Survey: Healthcare Organizations Report Gaps in Disaster Preparedness Plans | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Survey: Healthcare Organizations Report Gaps in Disaster Preparedness Plans

September 12, 2018
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints

As Hurricane Florence churns toward the East Coast this week, disaster preparedness is a timely topic, yet a new survey finds that only 72 percent of healthcare providers believe their organization’s disaster plan is comprehensive enough to cover a variety of disaster scenarios both inside the organization and across the community.

The findings are even more troubling among specialty care providers, such as cardiologists and endocrinologists, who provide critical treatment to individuals with chronic diseases, with just 29 percent reporting that they have a comprehensive disaster plan in place. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of survey respondents were affected by two or more disasters in last five years, according to the survey, yet most respondents doubt their organization’s disaster plans are up to the task.

DrFirst, a provider of e-prescribing and medication management solutions, surveyed 109 healthcare professionals across acute, ambulatory, hospice and home care about disaster preparedness. According to the DrFirst, the results are critical for addressing potential safety issues that affect the health and lives of millions of Americans who are increasingly subject to hurricanes, wildfires, and floods as well as other man-made disasters like digital and criminal attacks.

“The fact that almost 70 percent of the surveyed healthcare providers have been affected by more than two disasters in the last 5 years should be a major wake-up call for the healthcare industry,” G. Cameron Deemer, president of DrFirst, said in a statement. “As we learned in the aftermath of major disasters such as hurricanes Maria and Harvey, natural disasters lead to surging demands for acute and emergency care, especially from the most vulnerable patients who may have been displaced from their homes without medications or critical medical supplies, like oxygen or diabetic testing equipment. We must take measures now to address the critical gaps impacting patient care and safety, such as communication challenges and ready-access to medical records and specialty care providers.”

The survey revealed another key vulnerability—the widespread dependence on disaster communications methods that fail to meet legal requirements for secure communications between medical teams, pharmacies, and patients, according to the survey. Under the federal law known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a patient’s private health information can only be shared with the patient or other providers via secure methods such as password-protected portals and secure messaging.

One-third or more of clinicians surveyed across acute, ambulatory and hospice/home health state that calling by phone is their top method for communicating with pharmacies, EMS units, patients and families, local authorities, and community health providers in times of disaster. Secure messaging and email complete the top three modes of communication.

A striking number of clinicians use regular unsecured text messaging to reach hospitals: more than one-quarter of respondents use this mode to communicate with hospitals during and immediately after a disaster strikes, and 22 percent report using unsecured texting to communicate with patients or their family members. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the use of phones for texting of patient health information is only permissible through a secure messaging platform that provides message encryption. Encryption is also required when emailing patient health information.

Healthcare professionals working in hospitals were more aware of the need for secure messaging tools than individuals working in other settings, including specialty care providers. Forty-four percent of hospital-based respondents said that secure, HIPAA-compliant medical messaging is a key requirement of a disaster preparedness plan.

In fact, hospital-based respondents indicated that the only requirements more important than secure messaging were the installation of backup generators in case of power outages (56 percent) and the ordering and maintaining of extra inventory of supplies and medications (52 percent). Yet, specialty providers place the need for including secure messaging at the very bottom of their disaster planning requirements.

Survey respondents also see telehealth is a viable disaster solution, as 45 percent cited telehealth as an effective option to provide care to patients across the community during or immediately after disasters or emergencies. However, more than half expressed concerns that connectivity and other technical issues could impact the reliability of telehealth, and only 27 percent believe their organization has deployed adequate telehealth capabilities.

Another key finding from the survey is that many organizations preparing for an impending disaster still rely heavily on paper, with most advising patients to keep copies of their medical records. Just 40 percent of respondents believe their electronic health record (EHR) has sufficient information available to take care of all patients during a disaster.

 

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!


/news-item/telemedicine/survey-healthcare-organizations-report-gaps-disaster-preparedness-plans
/news-item/telehealth/stanford-children-s-health-expanding-telehealth-services

Stanford Children’s Health Expanding Telehealth Services

January 22, 2019
by David Raths, Contributing Editor
| Reprints
Pediatric health system launches service that offers digital second opinion consultations

Telehealth specialty services continue to increase in pediatrics, especially in neurology, psychiatry, cardiology, neonatology and critical care, according to a 2018 report by SPROUT (Supporting Pediatric Research on Outcomes and Utilization of Telehealth), a telehealth research network. Some health systems are expanding the types of telehealth services they offer. For instance, in a January 2019 story on its website, Stanford Children’s Health described its plans to more than double its number of telehealth appointments — from 1,100 visits in 2018 to 2,500 visits in 2019. 

Until this year, Stanford Children’s telehealth visits have largely been offered to patients for follow-up appointments. The report noted that some of those are clinic-to-clinic visits, in which a nurse practitioner at a primary-care office connects with a physician at a specialty clinic. The nurse practitioner at the remote clinic examines the child while a high-resolution camera and microphone let the physician at the specialty clinic see and hear exactly what the nurse practitioner does.

Through the Stanford Children’s Health MyChart patient portal, patients and families can connect with their physicians remotely using phones and tablets. Vandna Mittal, director of digital health services at Stanford Children’s Health, is quoted as saying such virtual visits are popular among teen behavioral health patients who go away to college but want to maintain a close relationship with their mental health provider at Stanford.

Stanford Children’s Health also offers clinic-to-school visits, in which physicians can connect remotely with a patient in a school nurse’s office. For instance, a physician caring for a child with Type 1 diabetes can communicate directly with the school nurse and the patient’s parent through a telehealth visit at the nurse’s office, minimizing the need for the parents and the child to travel to the doctor’s office and enabling the doctor and the school nurse to interact.

Telehealth is also being used within Packard Children’s Hospital. From inpatient units, on-call doctors are evaluating patients in the emergency department via telehealth before they are admitted; in some cases, specialists are able to advise ED care teams on the most appropriate transfer methods for patients, according to the Stanford Children’s report.

In November 2018, Stanford Children’s Health launched a new service in conjunction with Stanford Health Care that offers digital second opinion consultations from Stanford physicians. Through the program, called Grand Rounds, patients don’t have to visit the hospitals or clinics for this service. Rather, people can create an account through the Stanford Children’s website and pay a $700 fee; Stanford will collect all of their medical records for them (if the records are in the United States). An expert from Stanford will then review the medical information and send a written second opinion, usually within two weeks.

 

 

 

More From Healthcare Informatics

/blogs/david-raths/telehealth/key-questions-partnering-telehealth-specialty-providers

Key Questions Before Partnering With Telehealth Specialty Providers

| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

For primary care clinics, especially those in rural areas, establishing solid relationships with organizations that provide specialty telehealth services can vastly improve the number of services they can offer their patients. But building and maintaining those relationships so that they make sense financially and in terms of quality and patient satisfaction takes a lot of work.

I hadn’t realized how complex that relationship-building could be until yesterday, when I got a chance to hear an online presentation by the California Telehealth Resource Center (CTRC) detailing 20 questions clinics should ask specialty telehealth providers when vetting different offerings. The speaker was Kathy Chorba, CTRC’s executive director, who has 20 years of telehealth program development experience, beginning with establishing and growing the UC Davis Telemedicine program, incorporating 80 sites and 35 specialties, and directing the Telemedicine Learning Center. 

Chorba began by noting that the work of assessing these partnerships should begin only after you have done a needs assessment, identified the kinds of specialties you want to engage (dermatology, psychiatry, etc.), and the volume you expect to generate. You should also have established physician buy-in and identified your telehealth team. Once you have done these things, then you are ready to start establishing partner relationships, she said.

I won’t go through all the questions Chorba suggested clinics ask of specialty provider groups, but just the following sampling of them might help those of us who are not in the telehealth trenches everyday better understand some of the logistical issues involved.

• What specialties are available through this provider group? Chorba noted that some specialty provider groups offer one specialty only (such as behavioral health) while others offer a wide variety of specialties.  She added that some clinics prefer the “one-stop shop” for all their specialty needs, because it simplifies the contracting, credentialing, referral process and workflow, while other clinics prefer to shop around and find the best price for each specialty.

• Does the provider group contract with your payer(s), bill you by the hour or block of time or patient seen? Specialty provider groups use different payment mechanisms, and you have to find one that is mutually beneficial. Chorba added that before you negotiate, you should know how many referrals you think you will have for each specialty and how soon you will be able start. “This will help determine the financial model that fits your program,” she said.  The speciality provider will know if they have capacity.”

• What are the rates for live video and store and forward and are they the same for adult and pediatric? Rates will vary depending on the specialty services needed, as well as volume and modality. Rates for store-and-forward specialties such as dermatology will typically be lower than live video specialties, and new patient appointments may be more expensive than follow-up appointments, Chorba said. Also, rates may vary according to the volume of patient referrals you anticipate sending to the specialty group. Each specialty also tends to have a different timeframe for visits. Dermatology visits may take 20 minutes, while psychiatric visits take an hour. “One rule of thumb is 40 minutes for new visits and 20 minutes for followup visits,” she said. Clinics have to structure their appointment strategy to afford the specialists’ time. “When does a $250-per-hour specialist cost less than a $200-per-hour specialist? When the $250 specialist can fit more patient visits into that hour,” she said.

CTRC offers clinics a sustainability worksheet to help them understand all their costs involved in purchasing blocks of time from telehealth specialists. Initially they may expect to lose some money because all the patients are new and the visits are longer, but as you move into the growth phase, and the specialists are seeing more follow-up patients, you can fit more patients into an 8-hour day. “The bottom line is you are not losing money anymore,” Chorba said. About seven months into the program, you should hit the maintenance phase, where you are keeping your patient no-show rate down and overall costs down.  

• Does the specialty provider group have referral guidelines for each specialty? Besides specifying the time required for new and follow-up patients, these guidelines also state what information or tests are needed prior to the consult (labs, chart notes, etc.). Chorba added that the tests required could be unavailable or too expensive for your patients or not covered by their health plan. “Just knowing the referral guidelines and tests rquired prior to a consult,” she said, “may help you decide that is a provider you don’t want to work with.”

• What level of technical support will the specialty provider group provide? While most primary-care clinic sites have some technical support staff available, few clinics have staff that are able to troubleshoot telemedicine video and peripheral equipment and/or broadband connectivity issues. Some specialty provider groups provide a basic level of technical support or troubleshooting assistance in order to make sure services are provided as scheduled. Chorba said clinics should make clear what type of support it can provide.

This is just a subset of all the questions Chorba raised with webinar attendees. It helps explain why Federally Qualified Health Centers and other small clinics need consulting help to get their telehealth programs up and running. In closing she mentioned that the CTRC is now working on its next set of guidance on how to keep that relationship with specialty providers healthy once you have chosen a group to work with. With so much emphasis on the potential for telehealth these days, it is important for all of us to remember that the transition to telehealth and the hand-offs between providers involves a lot of complexity!

 

 

 

Related Insights For: Telehealth

/news-item/telehealth/amia-supports-nist-efforts-secure-telehealth-rpm-ecosystem

AMIA Supports NIST Efforts to Secure Telehealth RPM Ecosystem

January 9, 2019
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints

Back in November, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence at NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, issued a draft paper outlining a project it plans to undertake to provide a reference architecture addressing the security and privacy risks for healthcare delivery organizations leveraging telehealth capabilities, such as remote patient monitoring.

Traditionally, patient monitoring systems have been deployed in healthcare facilities, in controlled environments. Remote patient monitoring (RPM), however, is different in that monitoring equipment is deployed in the patient’s home, according to NIST’s NCCoE. NIST is housed within the Department of Commerce.

These new capabilities, which can involve third-party platform providers utilizing videoconferencing capabilities, and leveraging cloud and internet technologies coupled with RPM devices, are used to treat numerous conditions, such as patients battling chronic illness or requiring post-operative monitoring. As the use of these capabilities continues to grow, it is important to ensure the infrastructure supporting them can maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of patient data, as well as ensure the safety of patients, according to NCCoE.

To address these security, privacy and safety concerns, NCCoE aims to provide a practical solution for securing the telehealth RPM ecosystem. The NCCoE project team will perform a risk assessment on a representative RPM ecosystem in the laboratory environment, apply the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and guidance based on medical device standards, and collaborate with industry and public partners. The project team will also create a reference design and a detailed description of the practical steps needed to implement a secure solution based on standards and best practices, according to the organization.

This project will result in a publicly available National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Practice Guide, a detailed implementation guide of the practical steps needed to implement a cybersecurity reference design that addresses this challenge.

The NCCoE sought public feedback on the project, which was detailed in a draft released in November called “Securing Telehealth Remote Patient Monitoring Ecosystem.”

The American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) is one industry organization that has voiced support for the NCCoE project to develop guidance around security and privacy risks associated with remote patient monitoring.

In written comments about the project, AMIA president and CEO Doug Fridsma says he “foresees a future of care delivery and disease management that will rely heavily on RPM,” due to a “confluence of shifting and/or diminished reimbursement, aging and chronically ill population growth, and continued depopulation of rural areas.”

Securing these systems and ensuring trust in the data generated by these systems is an utmost priority, and is at the heart of consumers’ ability to obtain care and manage their health, Fridsma noted in the written comments.

Among its recommendations, AMIA advises the NCCoE to leverage existing mobile infrastructure and health IT standards.

“The ultimate spread, scale, and usage of these RPM tools will likely depend more on the commercial marketplace than the short-and long-term plans of healthcare institutions. Further, patients/consumers will use the tools that they are familiar and fits best into their individual ‘workflows.’ Securing the existing mobile infrastructure where individuals perform most of their day-to-day living will improve the likelihood that healthcare specific tasks will succeed,” Fridsma noted.

Fridsma also noted that AMIA recommends NIST focus on data security and integrity that provides data provenance and supports consistent semantic meaning of the data across RPM manufacturers.

 

See more on Telehealth

agario agario---betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis