Health IT

In “The Lean Startup,” author Eric Ries notes that in its early stages, his gaming company would routinely issue new versions of their software application several times each day. Continuous deployment—the process Ries’ company used—leveraged such Lean principles as reduced batch size and continuous learning based on end-user feedback to achieve rapid improvements in their product.

Ries says companies that learn the quickest about what the customer wants, and can incorporate that information into products more efficiently, stand the greatest chance of succeeding. A software engineer by trade, Ries uses many examples of companies that have succeeded with this approach, none of which are from healthcare.

In stark relief, the chief technology hospitalists interface with daily is the electronic health record (EHR), widely recognized as a system that fails to consider the end-user experience, that is unable to interoperate with other software, and is incapable of using data for quality improvement (QI). The PDSA (“plan, do, study, act”) cycle is the foundation of QI activities and relies on rapidly incorporating observations made by those performing the work to create novel workflows and processes based on learning. EHRs, by digitizing health information, theoretically provide the ideal tool for supporting QI.

The reality is that EHRs have been a colossal disappointment with regard to QI efforts. The space in and around EHR effectively represents “dead zones” for innovation and improvement. Mandl and Kohane note:

EHR companies have followed a business model whereby they control all data, rather than liberating the data for use in innovative applications in clinical care.

Conducting a Google-style search of an EHR database usually requires involvement of a clinician’s information services department and often the specialized knowledge and cooperation of the vendor’s technical teams.

Greg Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement, recently provided testimony to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology about the challenges current EHRs present to QI efforts and what features EHRs need to incorporate to better serve the needs of patients and clinicians. Dr. Maynard answered a few questions for The Hospitalist:

Q: What is it about current EHRs that make continuous improvement so difficult?

A: EHRs were built for fiscal and administrative purposes, not for quality improvement and safety. The administrative/fiscal roots of today’s IT systems lead to poor availability of clinical, quality, and safety data. In many medical centers and practices, the great majority of information available is months-old administrative data, which does not lend itself to rapid cycle improvement.

Q: Why is the PDSA cycle endangered in most systems?

A: EHRs often do not facilitate rapid-cycle, PDSA-style improvements on a small pilot scale. Most improvement teams get one shot to get the clinical decision support and data-capture tools correct after months of waiting in queue and development time. Any request for revisions and refinements is treated as a failure of the improvement team, and it is often difficult or impossible to pilot new tools in a limited setting.

Q: What features would you like to see in EHRs that would facilitate QI?

A: We need a user-friendly interface for clinicians and for data analysts/reporters. Other industries have common data formats to allow for sharing of information across disparate systems. We need the same capability for clinical information in healthcare. Also, a change in architecture of EHRs and other health IT tools that allows for not just interoperability but substitutable options is required. In the more “app”-like environment, innovation and flexibility would be the rule. An underlying architecture could have different plug-and-play modules for different functions. Some companies are overcoming the current barriers to provide wonderful, easy-to-generate and useful reports, but most are stymied by proprietary systems.

Reference

1. Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Escaping the EHR trap: the future of health IT. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2240-2242.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

In “The Lean Startup,” author Eric Ries notes that in its early stages, his gaming company would routinely issue new versions of their software application several times each day. Continuous deployment—the process Ries’ company used—leveraged such Lean principles as reduced batch size and continuous learning based on end-user feedback to achieve rapid improvements in their product.

Ries says companies that learn the quickest about what the customer wants, and can incorporate that information into products more efficiently, stand the greatest chance of succeeding. A software engineer by trade, Ries uses many examples of companies that have succeeded with this approach, none of which are from healthcare.

In stark relief, the chief technology hospitalists interface with daily is the electronic health record (EHR), widely recognized as a system that fails to consider the end-user experience, that is unable to interoperate with other software, and is incapable of using data for quality improvement (QI). The PDSA (“plan, do, study, act”) cycle is the foundation of QI activities and relies on rapidly incorporating observations made by those performing the work to create novel workflows and processes based on learning. EHRs, by digitizing health information, theoretically provide the ideal tool for supporting QI.

The reality is that EHRs have been a colossal disappointment with regard to QI efforts. The space in and around EHR effectively represents “dead zones” for innovation and improvement. Mandl and Kohane note:

EHR companies have followed a business model whereby they control all data, rather than liberating the data for use in innovative applications in clinical care.

Conducting a Google-style search of an EHR database usually requires involvement of a clinician’s information services department and often the specialized knowledge and cooperation of the vendor’s technical teams.

Greg Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement, recently provided testimony to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology about the challenges current EHRs present to QI efforts and what features EHRs need to incorporate to better serve the needs of patients and clinicians. Dr. Maynard answered a few questions for The Hospitalist:

Q: What is it about current EHRs that make continuous improvement so difficult?

A: EHRs were built for fiscal and administrative purposes, not for quality improvement and safety. The administrative/fiscal roots of today’s IT systems lead to poor availability of clinical, quality, and safety data. In many medical centers and practices, the great majority of information available is months-old administrative data, which does not lend itself to rapid cycle improvement.

Q: Why is the PDSA cycle endangered in most systems?

A: EHRs often do not facilitate rapid-cycle, PDSA-style improvements on a small pilot scale. Most improvement teams get one shot to get the clinical decision support and data-capture tools correct after months of waiting in queue and development time. Any request for revisions and refinements is treated as a failure of the improvement team, and it is often difficult or impossible to pilot new tools in a limited setting.

Q: What features would you like to see in EHRs that would facilitate QI?

A: We need a user-friendly interface for clinicians and for data analysts/reporters. Other industries have common data formats to allow for sharing of information across disparate systems. We need the same capability for clinical information in healthcare. Also, a change in architecture of EHRs and other health IT tools that allows for not just interoperability but substitutable options is required. In the more “app”-like environment, innovation and flexibility would be the rule. An underlying architecture could have different plug-and-play modules for different functions. Some companies are overcoming the current barriers to provide wonderful, easy-to-generate and useful reports, but most are stymied by proprietary systems.

