Healthcare’s Latest Interoperability Push | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Healthcare’s Latest Interoperability Push

January 17, 2017
by Rajiv Leventhal and Mark Hagland
| Reprints
Recent collaboration among big-name EHR vendors signals a new push towards greater health information exchange, although barriers in the market still remain

Across the healthcare ecosystem, it’s hardly a secret that providers struggle to get pertinent medical information from exchange partners who use a different electronic health record (EHR) from their own. And if the provider wants to do something impactful with that health data—say receive it in a way that facilitates improvement in patient care, for example—the struggle becomes even more real.

These viewpoints were confirmed in KLAS’ Interoperability 2016 report last October which found that, based on a previously-developed interoperability measurement tool, providers are reporting very low rates of impactful data exchange. In the report from the Orem, Utah-based KLAS, which included interviews with more than 500 EHR end-user clinicians, providers were quick to say that interoperability is more than just access to outside patient records. For interoperability to truly move the needle on better care, outside records must be (1) available, (2) easy to locate, (3) situated within the clinician workflow, and (4) delivered in an effective way that facilitates improvement in patient care. But KLAS found that true “home runs” in which all four criteria are met were only reported by 6 percent of providers surveyed.

Indeed, the concern that “real” interoperability in healthcare has yet to be accomplished is not new. But recently, there have been developments on at least one major front: big-name EHR vendors have shown an increased willingness to collaborate as their hospital and health system clients ramp up the pressure for patient data to be made available whenever and wherever they need it.

To this end, early on in 2016, five major health IT vendors—athenahealth, Epic, eClinicalWorks, NextGen Healthcare and Surescripts—signed on to be the first to implement Carequality’s framework for interoperability and data sharing principles. Carequality, a Washington, D.C.-based public-private collaborative and an initiative of The Sequoia Project, released its interoperability framework the previous December, which consisted of multiple elements, including legal terms, policy requirements, technical specifications, and governance processes. Prior to the framework, health information exchange was preceded by one-off legal agreements between individual data sharing partners, which involved lengthy and costly negotiations and inconsistent experience in the quality and quantity of data exchanged.

This partnership was also particularly noteworthy as there have been rifts between the Verona, Wisc.-based Epic Systems and the CommonWell Health Alliance, a vendor-led interoperability initiative, of which athenahealth is a founding member. Epic had until recently refused to cooperate with CommonWell; but, publicly anyway, that quarrel seems to have been quashed. 

Webinar

Advancements in Healthcare: Interoperability, Data Exchange, and More

Micky Tripathi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, is one of the most well-informed and well-respected healthcare IT leaders in the U.S. Tripathi has...

More evidence of vendor collaboration is the very recent agreement between Carequality and CommonWell that will make CommonWell a Carequality implementer on behalf of its members and their clients, enabling CommonWell subscribers to engage in health information exchange through directed queries with any Carequality participant. Carequality will also work with CommonWell to make a Carequality-compliant version of the CommonWell record locator service available to any provider organization participating in Carequality.

Indeed, the effects of these efforts could ripple through the industry as together, CommonWell members and Carequality participants represent more than 90 percent of the acute EHR market and nearly 60 percent of the ambulatory EHR market. More than 15,000 hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare organizations have been actively deployed under the Carequality framework or CommonWell network.

How else will this agreement spur interoperability progress? According to Micky Tripathi, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, the arrangement is “akin to AT&T and Verizon Wireless cell phones finally being able to talk to each other.” Tripathi, who was heavily involved in the facilitating and negotiating of the agreement as he sits on the board of directors of The Sequoia Project and also does project management work for CommonWell, says that as it previously stood, there was a lot of development,  network formation, and maturity on both sides, but in siloes. “Providers were facing issues on the ground level,” he says.

Tripathi mentions a large provider organization he knows that is switching from Cerner to Epic. Previously, that organization’s switching from Cerner to Epic could have led to complications, as Cerner is in CommonWell but not in Carequality, and vice versa for Epic. “The [organization’s] CIO said to me six months ago that he’s not looking forward to the conversations he will have to have with his clinicians, which is that you have great interoperability with your current system, and your future system, but the bad news is you won’t have the interoperability with the same people. Now he doesn’t have to say that to his doctors anymore since [they all] are connected to the same people regardless of what network you are on,” Tripathi says, speaking to the impact of the agreement.

