detention nurse characterized Tuesday as one of many recent close calls with the month-old program.

However, the inmate's nurse was familiar with his medical history, recognized the discrepancy and administered the correct amount of Digoxin.

It's just one of a number of computer errors that medical staffers say have been endangering inmates, medical staff and sheriff's deputies at the county's five jail facilities since Contra Costa switched on July 1 to EPIC, a computer system that links the correctional facilities to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and other county health care operations, two nurses and their union representative told the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

"It's dangerous. It's very dangerous," said an emotional Lee Ann Fagan in a phone interview. The registered nurse works at West County Detention Facility in Richmond. "It's hard to work in an environment that's so frustrating.  [Staff frustration increases risk of error and decreases morale, which increases risk of error further - ed.]

"What nurses want is for the EPIC program to go away until it's fixed," she said.

The $45 million EPIC system integrates detention medical records with the other arms of the county health system. The system led to 142 nursing complaints in July, said California Nurses Association labor representative Jerry Fillingim, who told supervisors the system does not mesh well with detention health care.

"I have never in all the time working with the California Nurses Association seen that many (complaints) be filled out," he said. "Each day, these nurses are fearful that they will kill somebody [requiring hypervigilance, which is emotionally and intellectually tiring, increasing risk of error further - ed.] ... I think the county tried to rush it, making it comprehensive for everything."

EPIC has never included corrections in its software and is treating Contra Costa as a "guinea pig," Fillingim said.  [Subjects of this experiment don't get the opportunity for informed consent, I add - ed.]

Guinea pigs to experiments don't give consent

'Just a tool'

The county wanted to create a uniform electronic health record (EHR), and executives said the tool is important, but not the be-all, end-all.

"The EHR is just a tool," said David Runt, chief information officer for the county health services department and who helped phase the system in over 18 months. "It's just one piece of the health care system. The people are the most important part of this process. We can't rely just on a computerized system."  [That's certainly a much more temperate position than the usual seller and pundit line that "health IT will transform medicine." It is also an especially good observation when the tool is unreliable! - ed.]

In addition to ongoing training, staff has trained "superusers," safety alerts, diagnostic testing, patient safety daily briefings and other help available. Still, "we are working on resolving many different issues," said Anna Roth, CEO of Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and health centers.

"It's the beginning of a long journey that occurs over time," [i.e., an experiment - ed.] she said. "I think we can do a better job ... at how we communicate everything we're doing to respond to concerns." [The health IT industry has had several decades to "get it right."  When will the experiment end? - ed.]

Management warned

Staff superusers have warned management of EPIC issues, and two training sessions in May and June were inadequate, Fagan said.

"They were next to useless because the program wasn't in place well enough to practice," she said. "Everyone in the classes could see the gross loopholes in information."

Although nurses across the county's health care system have complained [but impediments to diffusion per FDA, IOM etc. prevented the complaints from becoming more widely known - ed.], the problems have been acute in detention, Fagan and Fillingim said.

On Monday, one inmate told a nurse she was supposed to be seen by mental health specialists because she was hearing voices, but the follow-up appointment was not registered in the system. The same patient had a Pap smear scheduled for two weeks ago to test for sexually transmitted diseases, but the appointment disappeared from the system, Fagan said.

Nurses cannot access tuberculosis history for inmates, so when some are transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, staff cannot provide a full medical summary.
"We don't exactly know how that happened; we can't tell," she said.

The kinks will be worked out, and patient safety issues rise to the top of the list, Runt said.

"When we go live is just a point in time, and now it becomes a period of stabilization and optimization," he said.

I think the line "We don't exactly know how that happened; we can't tell" sums up the dangers of today's EHR's, a.k.a. clinical resource and clinician workflow control systems, very well.

I note that nurses is California may be a bit better prepared to recognize and call out the dangers of ill-designed and ill-implemented health IT than those in other states.  See my post "Health Information Technology Basics From Calif. Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee."

Regulation, anyone, or shall the experiment continue as-is?

-- SS

Joint Commission Should Be Named As Defendant If Patients Harmed by EHR "Outages"

At my recent post "Massive Health IT Outage: But, Of Course, Patient Safety Was Not Compromised" over a massive, outrageous Cerner outage to hospitals contracting their clinical IT via an ASP model (that is, 'software as a service'), I observed:

... The Joint Commission, for example, likely issued its stamp of approval for the affected hospitals, hospitals who had outsourced their crucial medical records functions to an outside party that sometimes went mute.  If someone was injured or died due to this outage, they would not care very much about the supposed advantages.

From the JC's page "About the Joint Commission":

An independent, not-for-profit organization, The Joint Commission accredits and certifies more than 19,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. Joint Commission accreditation and certification is recognized nationwide as a symbol of quality that reflects an organization’s commitment to meeting certain performance standards.

It's time to up the ante regarding this accreditation body, fully aware of health IT risks (e.g., the Dec 2008 Sentinel Events Alert on Health IT) but to date having done little about them.  Through my legal work and my speaking to Plaintiff's attorneys, I am becoming increasingly aware of medical malpractice cases that  involve an EHR or related clinical IT systems at JC-accredited organizations.

In effect, the JC has accredited hospitals whose entire clinical command-and-control structure (the term EHR is an anachronism; these systems are in reality enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control devices) can disappear in the blink of an eye, without warning, raising risk to patients greatly.

If I discover that a patient was harmed or killed as a result of, or related to, this massive recent outage of outsourced medical records/workflow control  infrastructure, I will be recommending that the Joint Commission, including its leadership, which likely certified the hospital(s) involved for safe operations in areas such as Information Management, be named as defendants.

I have informed the JC leadership by email.
 
-- SS

Vermont: Despite $70 million investment, health IT systems a long way from prime time - "Problems are appropriate"

Preliminary note:  This post is rich with hyperlinks.  At minimum I recommend opening them in another window and at least scanning their contents - SS

No surprises in this article, including an amorality alien to the healing professions, but common in technology circles:

Despite $70 million investment, health IT systems a long way from prime time
VTDigger.org
Andrew Nemethy
July 18, 2012

The state’s efforts to digitize the world of health information, a costly multi-year endeavor that is approaching a $70 million pricetag, got a lousy diagnosis Tuesday.

Instead of creating cost efficiency and improving payment flow to doctors and treatment for patients, it’s creating stress and a lot of headaches for physicians, according to both lawmakers and state officials overseeing the effort. [It's also creating increased risk for patients, a factor - the most crucial factor - rarely mentioned in articles such as this - ed.]

Money, of course, grows on trees, and physicians, hospitals and government have nothing better to do with $70 million than conduct experiments on patients with alpha and beta software ...

There's the usual excuses from the usual actors:

But Health Information Technology (HIT) coordinator Hunt Blair said that’s to be expected considering the difficulty of the “incredibly challenging” task of getting such disparate groups as doctors, hospitals, other health care providers, insurance companies, the state and federal government on the same digital page.

Let alone (per Social Informatics) the organizational and sociological challenges of implementing any new information or communications technology (ICT), that's somewhat akin to saying it's hard to get people to consume arsenic as an aphrodisiac.  Not mentioned is the deplorable state of health IT in terms of quality, safety, usability, unregulated nature etc.

“We’re talking about an extremely complex undertaking and I think it’s important to recognize the state of Vermont was way out in front,” Blair said.

“We’re on the bleeding edge,” he told a legislative Health Care Oversight Committee Tuesday at the Statehouse.

That prompted Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison, the panel’s chairwoman, to ask him to clarify if he meant “leading.”

He stuck with “bleeding.”

"Bleeding edge?"

Aside from the very poor choice of terms, this attitude is the polar opposite of the culture of "first, do no harm."  It is not a clinician's attitude.  It is an attitude of someone who seems to forget that patients are at the receiving end of the "bleeding edge" (which usually implies a rocky course) technology:

Bleeding edge technology is a category of technologies incorporating those so new that they could have a high risk of being unreliable and lead adopters to incur greater expense in order to make use of them.  The term bleeding edge was formed as an allusion to the similar terms "leading edge" and "cutting edge". It tends to imply even greater advancement, albeit at an increased risk of "metaphorically cutting until bleeding" because of the unreliability of the software or other technology.The phrase was originally coined in an article entitled "Rumors of the Future and the Digital Circus" by Jack Dale, published in Editor & Publisher Magazine, February 12, 1994.

Wonderful.

Considering the risks to patients, this claim brings to mind the definition I posted of the health IT Ddulite ("Luddite", the common canard against cautious doctors, with the first four letters reversed):

Ddulite:  Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

On the other hand, did critic VT Sen. Kevin Mullin read my Drexel website on health IT failure and mismanagement?

That doesn’t surprise Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, who had tough questions about the state’s effort to oversee and promote use of electronic medical health records and a statewide health information exchange.

“I hear genuine frustration from providers who are spending time and resources trying to modernize and make their offices more efficient, and prepare for the future, and yet every one of them feels like they’ve been burned,” he said.

“Basically we’re not getting any results for these millions and millions of dollars that have been pumped into IT (information technology),” he said after the meeting.

“We should be a lot further along,” he said. “I just don’t think the leadership’s in place.”

He's on the right track, but I'm not sure Vermont (or any state government) really understands what levels of leadership are truly needed, e.g., as outlined by ONC a few years ago here.

More excuses:

... Mark Larson, commissioner of the Vermont Health Access Department and a former House representative from Burlington, oversees management of Vermont’s publicly funded health insurance programs and the effort on digital medical records and a new medical information exchange.

... Larson told lawmakers he hears the same message they do, that there’s “a lot of confusion in the field.” He said that is an inevitable part of the complex process.

“These are not systems where you just plug that in and they work perfectly on day one,” he said. “Problems are appropriate along the path to get where we want." [I note this is an implicit admission that experimentation is being performed - ed.]


“We just have to work through that,” he said.

"Problems are appropriate?"  ... Really?  In a mission critical field such as medicine?  That's a maddeningly reckless and cavalier ideology, to put it mildly.   In what other safety-critical domain would such a happy-go-lucky attitude that "problems are appropriate", outside of the laboratory, be tolerated? 

"We just have to work through that?" ... "Just work through that?"  Really?

That should be really easy,  just like the failed £12.7bn (~ US $20 billion) National Programme for IT (NPfIT) in the NHS, a program that went "Pffft" last year.

... Based on testimony Tuesday, the issues that medical practitioners and the industry face in digitizing information are familiar ones for anyone who deals with technology: Software that is problematic, digital files that don’t translate and can’t be read by other systems, lost time spent on technological issues that detract from what doctors are paid to do, which is treat their patients. [And create increased risk that leads to maimed or dead patients - ed.]

"Familiar to anyone who deals with technology?"  As in, say, mercantile/management computing that runs Walmart's stock inventory system, or the Post Office?  Is that an appeal to common practice of some type?  This brings to life my observation that there is an utter lack of recognition (either due to ignorance, or opportunism) that HIT systems are not business management systems that happen to be used by clinicians, they are virtual clinical tools (with all that implies) that happen to reside on computers.

How utterly amoral and alien to the ethics of medicine these attitudes are.  No regulation of the technology is in place.  No systematic postmarket surveillance of patient harm or death is conducted. 

Further, the literature on health IT is not entirely as optimistic and tolerant as the VT government.

Is the VT government aware of that literature?

Just a few specific examples - the National Research Council wrote that  "Current Approaches to U.S. Healthcare Information Technology are Insufficient", do not support clinician cognitive processes (then what, exactly, is health IT supposed to do?) and may result in harm. 

The ECRI Institute indicates health IT systems are among the top ten technology risks in healthcare.

Reports from the Joint Commission, FDA and AHRQ indicate that risk is known, but magnitude of risk unknown ("tip of the iceberg" per FDA).

A report from NIST indicates that usability is lacking and promotes "use error" (technology-promoted error, as opposed to "user error").

A report from IOM on safety of health IT states that:

... While some studies suggest improvements in patient safety can be made, others have found no effect. Instances of health IT–associated harm have been reported. However, little published evidence could be found quantifying the magnitude of the risk.

Several reasons health IT–related safety data are lacking include the absence of measures and a central repository (or linkages among decentralized repositories) to collect, analyze, and act on information related to safety of this technology. Another impediment to gathering safety data is contractual barriers (e.g., nondisclosure, confidentiality clauses) that can prevent users from sharing information about health IT–related adverse events. These barriers limit users’ abilities to share knowledge of risk-prone user interfaces, for instance through screenshots and descriptions of potentially unsafe processes. In addition, some vendors include language in their sales contracts and escape responsibility for errors or defects in their software (i.e., “hold harmless clauses”).

The committee believes these types of contractual restrictions limit transparency, which significantly contributes to the gaps in knowledge of health IT–related patient safety risks. These barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety.

(Institute of Medicine, 2012. Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care. PDF.  Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pg. S-2.)

Human subjects protections?  Not needed here ... it's just one big, unconsented, happy $70 million medical experiment.

What is not mentioned, and either deliberately ignored or lost on these politicians, is the effects of this turmoil on patient care in terms of risk and adverse outcomes, and that being on the "bleeding edge" in this experimental technology is not desirable.  

Slow, skeptical and cautious approaches are essential.  Physician education on health IT risks and patient informed consent might be nice, too.

It seems mass social re-engineering experiments are fine, even if the consequences include wasted resources the healthcare delivery system can ill afford, physicians being distracted by major defects, and outcomes like baby deaths, adults suffocating at the bedside, and graveyards.

-- SS

ONC's "Health Data Palooza" - A Title of Exceptionally Bad Taste, For a "See No Evil" Meeting

The Office of the National Coordinator of Health IT has sent out this announcement:

Subject: HEALTH DATA PALOOZA III: Unleashing the Power of Data to Improve Health
From:    ONC Health IT
Date:    Thu, May 10, 2012 10:36 am

HEALTH DATA PALOOZA III: Unleashing the Power of Data to Improve Health

June 5-6th, Washington DC
Health Data and Innovation Week
www.hdiforum.org | #healthdata

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Marc Bertolini, CEO Aetna
Thomas Goetz, Execuitve Editor of WIRED
Atul Gawande, surgeon and author
Bill Frist, former Republican Majority Leader
Dominique Dawes, two time gold medal winner
Todd Park, US Chief Technology Officer


Hear from Farzad Mostashari, National Coordinator for Health IT on data liberation
ONC will host breakout sessions on Consumer e-Health, HealthData.gov,
and Uses of Data by ACOs
ONC will release nine challenges during this year’s event! 

This title for a government-sponsored meeting is bizarre and tasteless in my opinion.  What is deemed by ONC to be the major source of this data?  Health IT.

"Palooza?"

From Urban Dictionary:

Palooza - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=palooza

An all-out crazy party; partying at one place with a ton of people like there's no tomorrow; The art of throwing a very drunken extravagant party with a plethora of friends

"Data Liberation?"    

What about "patient liberation" -- from risk?

Considering it unlikely that issues in the bulleted points below, commented on in detail in past posts on this blog, will be discussed at this meeting, the title of the meeting is especially tasteless:

• There is a markedly unscientific "irrational exuberance" pushing clinical IT into wide use at a dangerously rapid pace. This exuberance is contradicted by a growing body of literature that shows the benefits are likely far less than stated, e.g., by way of example, the ad-hoc set at http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=readinglist 
• The technology remains experimental, its rollout is a human subjects experiment on a massive scale lacking nearly all the protections of other human subjects experimentation and for IT in mission critical settings (e.g., informed consent, formal quality control/validation/regulation, formal postmarket surveillance and reporting) due to extraordinary legal and regulatory special accommodations afforded the technology and its purveyors;
• Defects of in-use systems are rampant, inappropriately turning patients and clinicians into software alpha and beta testers (e.g., as in the voluntary FDA MAUDE database, http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/01/maude-and-hit-risk-mother-mary-what-in.html which contains information for just one HIT vendor, Cerner, who voluntarily reports such issues);
• The technology is unsupportive of clinician cognitive needs (2009 National Research Council study, which also stated that accelerating interdisciplinary research in biomedical informatics, computer science, social science, and health care engineering will be essential to perfect this technology);
• The roles of scientific discovery and anecdote have been turned on their heads. RCT's of clinical IT are nearly non-existent and lower-level evidence (e.g., weak observational, pre-post, qualitative, and other study types) are cited as "scientific proof" of efficacy and safety justifying hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer (or is it Chinese loan?) expenditures.  Yet, risk management-relevant case reports of harmful events and near misses, crucial to help organizations and regulatory agencies understand risks are dismissed as "anecdotal" (e.g., Blumenthal: "The [ONC] committee [investigating FDA reports of HIT endangement] said that nothing it had found would give them any pause that a policy of introducing EMR's could impede patient safety," he said, while ONC issued an article based on questionable research methods entitled "The Benefits Of Health Information Technology: A Review Of The Recent Literature Shows Predominantly Positive Results" extolling the virtues of HIT, written about at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/03/benefits-of-health-information.html).
• Risks are definite, with known patient injury and death, but the magnitude is admittedly unknown by JC (2008 Sentinel Event Alert), FDA (2010 Internal memo on HIT risks and statements of Jeffrey Shuren MD JD about known harms likely being "the tip of the iceberg"), IOM (2011 report on HIT risk), ECRI Institute (Top ten healthcare technology hazards for 2011 and 2012), NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company 2009 report on EHR risks, others;
• Existence of severe impediments to information diffusion about risks explicitly admitted by FDA (2010 memo), IOM (2011 report), others;
• Usability of commercial products in real world settings is often poor (e.g., NIST 2011 study on usability), promoting "use error" (user interface designs that engender users to make errors of commission or omission, where many errors are due not to user error per se but due to designs that are flawed, e.g., poorly written messaging, misuse of color-coding conventions, omission of information, etc.)
• These systems promote capture and display of clinically irrelevant information in the interest of charge capture, and result in reams of "legible gibberish" with many negative characteristics that make it difficult for other clinicians and reviewers to establish a cohesive, definitive narrative of clinical events and timelines.

Health IT and health data issues are not 'partying' affairs. An un-seriousness about anything related to health IT seems in vogue of late.

Finally, I ask:  does this "Health Data Palooza" bring my Ddulite term to life?

Ddulite: Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

A Ddulite Palooza.  How charming.

Like the recent extravagances of other government agencies such as GSA in Las Vegas and the Secret Service in Colombia, let's hope this Data Palooza is a Palooza in name only.

In light of those recent scandals, calling a government sponsored meeting a "Palooza" seems inappropriate on that basis as well.

-- SS

5/13/12  Addendum:

A commenter pointed this flyer out:

(click to enlarge)

I post it here with no additional comments.

-- SS

Experiments on Top of Experiments: Threats to Patients Safety of Mobile e-Health Devices - No Surprise to Me

As noted by columnist Neil Versel at MobiHealthNews.com in a Mar. 14, 2012 post "Beware virtual keyboards in mobile clinical apps":

... Remember the problems Seattle Children’s Hospital had with trying to run its Cerner EMR, built for full-size PC monitors, on iPads? The hospital tried to use the iPad as a Citrix terminal emulator, so the handful of physicians and nurses involved in the small trial had to do far too much scrolling to make the tablet practical for regular use in this manner.

[From that post: As CIO magazine reported last week, iPads failed miserably in a test at Seattle Children’s Hospital. “Every one of the clinicians returned the iPad, saying that it wasn’t going to work for day-to-day clinical work,” CTO Wes Wright was quoted as saying. “The EMR apps are unwieldy on the iPad.” - ed.]

Thank heaven it was a small trial, instead of a typical forced rollout to an entire clinical community. Someone seems to have grasped the experimental nature of the effort.

Well, there may be a greater risk than just inconvenience when tablets and smartphones stand in for desktop computers. According to a report from the Advisory Board Co., “[A] significant threat to patient safety is introduced when desktop virtualization is implemented to support interaction with an EMR using a device with materially less display space and significantly different support for user input than the EMR’s user interface was designed to accommodate.”

The report actually is a couple months old, but it hasn’t gotten the publicity it probably deserves. We are talking about more than user inconvenience here. There are serious ramifications for patient safety, and that should command people’s attention.

Unfortunately, far too little about health IT safety commands people's attention. It's merely assumed that either 1) health IT is inherently beneficent, or 2) the risks are deliberately ignored for - I'm sorry to note - profit and career advancement.

How many CIOs or even end users have considered another one of the unintended consequences of running non-native software on a touch-screen device, that the virtual, on-screen keyboard can easily take up half the display? “Pop-up virtual keyboards obscure a large portion of the device’s display, blocking information the application’s designer intended to be visible during data entry,” wrote author Jim Klein, a senior research director at the Washington-based research and consulting firm.

How many CIO's have considered unintended consequences of such experiments-on-top-of-experiments (i.e., handheld or other lilliputian computing devices on top of the HIT experiment itself)? Probably few to none.

The typical hospital CIO, usually of an MIS background and generally lacking meaningful backgrounds in research, computer science, medicine, medical informatics, social informatics, human-computer interaction, and other research domains, are usually "turnkey-shrinkwrapped software implementers." In fact, most have backgrounds woefully inadequate for any type of clinical device leadership role. They may even lack a degree of any kind, as major HIT recruiters over the past decade expressed the following philosophy ca. 2000:

I don't think a degree gets you anything," says healthcare recruiter Lion Goodman, president of the Goodman Group in San Rafael, California about CIO's and other healthcare MIS staffers. Healthcare MIS recruiter Betsy Hersher of Hersher Associates, Northbrook, Illinois, agreed, stating "There's nothing like the school of hard knocks." In seeking out CIO talent, recruiter Lion Goodman "doesn't think clinical experience yields [hospital] IT people who have broad enough perspective. Physicians in particular make poor choices for CIOs. They don't think of the business issues at hand because they're consumed with patient care issues," according to Goodman. (Healthcare Informatics, "Who's Growing CIO's".)

I wonder just how many CIO's "from the school of hard knocks" were put into action by those groups.

Back to the MobiHealthNews.com article:

... Klein said that users have two choices to deal with a display that’s much smaller than the software was designed for. The first is to zoom out to view the whole window or desktop at once, but then, obviously, users have to squint to see everything, and it becomes easy to make the wrong selection from drop-down menus and radio buttons.

Or, users can zoom in on a small part of the screen. “This option largely, if not completely, eliminates the context of interaction from the user’s view, including possible computer decision-support guidance and warnings, a dangerous trade-off to be sure,” Klein wrote.

In either case, the virtual keyboard makes it even more difficult to read important data that clinicians need to make informed decisions about people’s health and to execute EMR functions as designed.

Good observations. Two points:

1. As far back as the mid 1990's in my teaching of postdoctoral fellows in my role as Yale faculty in Medical Informatics, due to the limited screen real estate I uniformly presented the following 'diagram' regarding my beliefs about handheld devices (then commonly known as PDA's) as tools for significant EHR interaction:

Mid 1990's wisdom: small handhelds as desktop replacements at the bedside - just say "no"

This was before today's hi-res screens on small devices, but the limited real estate and its ramifications were obvious to critical thinkers who knew both medicine and medical informatics, even in the mid 1990's.

Similarly, experiments with HP95 handheld PC's running DOS failed miserably in a similar time frame at the hospital where I later became CMIO. (One benefit: I did get to salvage two of the devices from the trash bin for my obsolete computer collection!):

HP95LX - full DOS computer equivalent to an IBM PC (except, of course, for screen size).

Therefore, IMO the Advisory Report findings of 2012 merely verify what was obvious almost two decades ago.

Small devices are adjuncts only, suitable for limited uses (and only after extensive RCT's with informed consent even then, in my view).

2. Another issue that arises is more fundamental. The article notes:

“It seems clear that running even a well-designed user interface on a device significantly different than the class of devices it was intended to be run on will lead to additional medical errors,” Advisory’s Klein commented.

The critical thinking person's question is: who knows if the "class of device" the app was "intended to run on" is itself appropriate or optimal?

Commercial clinical IT (with the exception of devices that require special resolutions, pixel densities, contrast ratios etc., such as PACS imaging systems) is usually designed for commercially available hardware.

That means the same size/type of computer monitor you obtain at Best Buy or Wal Mart.

Is that sufficient? Is that optimal?

As in my Feb. 2012 post "EHR Workstation Designed by Amateurs", who really knows?

Click to enlarge. A workstation in an actual tertiary-care hospital ICU, 2011. How many things are wrong here besides the limited display size? See aforementioned post "EHR Workstation Designed by Amateurs".

These systems are not robustly cross-tested in multiple configurations, such as multiple-large screen environments vs. single screen, for example.

In summary, performing an experiment with small devices on top of another experiment - the use of cybernetic intermediaries (HIT) in healthcare that is already known to pose patient risk - is exceptionally unwise.

It would be best to decide what the optimal workstation configuration is, as applicable to different clinical environments, in limited RCT's with experts in HCI strongly involved, before putting patients at additional risk with lilliputian information devices that only a health IT Ddulite could love.

Ddulites: Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

-- SS

Nancy Finn, author of "e-Patients Live Longer", openly calls for unethical medical experimentation without consent

My construct of the "Ddulite" orientation largely driving health IT is not merely a theoretical construct. Ddulites (derived from the term "Luddite" with first four characters reversed) are:

Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

Here is an example of this disposition on display:

In a March 14, 2012 Pittsburgh Post Gazette article "Digital ease may complicate health care" by Bill Toland about the recent controversy caused by a Harvard study showing EHR's may actually increase test ordering thus raising, not lowering, medical costs, Nancy Finn, a medical consultant and author of "e-Patients Live Longer" is quoted as saying:

... In an ideal world, management would know if a software suite is going to improve health outcomes before it's rolled out, said Nancy Finn, a medical consultant and author of "e-Patients Live Longer." Unfortunately, though, uncertainty is built into the process.

"The only way to know [the systems] are inefficient and flawed is to deploy them, then correct them as we go," she said. [That is, they are experimental - ed.]

"That is the way that all of the new innovative technologies have worked over the years. We have to take the risk, and then improvements get made."

This statement in highly alien to medical ethics.

She is explicitly stating that this technology is experimental - "The only way to know [the systems] are inefficient and flawed is to deploy them" - and then states "We have to take the risk" where the "we" are unconsenting patients, i.e., not afforded the opportunity for true informed consent, and 'investigators' also often coerced to use these systems, i.e., clinicians themselves.

Never mentioned are the downsides of experimental technology such as health IT: patient injury, death, litigation against physicians and other clinicians entrapped into "use error" (errors promoted by the common mission hostility of today's health IT), or led into errors by poor software quality causing data corruption, misidentification or outright loss, and additional issues described by FDA (link) and others. Nor are ethical issues considered.

NO, Ms. Finn: "We" do NOT have to "take the risk."

There are scientific methods for improving experimental technologies such as "controlled clinical trials" with informed consent, opt-out provisions and built-in protections for patients and investigators.

The "trial and error", "learn-as-we-go", "computers' rights supercede patients' rights" approach you suggest, while perhaps appropriate for mercantile computing, is highly inappropriate for healthcare.

Such issues, I had believed, had been settled after WW2.

There is nothing to argue, and nothing to discuss.

-- SS

ECRI Institute's Top Health Technology Hazards for 2012

In my Dec. 2010 post "ECRI: Healthcare IT In Top Ten Health Technology Threats to Patient Safety", I wrote that:

The ECRI Institute is an independent, unbiased, evidence-based healthcare research, information, and advice provider. They have been in operation for more than 40 years and are one of only a handful of organizations designated as both a Collaborating Center of the World Health Organization and an Evidence-Based Practice Center by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

... (from WSJ) For the fourth year running, the nonprofit ECRI Institute has put together a list of what it judges to be the top ten health technology hazards on which health-care facilities should focus their efforts.

... #5 Data loss, system incompatibilities and other health IT complications: Problems with electronic-health records and other health IT systems can lead to problems including lost data, the need for repeat testing and even patient injury or death.

From Medscape (account required), here is ECRI's #6 on the list of top technology threats for 2012:

Failing to Pay Sufficient Attention to New Device Connectivity

Medical technology and information technology (IT) can create risks. Hazards can arise from software problems, interoperability between systems, and poor network performance. Problems could create a domino effect, in which changes to one component of the system affect the operation of another.

Potential problems also include issues about wireless networks, cybersecurity, and software upgrades. "Hospitals must stay on top of routine updates," says Keller.

ECRI's recommendations: Make sure that hardware and software changes, security changes, and planned maintenance are approved and implemented in a controlled manner. Because IT help desks are usually the first point of contact for problems with health IT, provide the help desk team with education, training, and clear escalation procedures.

I would add "Failing to Pay Sufficient Attention to New Health IT Defects" to the list.

-- SS

AMA News Article Offers Incomplete (and Thus Misleading) Advice on the Legal Risks of EHRs and other Clinical IT

An article was published in the AMA News by Alicia Gallegos, AMA Medical News staff, entitled "Legal risks of Going Paperless." While it is not clear if these are the official views of the AMA leadership, the article is interesting nonetheless.

It should perhaps have been entitled "Some of the Legal Risks of Going Paperless, excluding the ones that make the health IT industry look bad:"

Legal Risks of Going Paperless
AMA News
March 5, 2012

Electronic medical records are meant to save time and money, but they also can create liability issues for doctors.

By Alicia Gallegos, amednews staff.

Defense attorney Catherine J. Flynn knows how electronic medical records can overwhelm — and often change — the course of a medical liability lawsuit.

In one of her cases, a New Jersey doctor being sued for medical negligence has been accused by a plaintiff’s attorney of modifying a patient’s electronic history. A printing glitch caused the problem, Flynn said, but the accusation has meant extra time and defense costs. Computer screen shots were reviewed, more evidence was gathered and additional arguments were made.

“This has taken a life of its own, and we’ve done virtually no discovery on the medical aspects of the case,” she said. “The cost of the e-discovery alone is in excess of $50,000.”

This is a variation on the theme of plaintiff's lawyers being the cause of EHR problems as I wrote at "Plaintiff's Trial Lawyers Are to Blame for EHRs That 'Tattle' on Doctors - And Harm Patients."

System breaches. Modification allegations. E-discovery demands. These issues are becoming common courtroom themes as physicians transition from paper to EMRs, legal experts say. Not only are EMRs becoming part of medical negligence lawsuits, they are creating additional liability.

Missing is the problem that is most important of all: health IT system defects, poor user interfaces, unreliability, data loss, etc. causing or contributing to medical malpractice that results in patient harm or death. (An example that I personally observed and reported to the FDA MAUDE database is here; there are numerous others in this blog.)

Data breaches are among the most common reasons that electronically stored information lands doctors in court, said Lisa Gallagher, senior director for privacy and security at the Health Information and Management Systems Society, which advocates health information technology

Most common perhaps (a big problem unto itself), but not the most clinically significant problem. Yet the AMA article goes on about this issue for many paragraphs; it's the prime focus of the article.

A 2011 ruling in New York highlights how e-discovery creates a burden for doctors.

During a lawsuit against St. Luke’s Hospital Roosevelt Center, a debate arose about whether the plaintiff should be allowed access to screen shots from a doctor’s computer. Joan Bowman, who sued the hospital for wrongful death on behalf of her husband, wanted to see a computer template used to aid physicians in diagnoses. The hospital said the request was overly broad and oppressive.

But the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered the release of the screen shots.

“Defendant doctors testified that they utilized these materials in coming to their diagnosis,” Judge Alice Schlesinger wrote. “It is not a stretch to allow counsel to see and understand these materials.”

At this article’s deadline, the hospital’s attorney had not returned messages seeking comment.

The case sets a precedent, said Susan Dennehy, Bowman’s attorney.

“If others want to see screen shots from records, I think they’ll rely on this case,” she said. “It was important to see where the template led you if you put in an inaccurate chief complaint.”

Note the "spin" about the "burden for doctors" of eDiscovery. To the pundits and voluntary adopters: you have gotten what you asked for. To the non-pundit clinicians forced to use health IT: I hate to say this, but you've gotten screwed.

The article then offers a laundry list of how to avoid EHR-related liability:

... As the number of electronic medical records increases, so do certain legal risks, medical liability experts say. Common mistakes doctors make with EMRs and how attorneys recommend that physicians reduce their liability risks:

Mistake: EMRs allow users to move quickly through patient records, but cutting and pasting information makes it easy to paste incorrect information.
Recommendation: Refrain from copying and pasting EMR data, and be cautious when moving from one patient’s record to the next.

Mistake: Computer programs can help doctors make a differential diagnosis, but the templates don’t often include every possible symptom and corresponding medical condition.
Recommendation: Doctors should not become overly dependent on electronic diagnosis aids. Electronic systems are no substitute for hands-on diagnosis.

Mistake: Because EMRs allow physicians to move through patient charts much more quickly than paper charts, attorneys are noticing that some doctors are not being thorough when writing notes electronically.
Recommendation: Physicians should keep meticulous electronic notes on each patient and take time to document each chart.

Mistake: Some practices can fail to safeguard electronic patient data.
Recommendation: Practices should encrypt all information on computer devices and have policy that discourages employees from taking portable devices out of the office.

Mistake: A system may not clearly indicate changes to records.
Recommendation: Physicians should install systems that show transparency when modifications are made and/or have a program lockout period where no more modifications can be made to a record.

Mistake: Doctors may fail to follow notification requirements in the event of a data breach.
Recommendation: Be clear on what your state law requires when a data breach occurs, and make sure employees follow the rules immediately.

Mistake: Doctors may destroy or delete electronic records when a lawsuit is possible.
Recommendation: If doctors suspect they are being sued, they must preserve all electronic data related to the patient in question, including emails, phone messages and computer records.

Missing is this, as is well-covered by almost 8 years of posts on this blog, and elsewhere:

Big mistake: Doctors and hospitals buy and implement experimental technology approved by nobody, of uncertain quality to the point of losing or corrupting data, often with glass-tube black-and-white TV user interface modernity. Such technology is "errorgenic", i.e., it promotes "use error", can mislead, and can promote medical errors.
Recommendation: Hold off until the industry has gotten its act together.

Also missing from the AMA News article is the fact that physicians and hospitals use health IT at their own risk, even if the IT is "certified."

This article is clearly pregnant with omissions and spin that reveal a pro-health IT bias.

-- SS

Generic Leadership Fine for EHR Implementation in High Acuity, High Risk Areas Such as an Emergency Department?

At my Feb. 16, 2012 post "Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if 'Certified'" I established that buyers and users of EHR systems do so at their own risk with regard to implementation problems or outright defects resulting in patient harm.

As I've also written at my April 2011 post "FDA Decides Regulating Implantable Defibrillator Medical Devices a Political Hot Potato; Demurs", FDA has admitted health IT is a medical device that they shy away from regulating because it's politically expedient not to do so. (The area is a "hot potato" per the Director of FDA's CDRH, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, so FDA stays away.)

Yet FDA knows of the stakes. As I observed at my Aug. 2010 post "Internal FDA memorandum of Feb. 23, 2010 to Jeffrey Shuren on HIT risks" and elsewhere, patient harm is occurring due to these devices and FDA is aware. Due to admitted impediments to information diffusion, however, even FDA, IOM, The Joint Commission (due to a "dearth of data" as in their 2008 Sentinel Events Alert On Healthcare IT) and others do not know the true magnitude of the problem.

From the FDA internal memo at the preceding FDA memorandum link:

Limitations of the MAUDE [Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database] search and final subset of Medical Device Reports (MDRs) include the following:

1. Not all H-IT safety issue MDRs can be captured due to limitations of reporting practices including

... (a) Vast number of H-IT systems that interface with multiple medical devices currently assigned to multiple procodes making it difficult to identify specific procodes for H-IT safety issues;
... (b) Procode assignments are also affected by the ability of the reporter/contractor to correctly identify the event as a H-IT safety issue;
... (c) Correct identification by the reporter of the suspect device brand name is challenged by difficulties discerning the actual H-IT system versus the device it supports.

2. Due to incomplete information in the MDRs, it is difficult to unduplicate similar reports, potentially resulting in a higher number of reports than actual events.

3. Reported death and injury events may only be associated with the reported device but not necessarily attributed to the device.

4 Correct identification by the reporter of the manufacturer name is convoluted by the inability to discern the manufacturer of the actual H-IT system versus the device it supports.

5 The volume of MDR reporting to MAUDE may be impacted by a lack of understanding the reportability of H-IT safety issues and enforcement of such reporting.

... The results of this data review suggest significant clinical implications and public safety issues surrounding Health Information Technology. The most commonly reported H-IT safety issues included wrong patient/wrong data, medication administration issues, clinical data loss/miscalculation, and unforeseen software design issues; all of which have varying impact on the patient’s clinical care and outcome, which included 6 death and 43 injuries. The absence of mandatory reporting enforcement of H-IT safety issues limits the number of relevant MDRs and impedes a more comprehensive understanding of the actual problems and implications.

Finally, as I pointed out in my Dec. 2009 post "ONC Defines a Taxonomy of Robust Healthcare IT Leadership", the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT at HHS (ONC) had published the following with regard to the qualification of those who could "lead the successful deployment and use of health IT to achieve transformational improvement in the quality, safety, outcomes, and thus in the value, of health services in the United States":

Clinician/Public Health Leader: By combining formal clinical or public health training with training in health IT, individuals in this role will be able to lead the successful deployment and use of health IT to achieve transformational improvement in the quality, safety, outcomes, and thus in the value, of health services in the United States. In the health care provider settings, this role may be currently expressed through job titles such as Chief Medical Information Officer (CMIO), Chief Nursing Informatics Officer (CNIO). In public health agencies, this role may be currently expressed through job titles such as Chief Information or Chief Informatics Officer. Training appropriate to this role will require at least one year of study leading to a university-issued certificate or master’s degree in health informatics or health IT, as a complement to the individual’s prior clinical or public health academic training. For this role, the entering trainees may be physicians or other clinical professionals (e.g. advanced-practice nurses, physician assistants) or hold a master’s or doctoral degree(s) in public health or related health field. Individuals could also enter this training while enrolled in programs leading directly to degrees qualifying them to practice as physicians or other clinical professionals, or to master’s or doctoral degrees in public health or related fields (such as epidemiology). Thus, individuals could be supported for training if they already hold or if they are currently enrolled in courses of study leading to physician, other clinical professional, or public-health professional degrees.

Here, though, is a more typical reality in today's hospitals, the background of an EHR deployment leader in one of the most risk-prone and difficult environments in healthcare, the Emergency Department (ED) in a large hospital of which I am aware:

Clinical Systems Analyst

January 2004 – Present

Project manager for implementation of an ED EHR [vendor name redacted]
Responsible for all aspects of implementation including build and process design, report build, testing, training, and go-live support.
Extensive knowledge ADT processes, HL7, and CPOE.
Manage software patches and upgrades.
Experience in HTML, SQL and SAP.

Financial Systems Analyst
November 2001 – January 2004

Project Team Lead for implementation of Patient Accounting system.
Responsible for system development and system build, training, testing, and reporting.

Education

[Regional university in the lower 50% of US News rankings in the region, name redacted]
B.S., Management Information Systems
2000 – 2003

[Name redacted] Community College

Associates Degree, Business Administration

So, ED physicians (with many years of doctoral and post-doctoral training and experience, boards testing their competence, etc.) may be placing the lives of patients and their careers in the hands of:

• An experimental medical device,
  
• unregulated by anyone,
  
• in a field whose qualifications for leadership are unregulated by anyone,
  
• devices known to be risky,
  
• but without anyone knowing the magnitude of that risk,
  
• whose implementation is led by a generic 'clinical' systems analyst "responsible for all aspects of implementation" with a Bachelor's degree in MIS from a second-tier institution, an Associates degree from a community college, and no medical or Medical Informatics education or experience whatsoever.

Further, that project lead jumped from financial systems analyst to 'clinical' analyst/leader of an ED EHR implementation.

One should also ask

• Who was the hiring manager who hired such a person and put them in the role?
• On what credentials and experience was the decision based?
  
• What were the hiring manager's own credentials?
  

I leave it to the reader to decide if this is an appropriate arrangement, and if they would place their trust in an ED whose activities center around a cybernetic system implemented in this manner.

-- SS

Feb. 17, 2012 Addendum:

At least in this case the person has degrees.

Per several prominent healthcare IT recruiters in the past in the article "Who's Growing CIO's" in the journal Healthcare Informatics, as mentioned at my Sept. 2009 post "Correcting historical information from the recruiter component of the Health IT Ecosystem", the School of Hard Knocks was plenty good for health IT leadership roles:

I don't think a degree gets you anything," says healthcare recruiter Lion Goodman, president of the Goodman Group in San Rafael, California about CIO's and other healthcare MIS staffers. Healthcare MIS recruiter Betsy Hersher of Hersher Associates, Northbrook, Illinois, agreed, stating "There's nothing like the school of hard knocks." In seeking out CIO talent, recruiter Lion Goodman "doesn't think clinical experience yields [hospital] IT people who have broad enough perspective. Physicians in particular make poor choices for CIOs. They don't think of the business issues at hand because they're consumed with patient care issues," according to Goodman.

-- SS

Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if "Certified"

Due to my observations of confusion about health IT certification [1], and due to vague or incomplete seller language that could be misinterpreted by buyers (perhaps by design), I recently asked several ONC-ATCBs (HHS's Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies) the following.

I sent this question via email to their "questions" email addresses:

"Is EHR certification by an ATCB a certification of EHR safety, effectiveness, and a legal indemnification, i.e., certifying freedom from liability for EHR use of clinical users or organizations? Or does it signify less than that?"

One ONC-ATCB provided the following in response to my request for information.

From: Trivedi, Amit V (ICSA Labs)
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Scot Silverstein
Subject: RE: Form submission from: Contact Us

Hello Scot,

Thanks for your email. Certification by an ATCB signifies that the product or system tested has the capabilities to meet specific criteria published by NIST and approved by the Office of the National Coordinator. In this case the criteria are designed to support providers and hospitals achieve "Meaningful Use." A subset of the criteria deal with the security and patient privacy capabilities of the system.

Here is a list of the specific criteria involved in our testing:
http://healthcare.nist.gov/use_testing/effective_requirements.html

In a nutshell, ONC-ATCB Certification deals with testing the capabilities of a system, some of them relate to patient safety, privacy and security functions (audit logging, encryption, emergency access, etc.).

What was suggested in the email below (freedom from liability for users of the system, etc.) would be out of scope for ONC-ATCB testing based on the given criteria. [I.e., certification criteria - ed.] I hope that helps to answer your question.

Thanks,

Amit

Amit Trivedi
Program Manager - Healthcare
ICSA Labs, an Independent Division of Verizon Business

My question was certainly answered. ONC certification is not a safety validation, such as in a document from NASA on aerospace software safety certification, "Certification Processes for Safety-Critical and Mission-Critical Aerospace Software" (PDF) which specifies at pg. 6-7:

In order to meet most regulatory guidelines, developers must build a safety case as a means of documenting the safety justification of a system. The safety case is a record of all safety activities associated with a system throughout its life. Items contained in a safety case include the following:

• Description of the system/software
• Evidence of competence of personnel involved in development of safety-critical software and any
safety activity
• Specification of safety requirements
• Results of hazard and risk analysis
• Details of risk reduction techniques employed
• Results of design analysis showing that the system design meets all required safety targets
• Verification and validation strategy
• Results of all verification and validation activities
• Records of safety reviews
• Records of any incidents which occur throughout the life of the system
• Records of all changes to the system and justification of its continued safety

Health IT testing conspicuously lacks attention to most of the aerospace software safety points above. I note that there appears to be no reasonable excuse for such omissions.

IOM has recently studied the issue of HIT safety. IOM states in a Nov. 2011 report that HIT safety and safety testing is unsatisfactory, and has recommended HHS study it as well. IOM recommends HHS annually re-evaluate whether regulation is needed to improve safety, although IOM favors industry self-policing [2].

Thus, buyers and users of even "ONC certified" health IT are not indemnified from liability due to medical errors or problems caused by the health IT.

Sellers who exaggerate the value of certification or imply its meaning is akin to FDA device approval, likewise, could be faulted for making false representations about their products.

It would appear the sellers could potentially be sued for doing so by purchasers/users who themselves get into legal hot water due to EHR defects or other problems.

-- SS

Note:

[1] I believe confusion about EHR "certification" is in part due to the term itself. I raised objections to this term when it was first proposed based on my experience in pharma, suggesting what I felt was the more accurate expression "features qualification" instead.

[2] "Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care", Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Nov. 2011, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx

-----------------

Addendum March 6, 2012:

I received a response from another ONC-ATCB, the Drummond Group:

From: Joani Hughes (Drummond Group)
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:06 PM
To: Scot Silverstein
Subject: RE: EHR certification question

Per our testing team:

It is less than that. It does not address indemnification although a certification could be used as a conditional part of some other form of indemnification function, such as a waiver or TOA, but that is ultimately out of the scope of the certification itself. Certification in this sense is an assurance that the EHR functions in way that could enable an eligible provider or eligible hospital to meet the CMS requirements of Meaningful Use Stage 1. Or to restate it more directly, CMS is expecting eligible providers or eligible hospitals to use their EHR in “meaningful way” quantified by various quantitative measure metrics and eligible providers or eligible hospitals can only be assured they can do this if they obtain a certified EHR technology.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Joani.

Joani Hughes
Client Services Coordinator
Drummond Group Inc.

These are direct and clear statements.

-- SS

Death at Birth: A Tragedy Caused by Overwork and Undertraining - and Technology

As a result of my recent post "Plaintiff's Trial Lawyers Are to Blame for EHRs That 'Tattle' on Doctors - And Harm Patients", a malpractice attorney, Patrick Malone in Washington, D.C., sent me a link to a tragic summary of a case his firm handled.

The story illustrates the toxic effects that health IT and other technology, especially when not "done well", can have on patient care.

I present it below with just a bit of comment, with permission of attorney Malone. Emphases also mine:

Death at Birth: A Tragedy Caused by Overwork and Undertraining

The Patrick Malone firm represented the family of Keren Kipoliongo, a baby girl who died in her mother’s womb just minutes before the successful Cesarean section delivery of her twin sister Gabrielle.

This tragedy occurred at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia in July 2008. At midnight one evening, Mrs. Kipoliongo and her husband presented to the labor and delivery unit at the hospital, as scheduled per their obstetrician’s instructions. The plan was to induce labor with the drug Pitocin (oxytocin) and monitor both babies during the labor with fetal heart monitors, to make sure they could withstand the contractions and be safely delivered by the normal vaginal route.

This was the first pregnancy for the couple, and they were excited about the prospects of having twins. They had set up their home in northern Virginia with a nursery with two cribs and two of everything else they would need.

The obstetrician whom Mrs. Kipoliongo had seen regularly throughout her pregnancy checked them into the L&D unit and then went to sleep in the doctors’ lounge. He instructed the nurse and a resident physician (doctor in training) to call him if needed.

Mrs. Kipoliongo was left alone for large stretches through the night. It wasn’t until a nursing shift change at 7 a.m. that she started to get close attention from the nurses. By that time, baby Keren was in bad shape as shown by fetal monitor patterns in which her heart beat was slowing ominously with the mother’s contractions. She had already shown throughout the overnight period a flattening or lack of variability from beat to beat. (The flattening of the heart rate often means the baby is not getting enough oxygen.) [Why was this not noted and acted upon promptly? Read on - ed.]

They finally brought the obstetrician in, and he decided around 8:15 a.m. to do a Cesarean section. Baby Keren was still alive at that point. Unfortunately she died some time over the next hour, because when the doctor finally cut into the mother’s womb after 9 a.m., he found that she was dead, with the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck.

When our law firm investigated what had happened on behalf of the family, we found several disturbing facts. These included:

• Despite the lack of reassuring signs on baby Keren’s heartbeat, the nurses failed to do any of a number of standard things that can improve the baby’s condition, such as turning the mother, giving the mother oxygen, and giving extra fluids.
• The hospital overworked the nurse assigned to Mrs. Kipoliongo’s labor, giving her a second patient for whom she was also primarily responsible. Standards require one-on-one nursing during a labor that is as involved as hers was. The stimulating drug Pitocin requires close monitoring. In addition, Keren was under-sized (a condition called “intrauterine growth restriction”), and that is why they were proceeding with a scheduled birth rather than wait for labor to start on its own. (At autopsy, Keren was found to have completely normal body organs; her only issue was being small.) [I note that the overwork might have included having to interact with an EHR presenting a mission hostile user experience, as I've seen in critical care environments and have worked to specifically avoid when I was in charge as here - ed.]
  
• Inspection of the computerized hospital record showed that this nurse, Julie Bates Gilpin, made most of her entries in the record hours after the purported observation time, including a whole series of entries after her shift ended. [I have seen this phenomenon myself; some EHR's allow entries even without a time stamp, and the only way to ascertain when entries were made is via discovery of metadata (automatically generated audit trails and other data that shows who manipulated data, and when. Hospitals often resist providing full metadata, despite Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) governing e-discovery enacted almost 6 years ago - ed.]
  
• We asked the nurse at a deposition why her entries showed such regular times of observation, at exactly 15 minutes after the hour, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, etc. She told us that was because she “rounded” on her patients every 15 minutes. But later we discovered – after winning a “motion to compel” in which the judge required the hospital to turn over records of the other patients Ms. Gilpin was monitoring that night (with names blacked out) – that she was also recording the same exact pattern of observations on her other patient, at 15 past the hour, 30, 45, and so on. So when we compared our client’s record with the other patient, it was clear that Nurse Gilpin was making computer entries showing that she was in two places at once. Again, most of these entries were made hours later and back-timed. [I also wonder, during the actual clinical encounter time was the nurse treating the actual patients or the e-Patient, i.e., the 'virtual patient' represented by the computer screens? - ed.]
  
• We also wanted to know why the alarm on the fetal monitor went off 12 times during the night but was answered only one of those times by Nurse Gilpin. We discovered that these monitors have alarm reset buttons like a snooze button on an alarm clock. You can hit the button and turn off the alarm without doing anything else for the patient. Most of the time, the “snooze button” was hit by a nurse at the nurse’s station. What did this mean? The monitor was supposed to be tracking two separate twin babies. [Not exactly what I would call a "state of the art" alert design - ed.] The alarm would go off when the signal was lost for one baby. The nurses are supposed to reposition the patient so they can pick up the signal again. They didn’t do that for most of the times that the signal was lost. So it turned out that hours went by during the night when nothing was tracked on baby Keren’s heartbeat.
• Even worse, we found out that when we took Nurse Gilpin’s testimony, she no longer remembered how to do her job on the labor and delivery unit even though she had worked there up until a few months before the time of her deposition. We asked her how a nurse reads the fetal monitor and what are bad signs for the baby, and she said she didn’t know.
• And even worse than that (the wrongdoing kept piling up in this case as we continued our investigation), the resident doctor, whose name was Dr. Sahardat Nurudeen, and who was the only physician monitoring our client’s labor progress for nearly eight hours, also claimed at her deposition that she couldn’t read a fetal monitor tracing even though she was in training to become an obstetrician. (In fact, she had completed her full obstetric residency and was preparing for her board certification test at the time of her deposition.) We say “claimed,” because it could be that she just wanted to avoid answering tough questions at the deposition about individual segments of Keren’s monitor strips. Either way, it wasn’t good for high quality, accountable patient care.

We finally concluded that there were many chances during that night to save Keren’s life, but the understaffing and overwork and apparently poor training (how could a nurse or a young doctor forget how to read a fetal monitor, a basic part of their training?) [and the toxic effects of ill-conceived and ill-implemented technology - ed.] led to an unnecessary tragedy.

This story should give pause to technophiles in medicine who ignore technology's possible downsides, and the clinicians who are compelled to center their clinical lives around such technology (while the purveyors of that technology are often held harmless by hospital executives in violation of the latter's fiduciary responsibilities).

-- SS

Those Goddamn Plaintiff's Trial Lawyers Are to Blame for EHRs That 'Tattle' on Doctors - And Harm Patients

It seems the EHR technophiles are starting to notice one of the side effects of EHR technology: the liabilities EHRs impose on users.

Interestingly, those liabilities are presented below as the fault not of a cavalier industry receiving extraordinary governmental and regulatory accommodation compared to other healthcare sectors that, among other issues, have allowed it to (see hyperlinks for more information):

• Disregard practices of good software engineering, product safety and human factors issues (usability),
  
• Ignore tenets of good information presentation yielding literal reams of 'legible gibberish' masquerading as medical records that confuse attorneys on both sides of the Bar as well as clinicians,
  
• Flout proper conduct of human subjects experimentation e.g. without informed consent,
• Avoid appropriate methodologies for medical device trials (all the while promoting the data these devices generate as 'revolutionizing healthcare'),
• and more as covered on this site and at my Drexel University educational site at this link.
  

Instead, the liabilities are presented as the fault of plaintiff trial lawyers, who need to be disempowered through yet another special accommodation for health IT.

My comments are interspersed in [red italics]:

Feb. 8, 2012
The Wall Street Journal
MarketWatch
Healthcare IT Expert Exposes Hidden Risks of Lawsuits Due to Electronic Health Record

Spokesperson Says Electronic Health Records May Give Crippling Access to Physician's Actions and Increase the Need for Defensive Medicine

[Crippling access to physician's actions? That is an odd combination of terms - ed.]

DELRAY BEACH, Fla., Feb 8, 2012 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) passed in February 2009 and caused a digital tsunami in the healthcare industry, physicians have been scrambling to comply with the requirement to switch to electronic health record systems. (EHRs) While many in the healthcare industry laud the use of EHRs to improve quality of care and analyzing patient outcomes, Dr. Sam Bierstock, founder of Champions In Healthcare, points out significant concerns regarding increased vulnerability to medical legal claims that may result from the use of EHRs without major tort reform that would relieve physicians of an onslaught of malpractice suits.

"EHRs unquestionably have the potential to improve patient safety and the quality of care delivered, but what few people realize is that using an EHR exposes physicians to an Orwellian level of analysis of every single act while doing their job," said Bierstock, who has advocated and pioneered the use and benefits of EHRs for more than 30 years." EHRs, however, can also be audited to examine how long it took them to act after an abnormal lab result came in, if the doctor checked on on-line references before making a clinical decision, what was said in every email and how long the doctor took to respond, and even how long the doctor looked at a screen or scrolled down to read an entire document.

[Why, exactly, this is a bad thing, I do not understand; it seems hypocritical. After all, any data collected that can help improve healthcare has been deemed golden - up to now - ed.]

Physicians are exposing themselves to an unacceptable level of scrutiny and analysis of their use of computers that may serve to encourage malpractice suits.

["Unacceptable level of scrutiny" is largely a code phrase for audit trails and other 'metadata', i.e., automatically generated computer data that shows who accessed or modified a document or other data, when, from where, etc. I ask - access to this data is unacceptable to whom? Injured patients? - ed.]

Meaningful tort reform is essential to getting the maximal benefit from these wonderful systems.

[Wonderful systems, when even the IOM admits we don't know the level of harm they cause, the NIST indicates they are poorly usable, and so forth as here? - ed.]

According to Bierstock, the problem runs even deeper because during his career as an industry consultant with Champions in Healthcare, and as a speaker at healthcare events he has noticed that the vast majority of physicians are still not aware of the complex requirements imposed upon them by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act even though it has been a law for more than two years.

[I agree with the statement "imposed upon them", but this imposition was largely at the hands of the HIT pundits, the 'Ddulites' (technophiles who ignore technology's downsides, the opposite of 'Luddites', link), and various species of non-medical profiteers - ed.]

"I talk to many physicians who have no idea they can suffer financial, civil and even criminal penalties (i.e. jail) for non-compliance.," said Bierstock. "I have been asked to speak about this topic many times, but beyond HITECH, it's my opinion that similarly, doctors and hospitals don't yet fully realize their medical legal vulnerability associated with the use of EHRs.

[They will learn, fast, with Medical Informatics specialists such as myself on patients' side instead of on the side of the health IT industry - ed.]

This will be the case until there is major tort reform, which has unfortunately been thwarted by the influence of American Trial Attorneys and their associations."

[You see, it's all the fault of the evil Plaintiff's Bar - ed.]

Bierstock noted that in an effort to stimulate physicians and hospitals to install and use EHRs, The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 also authorized the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to issue guidelines which define what is "Meaningful Use" of an EHR - guidelines which must be met in order for hospitals and doctors to receive financial incentive payments for using EHRs, or be penalized by having Medicare or Medicaid payments reduced for failure to meet the guidelines.

[Unfortunately, they did not formulate guidelines for safety. Thus, as Sharona Hoffman, JD notes in MEANINGFUL USE AND CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: WHAT ABOUT SAFETY?, "General system safety is a property that is attainable only through rigorous processes for development and evaluation. However, the regulations do not address certification of EHR vendors’ software development processes or even require vendors to analyze and mitigate potential safety hazards. Furthermore, ATCBs will use testing requirements developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that are apparently intended only to determine whether systems include certain features. Passing such tests is not sufficient to ensure that those features function properly in the long term and under varied operating conditions." - ed.]

Bierstock believes that if physicians are expected to embrace EHRS, they should be allowed to do so in a manner that maximizes the benefits of these systems to the delivery of care and to the benefit of their patients without worrying about giving unlimited ammunition to trial lawyers.

[Perhaps the EHR pundits should have foreseen this eventuality before pushing the current administration to mandate national EHR rollout. It didn't take a rocket scientist to do so - ed.]

"Quite simply, physicians may be in a situation that leaves them vulnerable to litigation and threatens loss of their professional standing and personal assets -- all because an external evaluator [e.g., a trial lawyer, judge or jury -ed.] may not think the physician lived up to arguable standards in the digital age," said Bierstock. "Overall, EHRs are the litigator's proverbial golden goose. They are to malpractice attorneys what the electron microscope is to microbiology."

[In other words, EHRs deserve yet another special accommodation, this time regarding legal Discovery, in addition to the many other special accommodations this industry has received. In fact, EHRs make available only that which they are designed to, and discoverability of that information is a Federal matter under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) governing e-discovery - "On December 1, 2006 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were revised to address numerous e-discovery issues. Rules 16,26,33,34,37 and 45 require attorneys to pay specific attention to electronic discovery issues. E-Discovery practices and strategies need to be reviewed and aligned with the updated rules to ensure compliance." - ed.]

I find requests for additional special accommodations for EHR's over other medical devices and IT in other industries (e.g., airplane black boxes and cockpit recorders that monitor the every move of pilots) to be illustrative of the concept "be careful, you may get what you wish for."

That plaintiff trial lawyers are blamed for quite properly using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assure justice for victims of medical malpractice, including EHR-related medical malpractice, is outrageous.

It seems the pundits might be starting to panic, after realizing the "data utopia" that is going to "revolutionize medicine" has a downside.

-- S. Silverstein, MD

Feb. 14, 2012 Addendum:

It seems the clinical data itself generated by today's health IT - garnered while putting patients at risk and costing many billions of dollars - might not be anywhere near as trustworthy as advertised by the technophiles.

See "It Seems We Are Not The Only Ones Bumping Up Against EHR Data Quality Issues. PCEHR Implications Are Worth Considering" at the Australian Health Information Technology blog by Dr. David More, MB PhD FACHI, and the JAMIA articles he references.

Dr. More observes:

... If ever there was an example of “garbage in, garbage out” in operation this has to be it. There has to be a great deal of care taken as we move from the most simplest data sharing to more complex efforts.

-- SS