Reference

1. Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Escaping the EHR trap: the future of health IT. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2240-2242.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

In “The Lean Startup,” author Eric Ries notes that in its early stages, his gaming company would routinely issue new versions of their software application several times each day. Continuous deployment—the process Ries’ company used—leveraged such Lean principles as reduced batch size and continuous learning based on end-user feedback to achieve rapid improvements in their product.

Ries says companies that learn the quickest about what the customer wants, and can incorporate that information into products more efficiently, stand the greatest chance of succeeding. A software engineer by trade, Ries uses many examples of companies that have succeeded with this approach, none of which are from healthcare.

In stark relief, the chief technology hospitalists interface with daily is the electronic health record (EHR), widely recognized as a system that fails to consider the end-user experience, that is unable to interoperate with other software, and is incapable of using data for quality improvement (QI). The PDSA (“plan, do, study, act”) cycle is the foundation of QI activities and relies on rapidly incorporating observations made by those performing the work to create novel workflows and processes based on learning. EHRs, by digitizing health information, theoretically provide the ideal tool for supporting QI.

The reality is that EHRs have been a colossal disappointment with regard to QI efforts. The space in and around EHR effectively represents “dead zones” for innovation and improvement. Mandl and Kohane note:

EHR companies have followed a business model whereby they control all data, rather than liberating the data for use in innovative applications in clinical care.

Conducting a Google-style search of an EHR database usually requires involvement of a clinician’s information services department and often the specialized knowledge and cooperation of the vendor’s technical teams.

Greg Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement, recently provided testimony to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology about the challenges current EHRs present to QI efforts and what features EHRs need to incorporate to better serve the needs of patients and clinicians. Dr. Maynard answered a few questions for The Hospitalist:

Q: What is it about current EHRs that make continuous improvement so difficult?

A: EHRs were built for fiscal and administrative purposes, not for quality improvement and safety. The administrative/fiscal roots of today’s IT systems lead to poor availability of clinical, quality, and safety data. In many medical centers and practices, the great majority of information available is months-old administrative data, which does not lend itself to rapid cycle improvement.

Q: Why is the PDSA cycle endangered in most systems?

A: EHRs often do not facilitate rapid-cycle, PDSA-style improvements on a small pilot scale. Most improvement teams get one shot to get the clinical decision support and data-capture tools correct after months of waiting in queue and development time. Any request for revisions and refinements is treated as a failure of the improvement team, and it is often difficult or impossible to pilot new tools in a limited setting.

Q: What features would you like to see in EHRs that would facilitate QI?

A: We need a user-friendly interface for clinicians and for data analysts/reporters. Other industries have common data formats to allow for sharing of information across disparate systems. We need the same capability for clinical information in healthcare. Also, a change in architecture of EHRs and other health IT tools that allows for not just interoperability but substitutable options is required. In the more “app”-like environment, innovation and flexibility would be the rule. An underlying architecture could have different plug-and-play modules for different functions. Some companies are overcoming the current barriers to provide wonderful, easy-to-generate and useful reports, but most are stymied by proprietary systems.

Reference

1. Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Escaping the EHR trap: the future of health IT. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2240-2242.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

Hospitalist Jason Adelman, MD, MS, believes computerized physician order-entry (CPOE) systems improve workflow and help prevent many mistakes, but the automation also causes mistakes as physicians toggle back and forth between screens in the system interface.

Dr. Adelman, patient safety officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., and colleagues developed an automated method for measuring wrong-patient electronic orders. They found that systems that compel physicians to re-enter certain information reduced errors.

CPOE systems have "certainly prevented errors," he says, "but they've unintentionally caused errors, and the name of the game is to keep working on ways to prevent more and more errors and minimize those errors unintentionally caused by these systems."

The researchers hypothesized that some wrong-patient orders are recognized by the orderer shortly after entry, promptly retracted, then re-entered on the correct patient. Their study results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, used a "retract and reorder" measurement tool that flagged any orders placed on a patient that were quickly retracted and replaced with a new order set.

Using the tool, Dr. Adleman and his research team estimated that 5,246 orders were placed on the wrong patients in 2009 at Montefiore.

The study also showed that interventions helped lower the odds of wrong-patient errors. One method made physicians click on a link to verify a patient’s identity, while another required the physician to manually input information to confirm the patient’s identity. Potential other interventions included using photo identification to ensure that physicians entered orders correctly.

"I think the goal is to try to get perfection," Dr. Adelman says. "I don't know if you could ever get totally there ... but you try."

Hospitalist Jason Adelman, MD, MS, believes computerized physician order-entry (CPOE) systems improve workflow and help prevent many mistakes, but the automation also causes mistakes as physicians toggle back and forth between screens in the system interface.

Dr. Adelman, patient safety officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., and colleagues developed an automated method for measuring wrong-patient electronic orders. They found that systems that compel physicians to re-enter certain information reduced errors.

CPOE systems have "certainly prevented errors," he says, "but they've unintentionally caused errors, and the name of the game is to keep working on ways to prevent more and more errors and minimize those errors unintentionally caused by these systems."

The researchers hypothesized that some wrong-patient orders are recognized by the orderer shortly after entry, promptly retracted, then re-entered on the correct patient. Their study results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, used a "retract and reorder" measurement tool that flagged any orders placed on a patient that were quickly retracted and replaced with a new order set.

Using the tool, Dr. Adleman and his research team estimated that 5,246 orders were placed on the wrong patients in 2009 at Montefiore.

The study also showed that interventions helped lower the odds of wrong-patient errors. One method made physicians click on a link to verify a patient’s identity, while another required the physician to manually input information to confirm the patient’s identity. Potential other interventions included using photo identification to ensure that physicians entered orders correctly.

"I think the goal is to try to get perfection," Dr. Adelman says. "I don't know if you could ever get totally there ... but you try."

Hospitalist Jason Adelman, MD, MS, believes computerized physician order-entry (CPOE) systems improve workflow and help prevent many mistakes, but the automation also causes mistakes as physicians toggle back and forth between screens in the system interface.

Dr. Adelman, patient safety officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., and colleagues developed an automated method for measuring wrong-patient electronic orders. They found that systems that compel physicians to re-enter certain information reduced errors.