Adding more specificity, Tripathi notes the core interoperability functionalities that people are able to do now, such as sending lab results and the direct sending of email messages from one provider to another. “This ability to query from one system to another was the last core building block, and at least from a technical and network perspective, that is now solved.”

There is also another subtlety to the agreement that Tripathi points out as being significant: per this arrangement, an Epic customer, for example, who wants to purchase the CommonWell record locator service, will now have it be available to them within Epic’s platform, serving as a layer on top of the vendor’s Care Everywhere interoperability software. “It’s almost like using Internet Explorer, Chrome, or Firefox,” says Tripathi. “An Epic customer can purchase the Surescripts record locator service or the CommonWell record locator service, or both. Epic and others have committed to being indifferent; they will offer it in their platform integrated into the workflow of the provider based on what service the provider wants to purchase,” he says.

Upping the Ante

Representatives from both Carequality and CommonWell, and plenty of other health IT associations, were present at KLAS’ most recent Keystone Summits as leading providers and vendors came together to first adopt a set of metrics to measure interoperability and then go out into the field and get clinicians’ perceptions and experiences around health data exchange.

The aforementioned interoperability report that was a result of these meetings and surveys found that while Epic customers “are in a league of their own” when it comes to sharing with each other, success is average when exchanging with different EHRs. athenahealth came out on top when it came to its ability to share data with different EHRs, and that’s largely due to the Watertown, Mass.-based vendor “having made a strong pitch as a company to have interoperability be a differentiating characteristic for them,” notes Tim Zoph, chair of the KLAS Interoperability Measurement Advisory Team (IMAT), long standing healthcare CIO and client executive and strategist with Impact Advisors. “They won’t charge for interfaces and they are advanced in building their architecture,” Zoph says.

Zoph continues, “Everyone feels like their vendor can certainly do more, and what’s fair and what came from the KLAS conference is that vendors want to make sure that if they are going to build their [systems] with this capability, there needs to be a commitment from the provider side to take advantage of the capability and make interoperability a priority,” Zoph says. “So the net of it is, this will require a collective industry effort—yes, more functionality, and data into the workflow that’s more easily navigated by clinicians, but it also will require providers making it more of a priority to interoperate.”

Tripathi agrees with Zoph, noting that vendors have said they have done what they can for where the industry stands right now. “Vendors are saying, ‘you are connected now, so now it’s up to you.’ There are no more excuses from a technology perspective for not doing it.”

Still, there is some skepticism regarding exactly how data is being exchanged, even via these initiatives. Michelle Mattson-Hamilton, a U.K.-based associate principal at consulting firm ST Advisors, says that she recently was speaking with an executive from a large health information exchange (HIE) organization who said while the public PR around these interoperability efforts is positive, the way they actually work tells a different story. “For a patient to opt-in to CommonWell, you have to go to every single location that has the service and physically opt-in to the CommonWell network. That’s how it works now. But is that [sustainable] long-term?”

Expanding on this point, Mattson-Hamilton notes that data blocking in healthcare is not making the front page news as frequently as it was in 2015, and “while many vendors have made voluntary interoperability pledges and are moving slowly towards improved interoperability, there are few disincentives for slow movement,” as a small number of penalties and barriers are competitively beneficial for some vendors, she says.

Nonetheless, Zoph points to initiatives such as CommonWell and Carequality as ways to “build regions.” In fact, in the aforementioned KLAS research, providers reported optimism about the potential of these initiatives to dramatically improve nationwide interoperability. These organizations reported nearly universal optimism that CommonWell is a “game changer.” Mattson-Hamilton agrees that these efforts are overall very beneficial, noting that CommonWell and Carequality are continuing to gain members and footprint, and are “moving data [mostly] for very little cost or for free.”

Standards and the Future

Tripathi adds that now that the query problem is solved via the CommonWell/Carequality agreement, the next step is to improve on the content challenge. He notes that right now, the vehicle for exchanging multi-type clinical information is the continuity of care document (CCD) and clinicians aren’t happy with that for a variety of reasons such as too much optionality and not enough standardization. “So if I get a CCD from Allscripts and one from Epic, they are not the same. There are weird quirks. This agreement doesn’t solve the content issue,” he says.  “In a way, all it does is make it easier for you to get that thing that you weren’t happy about to begin with. That’s the next challenge—how do we actually improve on that content so you’re happy with what you get back?”

