For us here at Galen it was a great time to see old friends and clients, as well as, meet new friends and clients all in a setting that facilitated learning, sharing and connecting our collective community; of course, having a little bit of fun along the way doesn’t hurt.

By far the most rewarding part of ACE is connecting with our clients and hearing about the successes our people have made, both on an individual level as well as a community level.  There is nothing more rewarding than hearing a client’s success story and being able to share with our group the service that someone from Galen provided.

In the coming year, we look forward to our continued contributions and learning from our people, clients and community.  Nothing contributes to innovation more than a passionate community.

It was great to see all of our old friends, and we look forward to making new ones.

Matt Nice

Tech – The Message Server

This webcast provides insight into the flow of data for the processes handled by Allscripts’ Message Server role. Topics covered will include configuration and troubleshooting of the TW Spooler service, as well as the workspaces involved in printing administration.

July 20, 2010 – 2:00pm-3:30pm: To register and reserve a spot please click here.

July 22, 2010 – 10:00am-11:30am: To register and reserve a spot please click here.

Part I- Organization Planning & Internal Governance

Developing a project charter is the first step. The project charter has several components that include the project description and business objectives and success criteria. This is an important part of the charter, if you do not know what you are hoping to accomplish or know what success of the project means to the organization the chances of reaching success will be difficult at best.  Other components of a project charter include listing the stakeholders, vision, project scope (another important piece, as scope creep will happen without it), assumptions and dependencies, constraints, milestones, business risks, resources and finally an approval section where the executive team’s signatures will be placed to demonstrate their approval and acceptance of the project charter.

The development of a formal project plan with identified milestones will assist not only the project manager but the executive steering committee to determine the health of the project. The creation of a great project plan includes receiving input from the project team.  This allows each member to buy into the journey that are about to embark upon.

The next component of planning for your organization’s EHR project is developing a communication strategy.  A well thought-out strategy that includes formal communication channels is crucial.  Once the project picks up speed the lack of communication can cause unnecessary hurdles.

Some additional components of organization planning and internal governance are determining a decision matrix that outlines how specific types of decisions will be made and ultimately approved.  Forming your committees that include providers, executives, and clinic leadership will facilitate the support required for your EHR project to be a success.  Having a commitment from the members of these committees is crucial as you may need their backing upon occasions throughout the project.

The final component is establishing a solid infrastructure and reliable network.  Addressing any infrastructure concerns before you begin your project is essential because once you pick up speed on the project, this area risks being left unattended which can cause hardship on reaching your goal of achieving SUCCESS!

Watch for Part II – Exceptional Project Management and Control

Several sources researched had varying numbers for the cost per provider. The cost for implementation, range from $25,000 to $60,000 with a mean of $42,500. Maintenance costs range from $5,000 to $18,000 per provider per year. The details from several sources are listed below: 

Harvard – “Based on the informatics literature, the initial implementation cost of an EHR for private practices averages between $40,000-$60,000 per provider and the cost of maintenance averages $5,000-10,000 per provider per year.” http://mycourses.med.harvard.edu/ec_res/nt/191A1C43-AEF8-4244-8215-F39C690A4E6B/EHRseries.pdf

 Ahrq.gov – “The research indicates that the average purchase and implementation cost of an EHR was $32,606 per FTE physician. Maintenance costs were an additional $1,500 per physician per month. Not surprising was the finding that smaller practices had the highest per-physician implementation cost at $37,204. The study also found that the average cost for EHR implementation was about 25 percent more than initial vendor estimates.” http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2005/lowehrpr.htm

Perot Systems – “For physician groups, the CBO reported that total implementation costs for office-based EHRs ranged from $25,000 to $45,000 per physician, with annual operating, licensing, and maintenance costs ranging between $3,000 and $9,000 per physician” http://www.perotsystems.com/MediaRoom/Library/ServiceOverviews/ServiceOverview_CostsAndBenefits.pdf

EMR and HIPAA – “It is estimated that the cost of purchasing an EHR system is $33,000 for each physician, with an additional cost of $1,500 per doctor per month for maintenance. This expense has cost challenges for many providers, especially those in small practices. Some estimate that the long-term cost-savings produced by a national health information network could reach $77.8 billion a year from a reduction in medical errors, diagnostic test duplication, and administrative expenses.” http://www.emrandhipaa.com/emr-and-hipaa/2009/06/01/scholarly-study-on-cost-of-ehr/

Since the federal incentive payments are being offered, the next question is whether or not those funds will cover the cost of implementing an EHR will be covered. 

Avalere Health - “These new incentives are intended to motivate doctors to adopt EHRs, yet for many physicians, the level of the incentive may not reflect current financial realities,” said Jon Glaudemans, a senior vice president at Avalere Health.  “Given this gap, EHR adoption will still require a significant investment by small physician practices.  In today’s economic climate, many physicians will struggle with this calculus.” http://www.avalerehealth.net/wm/show.php?c=1&id=808

MGMA - “…physician-owned practices with paper medical records generally spend $20,000 per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician on IT (chiefly for hte billing system) and have less profit (medican total medical revenue after operating cost per FTE physician) compared with groups with EHRs that spend more than $20,000 per FTE physician on IT have a substantially greater profit than those that spend $20,000 or less on IT.”   Gans, MSH, FACMPE, D. N. (2010, July). Investing in Technology: How Information technology expenditures affect the bottom line. MGMA Connexion,  19-20.

Jerri Cowper

The purpose of the EHR webcasts is to give a detailed view into the underlying database schemas as well as useful queries for the Patient and Order/Results tables. For Analytics we will be covering a basic overview of the Analytics applications as well as detailed examples using Worksheets and Crosstabs. 

These will be structured in a similar format to university courses – the three classes will be at 100 (intro) levels.  The list of the webcasts and their times may be found below.

Allscripts EHR – Patient: Overview of the Patient tables as they relate to the Allscripts EHR Database. This course will cover basic concepts related to Patient tables, as well as useful queries, views and general best practice techniques. 

• Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 at 2:00pm EST

Allscripts EHR – Order/Results: Overview of the Order/Results tables as they relate to the Allscripts EHR Database. This course will cover basic concepts related to Order/Results tables, as well as useful queries, views and general best practice techniques. 

• Wednesday July 7th, 2010 at 2:00pm EST

Allscripts Analytics: Overview of the Allscipts Analytics application. This course will cover basic concepts related to general functionality of the Allcripts Analytics applications, including example Worksheet and Crosstab problems as well as general best practice techniques. 

• Wednesday August 11th, 2010 at 2:00pm EST

To attend, please contact Dave Boerner, Dave.Boerner@galenhealthcare.com . You must be an existing Allscripts Enterprise EHR client to attend.

We also offer training courses and reporting services for the Allscripts Enterprise EHR database, ETL database, Analytics and the ConnectR  database.  Please contact sales@galenhealthcare.com for more information regarding these courses and our reporting services.

As with any data conversion, one must be cautious in terms of negative implications. For instance, administrative data has its limitations, and an example or where the process can go wrong is the highly-publicized case of e-Patient Dave.  Ultimately, problem conversions can be useful, but the data needs to be reviewed, and almost treated as suspect.  The value in the conversion is saving the entry of the problems that are accurate – say 80-90%.  Any that are incorrect, will be reviewed with the patient and can easily be marked EIE.

Statistics:

• 1,007,238 problems were loaded to the EHR for 205,831 patients via the interface engine, taking about 11 hours to process totally.
• PM Extract file statistics:
  • Total matchups of ICD9s to patients: 5,405,874
  • Total Unique ICD9s: 8346
  • ICD9s that only match up with 1 patient:1295
  • ICD9s that match up with 100 or more patients: 2027

Approach and Components:

• Master approved “ICD9” list provided by client
• Extract of ICD9 data from PM system provided by PM vendor
• Automated macro that attempts to match ICD9 to Medcin. Potential matches include the following:
  • 1 to 1
  • One to many (20 or less)
  • One to many (20 plus)
  • One to none
  • Each of the different flavors of matches were marked with an annotation (highlighted via an asterisk) to identify to clinicians the logic that was used in importing the problems:

• Once the translation was finalized, it was loaded into the interface engine and mapping logic loaded problems into the patient chart in the EHR via the API (existing stored procedure).

Known Issues Mitigated:

• Due to incorrect logic, some ICD9s were linked to patient profiles improperly. To mitigate this, a script was run to mark these problems as “entered in error”
• Problems were loaded to the “Past Medical History” section of the patient chart with a status of active. However, given this status, it didn’t facilitate providers to easily change the problem to be an active problem linked to a note.

Lessons Learned:

• Execute a proof-of-concept and as with any technical project, get clinician feedback. The client had a pilot group of 5 clinicians to vet out issues and bless the data before the live conversion was run.
• Do NOT use spreadsheets to track the cross-walk between administrative ICD9 diagnoses and clinical Medcin problems. Rather utilize a staging DB to serve as a single repository in developing ICD9 to Medcin translations. Also, the data from flat-file export from PM can be loaded into a staging environment via SSIS such that it can be analyzed and summarized while facilitating persistence.
• Make sure to tie the problem conversion load to a specific provider, that way if side effects or issues are identified after the fact, there is a clear way to identify which problems were loaded in the conversion via the provider they are tied to. The interface log should also have a record of this, but most organizations set the retention time to 90 days.
• Workflow validation – ensure that the workflow to move problems from PMH to Active will not be a barrier to use.

If your organization is looking for assistance in data conversion, please contact sales@galenhealthcare.com and visit our website for more information regarding our technical service offerings.

Some of our clients have recently expressed the desire for a limited, read-only view in to the AE-EHR to extend access to audit entities. For instance, the requirements of one organization included a limited patient-access read-only environment to be in compliance with FDA Research Part 11 restrictions for clinical trials. Another organization needed it for insurance audit purposes. And still again, others desired to provide an extended environment to allow hospitalists, ED physicians, and critical care physicians access to selective patient charts.

Approach

One of the more popular approaches has been to segment out a separate read-only organization in the Allscripts Enterprise Electronic Health Record (AE-EHR). The AE-EHR handles organizations quite nicely and facilitates an approach of segmenting out entities – the following Galen Wiki article covers a scripted means of deploying a new organization in v10 AE-EHR.

Once the organization has been created, patients can then be “bulk-loaded” to the organization via SQL scripts. New AE-EHR users can then be created and associated to this organization. Finally, to setup the read-only portion, security gates can be implemented.

Extendability

An additional requirement of one of our clients included an approach that offered the capability to dynamically add/remove patients to the “Audit” organization real-time. We facilitated this via creation of a file-based interface from ConnectR to the AE-EHR. The interface accepted its input from a well defined flat-file (comma-delimited, including MRN, Action – Add or Remove, and OrganizationID) and utilized that data to add/remove patients to the org via a custom stored procedures – the de facto application programming interface (API) to the AE-EHR clinical database.

And still further, another client requested that the audit/read-only entities (users of the system) be granted the ability to create tasks . For example, the client desired a specific, high priority task, identifiable as originating from the audit/read-only entity – in this case hospitalists which could be assigned to the patient’s PCP. In this case, the clients’ hospitalists could communicate high priority continuity of care tasks, which require prompt reaction, to the PCP at discharge. However, the PCPs should not be able to task back to the hospitalists, and this can be achieved by setting the EnableOrgFilterFlag preference in the AE-EHR.

If your organization needs assistance in setting up a audit environment to provide limited, read-only access to the AE-EHR, please contact sales@galenhealthcare.com and visit our website for more information regarding our technical and professional service offerings.

What: A three-day course for report writers, DBAs and those in healthcare informatics on the Allscripts Enterprise EHR database.
When: March 1 – 3, 2010
Where: Boston, MA
Price: $2,500

The Galen Database Architecture and Reporting Workshop has furthered our understanding of the Allscripts Enterprise EHR database.  The clear presentation and substantial hands-on time helped us to greatly accelerate our production of customized reports.  And, the data dictionary documentation alone is invaluable.
– Chris Hyde, DBA, Albuquerque Health Partners

The attached announcement includes additional information regarding the course and suggested audience (report writers, DBAs, etc).

Please contact Mike Dow to register, or if you have any questions – mike.dow@galenhealthcare.com

• This estimated effort is based on 50 physician multi-specialty organization.
• It is intended to give a ballpark of effort involved and the numbers serve as estimates only.
• It does not necessarily scale linearly with number of providers or specialties.
• The effort only addresses four categories of effort – implementation, technical, interface and training.
• Categories of effort not addressed include project management, systems configuration and deployment, networking configuration and deployment, hardware (including desktop) deployment, and helpdesk and on-going support.

The meaningful use matrix with effort broken-out can be found on the Galen Healthcare Solutions Wiki.

Now that we have presented the effort involved, let’s delve into how EHR deployments – specifically  AE-EHR deployements – are typically phased:

Phase I: Base, Document, Scan and Dictate

Description: Provide a baseline level of EHR functionality to all users. Real-time access to physician schedules, transcribed and scanned documents, facilitation of dictation.  Data conversions, Scanned charts and documents, Base Deployment. This approach typically appeals to all providers regardless of technical aptitude and would not require significant workflow changes

Advantages: Clinical information access internal and external to the clinic, reduced level of change for physicians through the use of dictate, realized benefits of decreased errors and re-work.

Interfaces:

• Registration & Scheduling
  • Real-time inbound registration and scheduling feed from practice management system.
  • Initial bulk-load of existing active patients and appointments
• Transcription
  • Real-time inbound transcription interface from transcription system.

*Phase II: Rx+, Note, Forms, Results

Description: Add medication management, structured note and results

Advantages: Ability to collect structured information facilitating use of panel queries. Additionally, formulary compliance, and prescription faxing/e-prescribing to pharmacies and ability to capture results as discrete data elements

Interfaces:

• Results
  • Real-time inbound results interface from lab system.

*Phase III: Order, Charge

Description: Facilitates charge capture and order transmission.

Advantages: Completes the access to centralized patient data and further enhances the quality of care and service to patients.

Interfaces:

• Orders
  • Real-time outbound order interface to lab system
• Charge
  • Real-time outbound charge interface to the practice management system.

*Phase II and III can be combined based upon the organization requirements

In conclusion, one of the biggest questions that lingers for me is how the data is to be relayed to the government such that organizations can be evaluated as to whether or not they meet the thresholds to receive the incentives. Custom reporting comes to mind as precedent has been set here, specifically with PQRI and Medicare HCC. Galen Healthcare Solutions certainly can provide custom reporting specific to organizations needs in order to communicate meaningful use. Another solution is Allscripts Clinical Quality Solution powered by TeamPraxis. In the meantime, we wait for the rule to be finalized and anticipate announcement of how the meaningful use data is to be relayed.

If your organization is looking for assistance in exhibiting meaningful use, please contact sales@galenhealthcare.com and visit our website for more information regarding our technical and professional service offerings.

We encountered one such scenario with one of our clients. Our client had been processing and loading flat-files from its legacy systems into the EHR. The client loaded approximately 15 years of legacy data (equating to millions of records). In the import process, the client had followed a strict patient matching criteria and received a patient matching error rate of approximately 5% which may be considered a reasonable matching rate.

However, the client’s help desk was getting a multitude of calls reporting missing legacy system records in the EHR (suspected to be in the 5% that did not make the conversion). The issue working against the client was a drop-dead date upon which these legacy systems were being deprecated and thus the clinicians would no-longer have a “fall-back” plan to access the records – the repercussions of which were potential patient care issues.

As such, Galen was engaged to analyze the records that did not meet the strict patient matching criteria , determine which records could be successfully loaded to the EHR under relaxed patient matching rules, and describe the impact of relaxing the patient matching. In the analysis that followed, it was recognized that in the data set that erred due to patient matching errors, identifier fields (namely first name, last name, DOB, MRN, Other Number1 and Other Number2) exhibited typos and inconsistencies. Enter Microsoft SQL Server Integration Studio’s (SSIS) Fuzzy Lookup Transformation. For those unfamiliar with fuzzy logic, it is “the process of reaching conclusions based on information and facts that are not 100 percent certain.”

The underlying algorithm to the Fuzzy Matching transformation is the SOUNDEX function:

• In the late nineteenth century, United States census officials faced a dilemma. During the process of counting the huddled masses, our public servants created a huge paperwork trail that the law required them to preserve for future historians. With amazing forethought, they realized that people searching for records might not know the exact spelling of their ancestor’s name. Was it Smith or Smythe? Chapple, Chapel or Chapelle?

• To ease these searches, census officials turned to the Soundex phonetic filing system. This system uses a simple phonetic algorithm to reduce each name to a four character alphanumeric code. The first letter of the code corresponds to the first letter of the last name. The remainder of the code consists of three digits derived from the syllables of the word.

• Largely unused outside of the halls of government and genealogy, the Soundex system is making a comeback in modern databases. Database developers have long struggled with the problem of matching words that might not look alike, but actually sound alike.

Thus to reclaim some of the records that erred in matching to a patient chart in the EHR, the Fuzzy Matching transformation was utilized. Flat-files output from legacy data silos were input, pre-processed and then fed to the transformation. Given previous studies, the matching criterion utilized was as follows:  Match on LastName and FirstName Similarity Threshold >.8 AND DOB matches exactly AND one of three (MRN, OtherNumber, OtherNumber2) cross-referenced match exactly. The end result was reclamation of close to 25% of those legacy system patient records that originally failed patient matching.

If your organization is looking for assistance in data conversion, please contact sales@galenhealthcare.com and visit our website for more information regarding our technical service offerings.