CPOE systems have "certainly prevented errors," he says, "but they've unintentionally caused errors, and the name of the game is to keep working on ways to prevent more and more errors and minimize those errors unintentionally caused by these systems."

The researchers hypothesized that some wrong-patient orders are recognized by the orderer shortly after entry, promptly retracted, then re-entered on the correct patient. Their study results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, used a "retract and reorder" measurement tool that flagged any orders placed on a patient that were quickly retracted and replaced with a new order set.

Using the tool, Dr. Adleman and his research team estimated that 5,246 orders were placed on the wrong patients in 2009 at Montefiore.

The study also showed that interventions helped lower the odds of wrong-patient errors. One method made physicians click on a link to verify a patient’s identity, while another required the physician to manually input information to confirm the patient’s identity. Potential other interventions included using photo identification to ensure that physicians entered orders correctly.

"I think the goal is to try to get perfection," Dr. Adelman says. "I don't know if you could ever get totally there ... but you try."

Picture this likely scenario: You’re a hospitalist in a remote setting, and a patient with stroke symptoms is rushed in by ambulance. Numbness has overcome one side of his body. Dizziness disrupts his balance, his speech becomes slurred, and his vision is blurred. Treatment must be started swiftly to halt irreversible brain damage. The nearest neurologist is located hours away, but thanks to advanced video technology, you’re able to instantly consult face to face with that specialist to help ensure optimal recovery for the patient.

Such applications of telemedicine are becoming more mainstream and affordable, facilitating discussions and decisions between healthcare providers while improving patient access to specialty care in emergencies and other situations.

Remote hospitalist services include videoconferencing for patient monitoring and assessment of various clinical services, says Jona

Advantages and Challenges

Remote patient monitoring in ICUs is on the upswing, filling gaps in the shortage of physicians specializing in critical care. Some unit administrators have established off-site command centers for these specialists to follow multiple facilities with the assistance of video technology and to intervene at urgent times.¹

In a neonatal ICU, this type of live-feed technology allows for a face-to-face interaction with a pediatric pulmonologist, for example, when a premature infant is exhibiting symptoms of respiratory distress in the middle of the night, says David Cattell-Gordon, MSW, director of the Office of Telemedicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Similarly, in rural areas where women don’t have immediate access to high-risk obstetricians, telemedicine makes it possible to consult with maternal-fetal medicine specialists from a distance, boosting the chances for pregnant mothers with complex conditions to carry healthy babies to term, says Cattell-Gordon. “Our approach has been to bring telemedicine to hospitals and clinics in communities where that resource [specialists] otherwise is unavailable,” he adds.

Compared with telephone conversations, the advantages of video consultations are multifold: They display a patient’s facial expressions, gestures, and other body language, which might assist with the diagnosis and prescribed treatment, says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief clinical officer for IPC: The Hospitalist Company in North Hollywood, Calif., which has a presence in about 900 facilities in 25 states.

When the strength of that assessment depends on visual inspection, the technology can be particularly helpful. “The weak part of it is when you need to touch” to guide that assessment, Dr. Weiner says. That’s when the technology isn’t as useful. Still, he adds, “We use teleconferencing all over the place in a Skype-like manner, only more sophisticated. It’s more encrypted.”

Interacting within a secure network is crucial to protect privacy, says Peter Kragel, MD, clinical director of the Telemedicine Center at East Carolina University’s Brody School of Medicine in Greenville, N.C. As with any form of communication that transmits identifiable patient information, healthcare providers must comply with HIPAA guidelines when employing videoconferencing services similar to Skype.

“Because of concerns about compliance with encryption and confidentiality regulations, we do not use [videoconferencing] here,” Dr. Kragel says.

Additionally, “telemedicine isn’t always appropriate for patient care,” Linkous says. “All of this depends on the circumstances and needs of the patient. Obviously, surgery requires a direct physician-patient interaction, except for robotic surgery.” For hospitals that don’t have any neurology coverage, telemedicine robots can assist with outside consults for time-sensitive stroke care.

Videoconferencing isn’t necessary for all telemedicine encounters, Linkous says. Teledermatology and retinal screening use “store and forward” communication of images, which allows for the electronic transmission of images and documents in non-emergent situations in which immediate video isn’t necessary.

“As a society, we’ve become more comfortable with the technology,” says Matthew Harbison, MD, medical director of Sound Physicians hospitalist services at Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston. “And as the technology continues to develop, ultimately there will be [more of] a role, but how large that will be is difficult to predict.” He adds that “the advantages are obviously in low-staffed places or staffing-challenged sites.”

Moving Ahead

As experts continue to iron out the kinks and as communities obtain greater access to broadband signals, telemedicine equipment is moving to advanced high-definition platforms. Meanwhile, the expense has come down considerably since its inception in the mid-1990s. A high-definition setup that once cost upward of $130,000 is now available for less than $10,000, Cattell-Gordon says.

The digital transmission also can assist in patient follow-up after discharge from the hospital and in monitoring various chronic diseases from home. It’s an effective tool for medical staff meetings and training purposes as well.

IPC's hospitalists have been using the technology to communicate with each other, brainstorming across regions of the country. “Because we’re a national company,” Dr. Weiner says, “this has changed the game in terms of being able to collaborate.”

Susan Kreimer is a freelance medical writer based in New York.

Reference

1. Thomas EJ, Lucke JF, Wueste L, Weavind L, Patel B. Association of telemedicine for remote monitoring of intensive care patients with mortality, complications, and length of stay. JAMA. 2009;302:2671-2678.

Picture this likely scenario: You’re a hospitalist in a remote setting, and a patient with stroke symptoms is rushed in by ambulance. Numbness has overcome one side of his body. Dizziness disrupts his balance, his speech becomes slurred, and his vision is blurred. Treatment must be started swiftly to halt irreversible brain damage. The nearest neurologist is located hours away, but thanks to advanced video technology, you’re able to instantly consult face to face with that specialist to help ensure optimal recovery for the patient.

Such applications of telemedicine are becoming more mainstream and affordable, facilitating discussions and decisions between healthcare providers while improving patient access to specialty care in emergencies and other situations.

Remote hospitalist services include videoconferencing for patient monitoring and assessment of various clinical services, says Jona

Advantages and Challenges

Remote patient monitoring in ICUs is on the upswing, filling gaps in the shortage of physicians specializing in critical care. Some unit administrators have established off-site command centers for these specialists to follow multiple facilities with the assistance of video technology and to intervene at urgent times.¹

In a neonatal ICU, this type of live-feed technology allows for a face-to-face interaction with a pediatric pulmonologist, for example, when a premature infant is exhibiting symptoms of respiratory distress in the middle of the night, says David Cattell-Gordon, MSW, director of the Office of Telemedicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Similarly, in rural areas where women don’t have immediate access to high-risk obstetricians, telemedicine makes it possible to consult with maternal-fetal medicine specialists from a distance, boosting the chances for pregnant mothers with complex conditions to carry healthy babies to term, says Cattell-Gordon. “Our approach has been to bring telemedicine to hospitals and clinics in communities where that resource [specialists] otherwise is unavailable,” he adds.

Compared with telephone conversations, the advantages of video consultations are multifold: They display a patient’s facial expressions, gestures, and other body language, which might assist with the diagnosis and prescribed treatment, says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief clinical officer for IPC: The Hospitalist Company in North Hollywood, Calif., which has a presence in about 900 facilities in 25 states.

When the strength of that assessment depends on visual inspection, the technology can be particularly helpful. “The weak part of it is when you need to touch” to guide that assessment, Dr. Weiner says. That’s when the technology isn’t as useful. Still, he adds, “We use teleconferencing all over the place in a Skype-like manner, only more sophisticated. It’s more encrypted.”

Interacting within a secure network is crucial to protect privacy, says Peter Kragel, MD, clinical director of the Telemedicine Center at East Carolina University’s Brody School of Medicine in Greenville, N.C. As with any form of communication that transmits identifiable patient information, healthcare providers must comply with HIPAA guidelines when employing videoconferencing services similar to Skype.

“Because of concerns about compliance with encryption and confidentiality regulations, we do not use [videoconferencing] here,” Dr. Kragel says.

Additionally, “telemedicine isn’t always appropriate for patient care,” Linkous says. “All of this depends on the circumstances and needs of the patient. Obviously, surgery requires a direct physician-patient interaction, except for robotic surgery.” For hospitals that don’t have any neurology coverage, telemedicine robots can assist with outside consults for time-sensitive stroke care.

Videoconferencing isn’t necessary for all telemedicine encounters, Linkous says. Teledermatology and retinal screening use “store and forward” communication of images, which allows for the electronic transmission of images and documents in non-emergent situations in which immediate video isn’t necessary.

“As a society, we’ve become more comfortable with the technology,” says Matthew Harbison, MD, medical director of Sound Physicians hospitalist services at Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston. “And as the technology continues to develop, ultimately there will be [more of] a role, but how large that will be is difficult to predict.” He adds that “the advantages are obviously in low-staffed places or staffing-challenged sites.”

Moving Ahead

As experts continue to iron out the kinks and as communities obtain greater access to broadband signals, telemedicine equipment is moving to advanced high-definition platforms. Meanwhile, the expense has come down considerably since its inception in the mid-1990s. A high-definition setup that once cost upward of $130,000 is now available for less than $10,000, Cattell-Gordon says.

The digital transmission also can assist in patient follow-up after discharge from the hospital and in monitoring various chronic diseases from home. It’s an effective tool for medical staff meetings and training purposes as well.

IPC's hospitalists have been using the technology to communicate with each other, brainstorming across regions of the country. “Because we’re a national company,” Dr. Weiner says, “this has changed the game in terms of being able to collaborate.”

Susan Kreimer is a freelance medical writer based in New York.

Reference

1. Thomas EJ, Lucke JF, Wueste L, Weavind L, Patel B. Association of telemedicine for remote monitoring of intensive care patients with mortality, complications, and length of stay. JAMA. 2009;302:2671-2678.

Picture this likely scenario: You’re a hospitalist in a remote setting, and a patient with stroke symptoms is rushed in by ambulance. Numbness has overcome one side of his body. Dizziness disrupts his balance, his speech becomes slurred, and his vision is blurred. Treatment must be started swiftly to halt irreversible brain damage. The nearest neurologist is located hours away, but thanks to advanced video technology, you’re able to instantly consult face to face with that specialist to help ensure optimal recovery for the patient.

Such applications of telemedicine are becoming more mainstream and affordable, facilitating discussions and decisions between healthcare providers while improving patient access to specialty care in emergencies and other situations.

Remote hospitalist services include videoconferencing for patient monitoring and assessment of various clinical services, says Jona

Advantages and Challenges

Remote patient monitoring in ICUs is on the upswing, filling gaps in the shortage of physicians specializing in critical care. Some unit administrators have established off-site command centers for these specialists to follow multiple facilities with the assistance of video technology and to intervene at urgent times.¹

In a neonatal ICU, this type of live-feed technology allows for a face-to-face interaction with a pediatric pulmonologist, for example, when a premature infant is exhibiting symptoms of respiratory distress in the middle of the night, says David Cattell-Gordon, MSW, director of the Office of Telemedicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Similarly, in rural areas where women don’t have immediate access to high-risk obstetricians, telemedicine makes it possible to consult with maternal-fetal medicine specialists from a distance, boosting the chances for pregnant mothers with complex conditions to carry healthy babies to term, says Cattell-Gordon. “Our approach has been to bring telemedicine to hospitals and clinics in communities where that resource [specialists] otherwise is unavailable,” he adds.

Compared with telephone conversations, the advantages of video consultations are multifold: They display a patient’s facial expressions, gestures, and other body language, which might assist with the diagnosis and prescribed treatment, says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief clinical officer for IPC: The Hospitalist Company in North Hollywood, Calif., which has a presence in about 900 facilities in 25 states.

When the strength of that assessment depends on visual inspection, the technology can be particularly helpful. “The weak part of it is when you need to touch” to guide that assessment, Dr. Weiner says. That’s when the technology isn’t as useful. Still, he adds, “We use teleconferencing all over the place in a Skype-like manner, only more sophisticated. It’s more encrypted.”

Interacting within a secure network is crucial to protect privacy, says Peter Kragel, MD, clinical director of the Telemedicine Center at East Carolina University’s Brody School of Medicine in Greenville, N.C. As with any form of communication that transmits identifiable patient information, healthcare providers must comply with HIPAA guidelines when employing videoconferencing services similar to Skype.

“Because of concerns about compliance with encryption and confidentiality regulations, we do not use [videoconferencing] here,” Dr. Kragel says.

Additionally, “telemedicine isn’t always appropriate for patient care,” Linkous says. “All of this depends on the circumstances and needs of the patient. Obviously, surgery requires a direct physician-patient interaction, except for robotic surgery.” For hospitals that don’t have any neurology coverage, telemedicine robots can assist with outside consults for time-sensitive stroke care.

Videoconferencing isn’t necessary for all telemedicine encounters, Linkous says. Teledermatology and retinal screening use “store and forward” communication of images, which allows for the electronic transmission of images and documents in non-emergent situations in which immediate video isn’t necessary.

“As a society, we’ve become more comfortable with the technology,” says Matthew Harbison, MD, medical director of Sound Physicians hospitalist services at Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston. “And as the technology continues to develop, ultimately there will be [more of] a role, but how large that will be is difficult to predict.” He adds that “the advantages are obviously in low-staffed places or staffing-challenged sites.”

Moving Ahead

As experts continue to iron out the kinks and as communities obtain greater access to broadband signals, telemedicine equipment is moving to advanced high-definition platforms. Meanwhile, the expense has come down considerably since its inception in the mid-1990s. A high-definition setup that once cost upward of $130,000 is now available for less than $10,000, Cattell-Gordon says.

The digital transmission also can assist in patient follow-up after discharge from the hospital and in monitoring various chronic diseases from home. It’s an effective tool for medical staff meetings and training purposes as well.

IPC's hospitalists have been using the technology to communicate with each other, brainstorming across regions of the country. “Because we’re a national company,” Dr. Weiner says, “this has changed the game in terms of being able to collaborate.”

Susan Kreimer is a freelance medical writer based in New York.

Reference

1. Thomas EJ, Lucke JF, Wueste L, Weavind L, Patel B. Association of telemedicine for remote monitoring of intensive care patients with mortality, complications, and length of stay. JAMA. 2009;302:2671-2678.

Click here to listen to

Dr. Maynard and others at the public hearing

Click here to listen to

Dr. Maynard and others at the public hearing

Click here to listen to

Dr. Maynard and others at the public hearing

Hospitals that have made it to the advanced stages of electronic health record (EHR) implementation are significantly more likely to set national benchmarks for quality and safety performance, according to the 2012 HIMSS Analytics Report.

The research (PDF), sponsored by Thomson Reuters and HIMSS Analytics, found a correlation between hospitals that are both ranked in the Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals and at the upper end of the seven-stage HIMMS scale for EHR adoption.

While the link between electronic implementation and quality is important, William Bria, MD, chief medical information officer at Shriners Hospitals for Children in Philadelphia, cautions hospitalists and others from taking too much comfort in it. Simply implementing EHR and other technologies doesn't work, he says; the system has to be crafted in conjunction with its users.

"The best-led organizations in the country are using the metrics of safety and quality of care right alongside the implementation plan of their [health IT] programs," says Dr. Bria. "And the only way this occurs, of course, is if the partnering between executive and technological leadership and clinical leadership occurs."

Dr. Bria views research on the success of EHRs in improving hospital performance as an opportunity for hospitalists to get more involved in both the planning and implementation processes. He urges hospitalists to work with other physicians and IT staffers to learn how best to use their EHR, and not assume they can master complex software systems as easily as they understand smartphones and tablet computers.

"You can buy a piano and bang on it with your fist, and you won't really attract anybody to listen to your music," Dr. Bria says. "On the other hand, if you learn how to play, you study hard, and you learn the nuances of musicianship, you can become a Van Cliburn."

Hospitals that have made it to the advanced stages of electronic health record (EHR) implementation are significantly more likely to set national benchmarks for quality and safety performance, according to the 2012 HIMSS Analytics Report.

The research (PDF), sponsored by Thomson Reuters and HIMSS Analytics, found a correlation between hospitals that are both ranked in the Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals and at the upper end of the seven-stage HIMMS scale for EHR adoption.

While the link between electronic implementation and quality is important, William Bria, MD, chief medical information officer at Shriners Hospitals for Children in Philadelphia, cautions hospitalists and others from taking too much comfort in it. Simply implementing EHR and other technologies doesn't work, he says; the system has to be crafted in conjunction with its users.

"The best-led organizations in the country are using the metrics of safety and quality of care right alongside the implementation plan of their [health IT] programs," says Dr. Bria. "And the only way this occurs, of course, is if the partnering between executive and technological leadership and clinical leadership occurs."

Dr. Bria views research on the success of EHRs in improving hospital performance as an opportunity for hospitalists to get more involved in both the planning and implementation processes. He urges hospitalists to work with other physicians and IT staffers to learn how best to use their EHR, and not assume they can master complex software systems as easily as they understand smartphones and tablet computers.

"You can buy a piano and bang on it with your fist, and you won't really attract anybody to listen to your music," Dr. Bria says. "On the other hand, if you learn how to play, you study hard, and you learn the nuances of musicianship, you can become a Van Cliburn."

Hospitals that have made it to the advanced stages of electronic health record (EHR) implementation are significantly more likely to set national benchmarks for quality and safety performance, according to the 2012 HIMSS Analytics Report.

The research (PDF), sponsored by Thomson Reuters and HIMSS Analytics, found a correlation between hospitals that are both ranked in the Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals and at the upper end of the seven-stage HIMMS scale for EHR adoption.

While the link between electronic implementation and quality is important, William Bria, MD, chief medical information officer at Shriners Hospitals for Children in Philadelphia, cautions hospitalists and others from taking too much comfort in it. Simply implementing EHR and other technologies doesn't work, he says; the system has to be crafted in conjunction with its users.

"The best-led organizations in the country are using the metrics of safety and quality of care right alongside the implementation plan of their [health IT] programs," says Dr. Bria. "And the only way this occurs, of course, is if the partnering between executive and technological leadership and clinical leadership occurs."

Dr. Bria views research on the success of EHRs in improving hospital performance as an opportunity for hospitalists to get more involved in both the planning and implementation processes. He urges hospitalists to work with other physicians and IT staffers to learn how best to use their EHR, and not assume they can master complex software systems as easily as they understand smartphones and tablet computers.

"You can buy a piano and bang on it with your fist, and you won't really attract anybody to listen to your music," Dr. Bria says. "On the other hand, if you learn how to play, you study hard, and you learn the nuances of musicianship, you can become a Van Cliburn."

In early November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on the current status of health information technology (HIT). Although the report was developed at the request of the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), the arm within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for promoting the use of HIT, not everything in the report was positive—and could leave the impression that HIT is not quite as successful as some think.

The report recommends that the ONC should work with the private and public sectors to make comparative user experiences across vendors publicly available.

Many hospitalists have developed significant expertise with HIT, played significant roles in its effective implementation and use, and are acutely aware of implementation pitfalls. This practical experience could be very helpful in working with the ONC to develop solutions. It is for this reason that hospitalists should reach out to the ONC and offer their expertise instead of waiting for the ONC to act.

The report, “Patient Safety and Health IT: Building Safer Systems for Better Care,” did praise HIT’s potential for eventual cost savings and increased patient safety but stopped short of being a ringing endorsement of the pace HM is taking toward implementation initiatives, such as meaningful use. An overall theme of the report is that greater oversight of HIT is needed to protect patients from potential medical errors associated with its use.

A few of the recommendations given by the IOM to achieve a greater level of safety range from the establishment of a mechanism for vendors and users to report health IT-related deaths, injuries, or unsafe conditions to possible FDA regulation of the systems themselves.

Information-sharing and reporting in a nonpunitive environment, as recommended by the IOM, would go a long way when it comes to remedying or avoiding IT-related problems, and hospitalists probably have some ideas about how this could be done.

Unfortunately, IT vendor contracts often prevent the open sharing of information, so working toward doing away with such contract terms might be a worthy step before making a push toward overall FDA regulation and the unintended consequences that may come with it.

At first glance, FDA regulation seems like the easiest solution because the FDA can theoretically control every aspect of what might go wrong with HIT, but at what cost would such regulation come? FDA approval can be long, complicated and expensive. The whole process could result in cutting-edge technology becoming outdated by the time approval is granted or innovations being overlooked entirely because of a negative cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, the expense associated with FDA approval could in turn increase the cost of already costly electronic health records (EHR).

Despite the myriad problems that can arise if implementation moves too fast, HIT holds promise and has shown success when done well.

SHM is currently working to position hospitalists as a resource for the ONC, so hospitalists with expertise in this area should not hesitate to come forward with ideas on how to make HIT work better and more safely. HIT is not going to go away, so the best option is to help make it better.

In early November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on the current status of health information technology (HIT). Although the report was developed at the request of the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), the arm within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for promoting the use of HIT, not everything in the report was positive—and could leave the impression that HIT is not quite as successful as some think.

The report recommends that the ONC should work with the private and public sectors to make comparative user experiences across vendors publicly available.

Many hospitalists have developed significant expertise with HIT, played significant roles in its effective implementation and use, and are acutely aware of implementation pitfalls. This practical experience could be very helpful in working with the ONC to develop solutions. It is for this reason that hospitalists should reach out to the ONC and offer their expertise instead of waiting for the ONC to act.

The report, “Patient Safety and Health IT: Building Safer Systems for Better Care,” did praise HIT’s potential for eventual cost savings and increased patient safety but stopped short of being a ringing endorsement of the pace HM is taking toward implementation initiatives, such as meaningful use. An overall theme of the report is that greater oversight of HIT is needed to protect patients from potential medical errors associated with its use.

A few of the recommendations given by the IOM to achieve a greater level of safety range from the establishment of a mechanism for vendors and users to report health IT-related deaths, injuries, or unsafe conditions to possible FDA regulation of the systems themselves.

Information-sharing and reporting in a nonpunitive environment, as recommended by the IOM, would go a long way when it comes to remedying or avoiding IT-related problems, and hospitalists probably have some ideas about how this could be done.

Unfortunately, IT vendor contracts often prevent the open sharing of information, so working toward doing away with such contract terms might be a worthy step before making a push toward overall FDA regulation and the unintended consequences that may come with it.

At first glance, FDA regulation seems like the easiest solution because the FDA can theoretically control every aspect of what might go wrong with HIT, but at what cost would such regulation come? FDA approval can be long, complicated and expensive. The whole process could result in cutting-edge technology becoming outdated by the time approval is granted or innovations being overlooked entirely because of a negative cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, the expense associated with FDA approval could in turn increase the cost of already costly electronic health records (EHR).

Despite the myriad problems that can arise if implementation moves too fast, HIT holds promise and has shown success when done well.

SHM is currently working to position hospitalists as a resource for the ONC, so hospitalists with expertise in this area should not hesitate to come forward with ideas on how to make HIT work better and more safely. HIT is not going to go away, so the best option is to help make it better.

In early November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on the current status of health information technology (HIT). Although the report was developed at the request of the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), the arm within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for promoting the use of HIT, not everything in the report was positive—and could leave the impression that HIT is not quite as successful as some think.

The report recommends that the ONC should work with the private and public sectors to make comparative user experiences across vendors publicly available.

Many hospitalists have developed significant expertise with HIT, played significant roles in its effective implementation and use, and are acutely aware of implementation pitfalls. This practical experience could be very helpful in working with the ONC to develop solutions. It is for this reason that hospitalists should reach out to the ONC and offer their expertise instead of waiting for the ONC to act.

The report, “Patient Safety and Health IT: Building Safer Systems for Better Care,” did praise HIT’s potential for eventual cost savings and increased patient safety but stopped short of being a ringing endorsement of the pace HM is taking toward implementation initiatives, such as meaningful use. An overall theme of the report is that greater oversight of HIT is needed to protect patients from potential medical errors associated with its use.

A few of the recommendations given by the IOM to achieve a greater level of safety range from the establishment of a mechanism for vendors and users to report health IT-related deaths, injuries, or unsafe conditions to possible FDA regulation of the systems themselves.

Information-sharing and reporting in a nonpunitive environment, as recommended by the IOM, would go a long way when it comes to remedying or avoiding IT-related problems, and hospitalists probably have some ideas about how this could be done.

Unfortunately, IT vendor contracts often prevent the open sharing of information, so working toward doing away with such contract terms might be a worthy step before making a push toward overall FDA regulation and the unintended consequences that may come with it.

At first glance, FDA regulation seems like the easiest solution because the FDA can theoretically control every aspect of what might go wrong with HIT, but at what cost would such regulation come? FDA approval can be long, complicated and expensive. The whole process could result in cutting-edge technology becoming outdated by the time approval is granted or innovations being overlooked entirely because of a negative cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, the expense associated with FDA approval could in turn increase the cost of already costly electronic health records (EHR).

Despite the myriad problems that can arise if implementation moves too fast, HIT holds promise and has shown success when done well.

SHM is currently working to position hospitalists as a resource for the ONC, so hospitalists with expertise in this area should not hesitate to come forward with ideas on how to make HIT work better and more safely. HIT is not going to go away, so the best option is to help make it better.

The Institute of Medicine in November issued a new report, “Patient Safety and Health IT (HIT): Building Safer Systems for Better Care,” which identifies potential harm that could stem from a digital healthcare system and proposes 10 recommendations. Many of the suggestions are directed at the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, urging the office to work with the private sector and research groups on patient safety, ensure the free exchange of information on healthcare information technology (HIT) issues, and create a process for reporting HIT-related deaths and injuries.

“Concerns about potential harm are emerging as providers increasingly rely on electronic medical records, secure patient portals, and other technologies to deliver care,” the report states, but there is a lack of published research quantifying the risks. For more on the HIT report, check out the Policy Corner.

The Institute of Medicine in November issued a new report, “Patient Safety and Health IT (HIT): Building Safer Systems for Better Care,” which identifies potential harm that could stem from a digital healthcare system and proposes 10 recommendations. Many of the suggestions are directed at the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, urging the office to work with the private sector and research groups on patient safety, ensure the free exchange of information on healthcare information technology (HIT) issues, and create a process for reporting HIT-related deaths and injuries.

“Concerns about potential harm are emerging as providers increasingly rely on electronic medical records, secure patient portals, and other technologies to deliver care,” the report states, but there is a lack of published research quantifying the risks. For more on the HIT report, check out the Policy Corner.

The Institute of Medicine in November issued a new report, “Patient Safety and Health IT (HIT): Building Safer Systems for Better Care,” which identifies potential harm that could stem from a digital healthcare system and proposes 10 recommendations. Many of the suggestions are directed at the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, urging the office to work with the private sector and research groups on patient safety, ensure the free exchange of information on healthcare information technology (HIT) issues, and create a process for reporting HIT-related deaths and injuries.

“Concerns about potential harm are emerging as providers increasingly rely on electronic medical records, secure patient portals, and other technologies to deliver care,” the report states, but there is a lack of published research quantifying the risks. For more on the HIT report, check out the Policy Corner.

A new report shows that 1 in 5 community hospitals operates in the red, but the chief strategy officer of the firm that conducted the survey thinks hospitals can help change that.

The second annual survey from healthcare information technology (HIT) provider Anthelio and leadership group Community Hospital 100 found that 22% of community hospitals operate with margins below 2%; another 38% operate below 1%. Rick Kneipper, Anthelio’s cofounder and chief strategy officer, says that hospitalists can be at the forefront “of the creative changes needed” to reduce costs and improve profitability.

“Hospital medicine groups and hospitals could free up significant funds to devote to improved patient-care services if they focus on their core competency of patient care and farm out their non-core, back-office services to experts who can use leverage to provide more efficient services at significantly reduced costs,” Kneipper wrote in an email to The Hospitalist. “Financial pressures have historically forced most industries to stop trying to be vertically integrated [trying to be ‘all things to all people’] and instead to focus on their core competencies—it’s time for healthcare to do the same.”

HM’s foothold at the intersection of clinical care and safety and QI positions the specialty to “respond to the new challenges of readmission penalties, evidenced-based medicine requirements, EMR implementation, and operation challenges,” Kneipper wrote.

For the full survey, please visit www.antheliohealth.com and search “survey.”

A new report shows that 1 in 5 community hospitals operates in the red, but the chief strategy officer of the firm that conducted the survey thinks hospitals can help change that.

The second annual survey from healthcare information technology (HIT) provider Anthelio and leadership group Community Hospital 100 found that 22% of community hospitals operate with margins below 2%; another 38% operate below 1%. Rick Kneipper, Anthelio’s cofounder and chief strategy officer, says that hospitalists can be at the forefront “of the creative changes needed” to reduce costs and improve profitability.

“Hospital medicine groups and hospitals could free up significant funds to devote to improved patient-care services if they focus on their core competency of patient care and farm out their non-core, back-office services to experts who can use leverage to provide more efficient services at significantly reduced costs,” Kneipper wrote in an email to The Hospitalist. “Financial pressures have historically forced most industries to stop trying to be vertically integrated [trying to be ‘all things to all people’] and instead to focus on their core competencies—it’s time for healthcare to do the same.”

HM’s foothold at the intersection of clinical care and safety and QI positions the specialty to “respond to the new challenges of readmission penalties, evidenced-based medicine requirements, EMR implementation, and operation challenges,” Kneipper wrote.

For the full survey, please visit www.antheliohealth.com and search “survey.”

A new report shows that 1 in 5 community hospitals operates in the red, but the chief strategy officer of the firm that conducted the survey thinks hospitals can help change that.

The second annual survey from healthcare information technology (HIT) provider Anthelio and leadership group Community Hospital 100 found that 22% of community hospitals operate with margins below 2%; another 38% operate below 1%. Rick Kneipper, Anthelio’s cofounder and chief strategy officer, says that hospitalists can be at the forefront “of the creative changes needed” to reduce costs and improve profitability.

“Hospital medicine groups and hospitals could free up significant funds to devote to improved patient-care services if they focus on their core competency of patient care and farm out their non-core, back-office services to experts who can use leverage to provide more efficient services at significantly reduced costs,” Kneipper wrote in an email to The Hospitalist. “Financial pressures have historically forced most industries to stop trying to be vertically integrated [trying to be ‘all things to all people’] and instead to focus on their core competencies—it’s time for healthcare to do the same.”

HM’s foothold at the intersection of clinical care and safety and QI positions the specialty to “respond to the new challenges of readmission penalties, evidenced-based medicine requirements, EMR implementation, and operation challenges,” Kneipper wrote.

For the full survey, please visit www.antheliohealth.com and search “survey.”

Clinical informatics, the principle of blending health information technology (HIT) with patient care, is going mainstream. The subspecialty, popular in hospitalist circles, is scheduled to offer board certification following its recent approval by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The first examination will be administered by the American Board of Preventative Medicine and could be held as early as fall 2012, with certificates awarded early in 2013.

AMIA, the informatics trade group, believes the recognition will help push more medical schools to integrate informatics into the curriculum, which will only further solidify the subspecialty place in modern medicine.

Clinical informatics, the principle of blending health information technology (HIT) with patient care, is going mainstream. The subspecialty, popular in hospitalist circles, is scheduled to offer board certification following its recent approval by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The first examination will be administered by the American Board of Preventative Medicine and could be held as early as fall 2012, with certificates awarded early in 2013.

AMIA, the informatics trade group, believes the recognition will help push more medical schools to integrate informatics into the curriculum, which will only further solidify the subspecialty place in modern medicine.

Clinical informatics, the principle of blending health information technology (HIT) with patient care, is going mainstream. The subspecialty, popular in hospitalist circles, is scheduled to offer board certification following its recent approval by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The first examination will be administered by the American Board of Preventative Medicine and could be held as early as fall 2012, with certificates awarded early in 2013.

AMIA, the informatics trade group, believes the recognition will help push more medical schools to integrate informatics into the curriculum, which will only further solidify the subspecialty place in modern medicine.

Only a sliver of rural hospitals would meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) criteria to qualify for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT), according to a new study, but that could be a window for HM group leaders to take the reins of technology projects.

“[Hospitalists] could be very useful as a champion,” says Brock Slabach, MPH, FACHE, senior vice president for member services at the National Rural Health Association.

The new report showed that 5% of rural hospitals could demonstrate meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system, as opposed to 9% of urban hospitals (J Rural Health. 2011;27(3):329-337). The number dips to 3% for critical-access hospitals. EHR usage often is used as a benchmark for HIT implementation.

CMS has allotted $20 billion for physicians and hospitals to adopt new technologies, but entities must prove they have met “meaningful use” requirements.

Slabach, who spent 20 years as an administrator at Field Memorial Community Hospital in Centreville, Miss., says the major hurdle for HIT implementation at rural hospitals is a lack of knowledge. But if hospitalists can show other physicians the value of HIT, others will follow, he adds.

“Somebody who may not have any informatics background, but is willing to grab a hold of the system, learn its applications, develop methods to spread the knowledge to the rest of the medical staff, is critical,” Slabach says. “It just takes that one or two [people] to get the momentum starting, in terms of a transition to what for a lot of middle-aged and older physicians is a completely new world.”

Only a sliver of rural hospitals would meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) criteria to qualify for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT), according to a new study, but that could be a window for HM group leaders to take the reins of technology projects.

“[Hospitalists] could be very useful as a champion,” says Brock Slabach, MPH, FACHE, senior vice president for member services at the National Rural Health Association.

The new report showed that 5% of rural hospitals could demonstrate meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system, as opposed to 9% of urban hospitals (J Rural Health. 2011;27(3):329-337). The number dips to 3% for critical-access hospitals. EHR usage often is used as a benchmark for HIT implementation.

CMS has allotted $20 billion for physicians and hospitals to adopt new technologies, but entities must prove they have met “meaningful use” requirements.

Slabach, who spent 20 years as an administrator at Field Memorial Community Hospital in Centreville, Miss., says the major hurdle for HIT implementation at rural hospitals is a lack of knowledge. But if hospitalists can show other physicians the value of HIT, others will follow, he adds.

“Somebody who may not have any informatics background, but is willing to grab a hold of the system, learn its applications, develop methods to spread the knowledge to the rest of the medical staff, is critical,” Slabach says. “It just takes that one or two [people] to get the momentum starting, in terms of a transition to what for a lot of middle-aged and older physicians is a completely new world.”

Only a sliver of rural hospitals would meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) criteria to qualify for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT), according to a new study, but that could be a window for HM group leaders to take the reins of technology projects.

“[Hospitalists] could be very useful as a champion,” says Brock Slabach, MPH, FACHE, senior vice president for member services at the National Rural Health Association.

The new report showed that 5% of rural hospitals could demonstrate meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system, as opposed to 9% of urban hospitals (J Rural Health. 2011;27(3):329-337). The number dips to 3% for critical-access hospitals. EHR usage often is used as a benchmark for HIT implementation.

CMS has allotted $20 billion for physicians and hospitals to adopt new technologies, but entities must prove they have met “meaningful use” requirements.

Slabach, who spent 20 years as an administrator at Field Memorial Community Hospital in Centreville, Miss., says the major hurdle for HIT implementation at rural hospitals is a lack of knowledge. But if hospitalists can show other physicians the value of HIT, others will follow, he adds.

“Somebody who may not have any informatics background, but is willing to grab a hold of the system, learn its applications, develop methods to spread the knowledge to the rest of the medical staff, is critical,” Slabach says. “It just takes that one or two [people] to get the momentum starting, in terms of a transition to what for a lot of middle-aged and older physicians is a completely new world.”