There has been no shortage of hype surrounding the potential of the [Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources] standard that can enable providers to package discrete bundles of data rather than entire documents. FHIR represents a shift away from a document-centric approach to a data-level access approach using application programming interfaces (APIs), thus making it attractive to all interested parties—vendors, providers and app developers.

Mark Pasquale, principal at Chicago-based The Chartis Group, and a former healthcare CIO and CTO, says FHIR indeed allows for more atomized data sharing. He notes that the FHIR and IHE (the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise) standards still have a ways to go in maturity, however. “Some of the resources have reached a fairly mature level, but others are still developing. But once they mature and incorporate the FHIR standards, we’ll get to true interoperability. It’s definitely picked up pace, especially in the last year.”

Other industry experts agree with Pasquale on both the potential of FHIR, as well as on its current rudimentary state. Richard C. Howe, Ph.D., executive consultant at Colleyville, Texas-based HCG Healthcare IT Consulting, says FHIR-based apps—which could enable one app to be connected to a data repository, like the EHR, underneath it, “will help from a technical point of view.” But, he adds, “The physician in an office practice doesn’t even know what we’re talking about. It gets down to the physician or practice manager saying, what’s in it for me? There are a lot of benefits, such as connecting to specialists; it’s just a matter of convincing the primary care practices of the value.”

Howe says that undeniably, one of the problems with interoperability is the lack of a firm set of standards. “Without those standards, we’re kind of talking different languages on both sides of the fence. I remember when HL7 [Health Level Seven International] came along and this was going to be the standard that would solve all of this, but 100 different variations emerged, so it didn’t solve the problem. So we need firm standards. But I think FHIR will help solve a lot of the problems. If it works technically and it’s easy, physician groups will pick it up.”

To this end, Tripathi says that throughout the CommonWell/Carequality negotiations, there were discussions around moving to FHIR right now, but it was decided that as much as stakeholders would love to “flip the switch,” it’s simply not ready yet. “We need to lay the groundwork for the legal framework, get the trust model in place, and get the data flowing with the methods we have now, and as FHIR matures, we can evolve to the enablement of it,” he says. Tripathi notes that vendors such as athenahealth, Cerner and Epic are all funders and sponsors of HL7’s The Argonaut Project, so they are “putting their money where their mouths are, are willing to do it when it’s ready and are paying to advance it.”

Pasquale says, “As each one of the different service modules in the FHIR standard goes through a maturity process, and as each of these services goes through a maturity model, the vendors themselves will have to put the same web services into products. So you’ll see these vendors in their releases coming out with more of the FHIR standards, and when you combine that with more mature processes, I see the path as really wide open now.” He predicts that over the next two years, interoperability will improve even more, and adds, “I believe within a few years, we’ll have true interoperability.”


The Health IT Summits gather 250+ healthcare leaders in cities across the U.S. to present important new insights, collaborate on ideas, and to have a little fun - Find a Summit Near You!


/article/interoperability/healthcare-s-latest-interoperability-push
/article/interoperability/intermountain-cmio-stan-huff-need-greater-interoperability-we-re-killing

Intermountain CMIO Stan Huff on the Need for Greater Interoperability: “We’re Killing Too Many People”

December 6, 2018
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints
About 250,000 people die per year due to preventable medical errors, and that’s the biggest motivator there is for more advanced interoperability, says one clinical IT leader

Stan Huff, M.D., chief medical informatics officer (CMIO) at the Salt Lake City, Utah-based Intermountain Healthcare for the past 31 years, has long been a top leader in his field. Working on the leadership team for a health system like Intermountain and serving as a co-chair of the HL7 Clinical Information Modeling Initiative (CIMI), while also having been a former member of the ONC Health IT Standards Committee, Huff has a wealth of knowledge coming from both provider- and standards-focused perspectives.

Huff, who represented Intermountain at a White House meeting on interoperability this week, recently chatted with Healthcare Informatics about all things interoperability, including the different types of data exchange that exist today, the greatest barriers, and how potential pending regulations could shake up the landscape. Below are excerpts from that discussion.

When you look at the interoperability landscape today, how bullish are you on where things stand, broadly speaking? Or rather than bullish, are you more concerned?

I don’t know if I am bullish or not, but I think we are making progress—and it’s significant progress. There is an incredible amount of work to be done. I’m not concerned at the progress; I am happy, but mindful of how much work is left to do to really reap the benefits that people are hoping for.

You’re currently a co-chair of the HL7 Clinical Information Modeling Initiative while also having been a member of former the ONC Health IT Standards Committee. How important is it to figure out the issues around standards before things can progress?

Webinar

Advancements in Healthcare: Interoperability, Data Exchange, and More

Micky Tripathi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, is one of the most well-informed and well-respected healthcare IT leaders in the U.S. Tripathi has...

I wish it had a higher priority. Most of the time when people are talking about interoperability now, they are thinking about caring for an individual patient and thinking about sharing information between different systems that have information on that patient. They are usually thinking about EHR [electronic health record]-to-EHR for patient care—they have a very focused idea.

But there are other dimensions. There is interoperability relative to public health, meaning how we share data from an organization to a public health [entity] so that we understand what’s going on with a whole population relative to a particular disease.

There is also research interoperability, so we can share data that’s coming from research activities. And closely related to that is interoperability of clinical trial data and all of the randomized controlled trial data that comes with that.

Then there is interoperability that comes from devices and data coming from devices, which is a whole field onto itself. So you have to be careful when you talk about interoperability. This is one axis of interoperability, in that it has to do with the scope of systems you are communicating with.

The other axis of interoperability has to do with how truly interoperable you are, and there are different levels there as well. One level is the interoperability you get with the HL7 version 2 [standard], where you have a structure and people know how to send messages between systems. And there is a lot of negotiation that happens when you set up an HL7 version 2 interface to say what terminology you are using, and if you send something as two fields or one field. There is a lot that goes on there and that’s helped quite a bit when you talk about HL7 FHIR [Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources]—it has a more defined structure and has more things specified about terminology use.

And then you can get an even better of interoperability if you are using the Argonaut [Project] profiles. But even at that Argonaut profile level, you aren’t plug-and-play interoperable. There still is ambiguity in the Argonaut definitions that lead to different implementations by different companies and organizations.

The highest level is what I would call “plug-and-play” where this no bilateral negotiation around terminology or anything like that. The standard is explicit enough so that it could be tested for conformance and you can say whether a given system is conformant or not, and the data can be used in the way it was intended. We don’t have any plug-and-play interoperability to speak of right now, and that’s what I’m trying to shoot for.

One of three biggest motivators for me is patient safety. There is really good and convincing data that shows we are killing 250,000 people per year due to preventable medical errors. And that won’t be solved by “zero harm” programs, or by “sort of” interoperable systems. In the end, the “sort of” interoperable systems means that a person still has to look at things and make a judgment. And people are not perfect information processors. So you need a situation where the data is explicit enough where I can write rules that prevent the death or improper treatment of patients.

And we are not at that level yet. How urgent is it? I think it’s incredibly urgent and you can make an argument that it’s more important than lots of other things we’re spending money on that would have less of an impact on patient care. I work in this area, so yes, I am biased.

But I’m persuaded that it’s worth an investment, and to get to where I want to get to will not be easy. This won’t be something where you make one $20 million investment and then it’s done; it will take five or 10 years, and you will make incremental progress over that period of time. Think of it like a military campaign or a crusade, because it’s that type of timeframe and scale where you need planning and infrastructure to really accomplish what we want to do in the end—which is save lives, decrease the cost of care, and reduce the burden of clinicians.

Many folks believe that until the business incentives change, stakeholders will not be incentivized to be open with their systems. Do you agree with this and how much incentive exists today?

There isn’t a whole lot of incentive yet. If the patient care and safety issues were sufficient enough incentives, then this would have been solved a long time ago because those incentives have been there. People know and understand that we’re not caring for patients in the best way possible. And it’s the financial and proprietary considerations that keep us from doing that, ultimately.

We have to be careful [with incentives] though, because there are unexpected consequences. Going back to when I was on the HIT Standards Committee, we thought that we were doing useful and good for U.S. healthcare when we set up the meaningful use measures. And while meaningful use solved the EHR adoption issue, what it taught people was how to manage measures but not manage quality.

People became incredibly good when it came to managing the measures to get paid and to meet the qualifications, but I don’t think anyone would assert that those things improved the quality of care in any measurable way. So I think we didn’t meet the goal that we were shooting for—providing better quality care at a lower cost.

The ONC annual conference took place last week, and there seemed to be significant conversations around pending regulations such as possibly making interoperability a requirement to stay in Medicare and prohibiting information blocking. How does all of this land for you?

I welcome the change; it’s a good as thing you move from meaningful use to promoting interoperability. What I don’t know is if these specific [rules] being proposed are going to accomplish what [we want]. We thought we were doing the right things back when we were doing meaningful use.

At a high level, I would agree that it would be wonderful to require interoperability as a requirement for Medicare participation. But it’s undefined. When talking about the dimensions and these things, there has to be an understood and a useful level for the interoperability that’s required. But I haven’t seen the details to know whether what’s being asked for is both achievable and valuable if it were to be achieved. But I do agree with the [overall] direction.

Intermountain is often at the forefront of health and health IT initiatives such as its sponsorship of the Opioid Community Collaborative. How can these learnings be shared so they can improve the digital healthcare ecosystem?

The thing I try to emphasize to people is that if you look at what we are doing, and you take it in aggregate across the country—the things people are applying decision support to—it’s a tiny part of what we could do. And the reason for that is we don’t have interoperability. You can create a good program at Intermountain, or at Kaiser Permanente, or at Mayo Clinic, but the only place it works well is where it was developed. You cannot move it. If you move it, you have to recreate it. Until you have interoperability, I can’t write a rule that works on top of a Cerner system and also on an Epic system, or for that matter works on two different Cerner implementations. This cannot happen until you have those platforms supplying APIs so I can hook my decision support up to their system without rewriting all of the logic in a different technology platform.

So we are doing good things, and want to continue to do good things, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if what we did, or what the University of Utah is doing with opioids, can be directly moved and used, in the same way people can buy apps for their iPhones in the app store, or any other platform.

The realization is we might be doing 150 things at Intermountain in terms of decision support applications, but there is an opportunity to do 5,000 things, and we will never get to those 5,000 things unless we get to an interoperable platform so that when knowledge is created it can be shared. That’s my real emphasis behind interoperability.

 


More From Healthcare Informatics

/article/interoperability/klas-wake-commonwell-carequality-connection-ehr-vendors-making-significant

KLAS: EHR Vendors Making Significant Progress with CommonWell, Carequality Connection

December 4, 2018
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints
While most EHR vendors have connections to the national network, only athenahealth and Epic customers have connected en masse, KLAS reports
Click To View Gallery

With the establishment of connectivity between CommonWell and Carequality, announced back in August, as well as other interoperability advancements by electronic health record (EHR) vendors, the ability to exchange patient records is within the reach of most acute care or clinic-based provider organizations, regardless of size or financial situation, according to a new report from Orem, Utah-based KLAS Research.

In the report, “Interoperability: Real Progress with Patient Record Sharing Via CommonWell and Carequality,” KLAS researchers note that since the last KLAS report on interoperability, which was published in March 2018, the acute care/ambulatory EHR market has taken critical steps forward in sharing data via national networks. The most notable advancements include the establishment of the CommonWell-Carequality link, Meditech’s initial connection to CommonWell, and notable Carequality adoption among NextGen Healthcare customers, according to KLAS researchers.

Most of the prevalent acute care/ambulatory EHR vendors are connected to the national framework, marking significant progress for interoperability, according to KLAS researchers. The report findings come a few weeks after CommonWell and Carequality announced that the connection to the Carequality framework was “generally available.” Cerner and Greenway Health successfully completed a focused rollout of the connection with a handful of their provider clients, who have been exchanging data daily with Carequality-enabled providers, CommonWell officials said.

In August, CommonWell Health Alliance and Carequality announced initial connectivity, which is the beginning of a broader effort to increase health data exchange nationwide, and builds on an announcement made almost two years ago. In December 2016, CommonWell and Carequality announced connectivity and collaboration efforts with the aim of providing additional health data sharing options for stakeholders. Officials said that the immediate focus of the work between Carequality and CommonWell would be on extending providers’ ability to request and retrieve medical records electronically from other providers. In the past year and a half, teams at both organizations have been working to establish that connectivity.

Now, since the connection went live in July, officials noted that CommonWell-enabled providers have bilaterally exchanged more than 200,000 documents with Carequality-enabled providers locally and nationwide, as reported by Healthcare Informatics in November.

Webinar

Advancements in Healthcare: Interoperability, Data Exchange, and More

Micky Tripathi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, is one of the most well-informed and well-respected healthcare IT leaders in the U.S. Tripathi has...

CommonWell, an alliance formed five years ago, operates a health data sharing network that enables interoperability using a suite of services aiming to simplify cross-vendor nationwide data exchange. Major vendors connecting to CommonWell include athenahealth, Cerner, CPSI, eClinicalWorks, Greenway Health and Meditech.

Meanwhile, Carequality, an initiative of The Sequoia Project that launched about a year later, is a national-level, consensus-built, common interoperability framework to enable exchange between and among health data sharing networks. Vendors using Carequality include athenahealth, Epic, eClinicalWorks and NextGen Healthcare. Nearly all major EHR vendors have aligned with one or both of these options, according to KLAS.

Together, CommonWell members and Carequality participants represent more than 90 percent of the acute EHR market and nearly 60 percent of the ambulatory EHR market. Today, more than 15,000 hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare organizations have been actively deployed under the Carequality framework or CommonWell network, officials attest.

This latest KLAS interoperability follows a report back in March in which KLAS researchers positioned that the CommonWell Health Alliance’s interoperability efforts were hindered by a lack of provider adoption and its interoperability services currently lacked value. However, when CommonWell and Carequality eventually connect, “instant value” will be created for users, KLAS researchers attested in that report.

Currently, Epic is not a member of CommonWell, despite other major EHR vendors pushing them in that direction. Back in 2015, athenahealth CEO Jonathan Bush famously tweeted to Epic’s CEO Judy Faulkner that his company would pay for Epic to join.

Indeed, KLAS reported in March that CommonWell will likely see a significant adoption increase with a solid Carequality connection. “Since its launch five years ago, the tendency to over-market the level of adoption of CommonWell has created apprehension and a lack of trust among potential participants and prompted this report, showing a snapshot of providers’ success,” the researchers said in the March report. KLAS researchers also claimed that when CommonWell connects to Carequality, “the entire Epic base will become available, creating instant value for most areas of the country.”

Following the publication of that report, CommonWell’s Executive Director Jitin Asnaani, in an exclusive interview with Healthcare Informatics, defended his organization’s mission and attested that the network is continuing to grow and prove its worth.

Asnaani also critiqued the KLAS report’s claim that vendors such as athenahealth and Epic give their customers a head start by enabling plug-and-play data sharing via Carequality. Asnaani called this specific critique “totally bogus,” asserting that the quality of data sharing is dependent on the vendors rather than dependent on CommonWell or Carequality.

KLAS Assessment on the Progress of CommonWell-Carequality Connection

In this latest report, KLAS researchers focused specifically on the progress EHR vendors have made in sharing patient records via the standardized (plug-and-play) networks of CommonWell and Carequality.

KLAS researchers assert that this focus is important because the “plug-and-play” option is the “only option” that allows provider organizations “avoid significant costs, delays, and organizational workload.”

KLAS also acknowledged that “virtually all major EMR vendors can successfully share patient records through the traditional point-to-point connections (a costlier approach in terms of time, resources, ongoing maintenance, and money), local HIEs (health information exchanges) and direct exchange (where records are manually sent to other providers).”

Referring to the CommonWell-Carequality connectivity as the “connection heard round the U.S.,” KLAS researchers contend that this connection should be “key in driving value and opening the floodgates so that any provider organization that desires to can exchange patient records with relative ease and little cost.” KLAS plans to measure the impact of this sharing in a 2020 interoperability report.

According to the report, this fall, two CommonWell-connected Cerner organizations tested and validated the ability to connect with Epic sites via Carequality. “Their initial reports are that the connection enables data sharing with critical partners otherwise out of their reach and adds tremendous value to their existing CommonWell exchange. The Epic sites involved indicate that they also are able to see and consume data via the new connection,” KLAS researchers wrote.

In a blog post, KLAS researcher Corey Tate, the author of the latest KLAS report, reiterated the value of the CommonWell-Carequality connection with regard to the availability of Epic data to provider organizations who connect. “Access to the Epic data is exactly what was talked about by the initial sites that tested the CommonWell connection to Carequality. Ironically enough, Epic’s intra-operability, which was initially dismissed, will likely be the catalyst that pulls widespread patient-record sharing forward. “

Currently, all but two of the other major EHR vendors—athenahealth, Cerner, CPSI, eClinicalWorks, Epic, Greenway Health, MEDITECH, NextGen Healthcare, and Virence Health (formerly GE Healthcare)—have customers connecting, according to KLAS. At this point, Allscripts and MedHost have yet to connect to CommonWell or Carequality. However, Allscripts recently announced more solidified plans to have their Carequality connection ready in Q1 2019 and to then roll it out in product updates throughout the year, according to KLAS. MedHost has been aligned with CommonWell since 2014 but has yet to have any live connections, KLAS researchers state.

While all of these vendors have connections to this national network, only athenahealth and Epic customers have connected en masse, according to Tate, in his blog post. “Each vendor has more than 90 percent of their customers connected. Cerner is next at around 35 percent. Many other vendors’ customer bases are just getting started,” Tate wrote.

“Epic and athenahealth have near complete uptake among their customers, allowing them to work on the next steps for interoperability, such as fine-tuning usability and increasing value for clinicians,” KLAs researchers wrote in the latest report. The researchers noted that plug-and-play sharing is “virtually invisible and automatic” for athenahealth and Epic customers, and “both vendors remove the big obstacles” to providers’ success.

KLAS researchers also highlight Epic’s and athenahealth’s approach to facilitating participation, via an opt-out approach, and removing governance barriers, via predetermined handling of outside data. The researchers contend that this indicates that “regardless of customer size, vendors can facilitate widespread adoption if they choose.”

NextGen Healthcare and eClinicalWorks show the most notable progress in connecting to the national framework, according to KLAS. Since NextGen Healthcare made their bidirectional connection available in Q1 2018, customers have rapidly taken up connections to Carequality. “With 80 customers connected, there is still much room for additional uptake—though NextGen has removed both financial and technical barriers to make this a reality. eClinicalWorks customers have also rapidly taken up connections, with nearly triple the number participating today (~2,500) compared to March 2018,” according to the report.

Meditech also made their first connection to CommonWell, and CPSI has made notable progress this year as well, KLAS reports. Cerner continues to actively push for customer participation and has added 35 hospital customers.

“Virence Health (GE Healthcare) has been slower to get out of the gate despite good feedback from early adopters,” the KLAS researchers wrote. “Greenway Health also doesn’t have much momentum, and overall, interviewed Greenway organizations are the least excited about their CommonWell connection.”

KLAS researchers also note that with CommonWell and Carequality linked, the biggest technical obstacle to widespread patient-record sharing has been removed, and the biggest remaining obstacle is local community adoption. “The healthcare industry is rapidly approaching the point where an organization using any of the major acute care/ambulatory EMRs should be able to easily connect to other provider organizations with minimal cost and effort,” KLAS researchers state. “Many vendors have eliminated obstacles on the path to data exchange—all but Virence offer connections to customers at no cost, and all but Cerner have made this plug and play by removing technical barriers.”

“Today, the biggest barriers preventing widespread participation are governance and the need for organizations to decide to participate. Even Epic and athenahealth customers report diminished value from their connection when local exchange partners opt not to connect to the national networks,” KLAS researchers wrote in the report. KLAs also believes that until other vendors take an opt-out approach, provider organization leaders will need to be proactive in promoting local connections to the networks to ensure high value from the connection.


Related Insights For: Interoperability

/article/interoperability/5-lessons-learned-implementing-smart-fhir-intermountain

5 Lessons Learned Implementing SMART on FHIR at Intermountain

November 26, 2018
by David Raths, Contributing Editor
| Reprints
Challenges include differences in vendor implementations of FHIR and their data models

During a recent eHealth Initiative webinar, Laura Heerman Langford, Ph.D., R.N., a nurse informaticist, detailed some lessons learned implementing Smart on FHIR apps at Intermountain Healthcare. Because FHIR is still under development, “we are driving the car and changing the tires at the same time,” she said.

She began by noting that the Salt Lake City-based health system believes its investment in FHIR-based Innovations will help it tackle important problems for which native EHR functionality has proven inadequate.

Today we have a lot of direct interfacing between applications and EHRs, she said, “but we have a vision of tomorrow that is much more plug and play. Imagine if it didn’t matter what vendor you were using in your hospital. Imagine if you had a healthcare app store where you could reliably find an application to help you accomplish what you want to be doing.”

As an example of where it hopes to make progress, Heerman Langford spoke about Intermountain’s work on clinical decision support. Intermountain has decision support modules on topics such as ventilator weaning, MRSA monitoring and control, and infectious disease reporting to public health.

 “At Intermountain we have upwards of 150 decision support rules or modules,” she said. “But we have only picked the easy stuff – things that are low cost to implement or easy to do. There is a lot more we would like to do. We have estimated that there are 5,000 more decision support rules or modules we could be doing to help our clinicians provide better care. However, we have not found a good way to get from the 150 we have to that 5,000. We are looking at how to fundamentally change the ecosystem for healthcare IT.”

Webinar

Advancements in Healthcare: Interoperability, Data Exchange, and More

Micky Tripathi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, is one of the most well-informed and well-respected healthcare IT leaders in the U.S. Tripathi has...

Intermountain, which has 23 hospitals and more than 185 clinics, has a strong history of innovation in informatics. A few years ago, it began work on an implementation of Cerner, labelled iCentra.

In its contract with Cerner, Intermountain made clear it wanted to create an ecosystem that could allow it to have open-standards-based application programming interfaces (APIs). Around the time Intermountain was partnering with Cerner, SMART on FHIR was launched.

“We have integrated SMART apps into iCentra, some of them based on the demand of clinicians,” Heerman Langford said. “We included three SMART on FHIR apps and we have a fourth one in development. We have been able to share enhancements with other organizations with different EHRs.” Intermountain also has a SMART on FHIR sandbox development environment.

One example she described is a Pediatric Growth Chart App first developed by Boston Children’s Hospital. “This was desired by our clinicians because they felt it was better than what Cerner had to offer,” she said. It provides a visual display of a patient’s growth data against an appropriate cohort. “We integrated it into iCentra, using data from our EHR, such as height, weight, head circumference and BMI. We currently have it in all our NICUs and pediatric clinics and replaced the Cerner module with it. It offers a very concise, interactive view. It was more palatable to our clinicians. It offers printouts to give to families and parents.”

Heerman Langford gave a few more examples of SMART on FHIR apps from the University of Utah. One is a Neonatal Bilirubin App that pulls in a baby and mother’s EHR data. It has near-universal use in the inpatient setting. “They are estimating that it saves up to 300 physician hours per year,” she said. Another is a Procedure Capacity Management App that provides calendar visualization of capacity vs. scheduled procedures. It facilitates efficient capacity management and supports post-surgical care transitions. It is one of ONC’s High-Impact Pilot Projects.

Then Heerman Langford laid out some of the lessons learned implementing these apps.

1. The first is that although EHR vendors do provide a fairly extensive set of FHIR resources they are still somewhat cautious and conservative at this point. “They are not exactly sure how much this is going to catch on and how much they should be putting toward this,” she said. “They are paying attention. They are doing it, but not as much as we would like to see.”

2. Health systems need support for additional use cases, specifically around “write capability,” she said.  “That means if I create something in a SMART on FHIR app, I could write back to the EHR. That is one of the hardest things to do right now.”

3. Health systems still need some more expertise related to the EHR vendor data. “When we are working with Cerner data, and this is true with different vendors as well, app developers are not always sure where the data is, what they call it, and whether you are going to get back what you asked for,” Heerman Langford said.

4. There is a lack of specificity in FHIR Resources, she said. “We know that FHIR Resources need to be profiled, but the US Core FHIR Profiles have not been enough. We need to do more work on the terminologies.” Another issue is single patient/subject queries vs. working on population-based queries. “We need single patient data, but population-based data is just as important,” she said.

5. Differences in vendor implementations of FHIR and their data models creates challenges, she said.  For example, with the term suspected lung cancer, each of those elements can be stored on its own: cancer, lung, and suspected; or they could be coordinated in different ways such as suspected cancer, body site, lung. “We are running into this as we are implementing Smart on FHIR apps within the EHR. The apps may prefer it one way, but you get into the EHR and they have their way of presenting it.”

Other issues are more cultural than technical, she said. “Healthcare organizations are very much looking at their own organization. In order to make a lot of this work, we need to promote collaboration among different organizations,” Heerman Langford said.

She stressed that open source apps are not free. “It does take time, energy and investment to get them to work in your local institution. But we do believe that the more we do this, the less expensive it will get over time.”

She called this movement the real beginning of the learning healthcare system. “The prospect of this new ecosystem to support our vision is real and is worthy of investment.”

 

 

 


See more on Interoperability

betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis