healthcare 2.0

EHR’s marmalade-and-toast hypothesis

Posted by

0

Les choses son contre nous—things are against us.  EHR is the marmalade-and-toast hypothesis, that the marmalade-side will land on the carpet when the toast falls from the breakfast plate, played out in bits and bytes.  Resistentialism is the belief that inanimate objects have a natural antipathy towards human beings.  If one were to view the marmalade-toast through the glasses of resistentialism one would conclude that the likelihood of the toast laying marmalade-side down increases with the cost of the carpet. So it is with the EHR.  Your expensive EHR is laying marmalade-side down on a very expensive carpet.

EHR has created an air of technostalgia with users yearning for the bygone days when the technology involved a number two pencil and a pad of paper.  Now that you are using your EHR system, do you ever wonder how different the experience of using it would have been if someone had asked for your input about what the EHR should do?  Would merely asking have solved the EHR myopia that was brought about by those who implemented it, implemented it without involving a single systems designer?

That this problem even exists is demonstrated by the fact that to use the EHR required hours of training.  Users sat there like sock puppets listening to the buzzword-bingo put forth by the trainers.  This should have been the clue that none of what they were about to learn was intuitive or self-evident.  The reason they offer EHR training is to explain “This is how you get the system to do what you need it to do,” because without viewing it that way it will not do anything.

The EHR has turned a lot of normally complacent physicians and nurses into stress puppies.  To understand how far amiss the functioning of the EHR is from what the users had hoped it would be all one has to do is observe it being used.  How many doctors and nurses have apologized to a patient during an exam because of something related to the EHR?  “Sorry this is taking so long…If you will just bear with me while I figure out how to do this…When the nurse returns I will get her to show me how to schedule your next appointment.”

If ever there was a time to have employed defensive pessimism, the implementation of EHR was such a time.  Users went into the project skeptimistic, certain it would go badly.  As niche worriers doctors and nurses imagined all the ways that the EHR would under deliver and would make their jobs more difficult, and they watched their stress portfolios rise.  The forgotten task was that nobody mapped out ways to avert the damage.

That this jump-the-shark problem can and should be corrected by something not much larger than a two-pizza team—a team small enough that it can be fed by two pizzas—seems to have escaped the reason of many.

Many are guilty of treating the productivity drop brought on by EHR as a problem with no solution.  If a problem has no solution it is not a problem, it is a fact.  And if it is a fact it is not to be solved, but coped with over time.  There is way too much coping going on.

The EHR productivity drop can be undone.  It will not be undone by redoing the training.  It will be undone by assessing the human factors and user experiences of those using the EHR, by researching how they users want to use it, and by reconfiguring the user interface.

This is not cheap, but it is much less expensive than the cost of loss productivity.

 

Step away from the computer

Posted by

2

Our middle school child is in the middle of a family consumer science project (home economics) to organize one room in our home.  He has redefined the project so that he reorganizes during commercials, and he is seven hours into a project involving our walk-in closet.

While watching the news it occurred to me that something is missing from my life, I do not belong to a gang, not even a little one.  So, I have decided to start one, a white collar gang of consultants.  A rough and tumbled, manicured group of professionals.

Instead of gang emblem, I am thinking each member of the gang will have their own embossed business card.  We will come up with creative gang nicknames.  For myself I am vacillating between ‘Dr. Knowledge’ and ‘The Voice of Reason.’  Instead of Harleys, we will roll through town to our national rallies on monogrammed Segways, and instead of leathers we will dress in Armani.

Mothers will hide their children from us as we power noiselessly down Main Street at four miles an hour, and their CPA husbands will turn green with envy.  We might not win many fights, but we will have the satisfaction of knowing we are smarter than those who beat us to a bloody pulp.

Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

There are days when it doesn’t pay to be a  serial malingerer, and when it does, the work is only part time, but I hear the benefits may be improving as I think I heard somebody mention healthcare is being reformed.

I don’t know if you are aware of it, but there are actually people who have taken an Alfred E. Newman, “What, me worry” attitude towards EHR.  For the youngsters in the crowd, Alfred was the poster child for Mad Magazine, not Mad Men.

Just to be contrarian for a moment–as though that’s out of character for me–most providers have no need to fear–does this happen to you?  You are writing aloud, trying to make a point, and the one thing that pops into your mind after, ‘there’s no need to fear’ is “Underdog is here.”

Anyway, since many providers haven’t begun the process, or even begun to understand the process, there is still time for them to lessen the risk of failure from an EHR perspective.  Many don’t want to talk about it, the risk of failure.

Here’s another data set worth a look (The Chaos Report).  They went a little PC on us calling them ‘Impaired” factors.  EHR impairment.  Step away from the computer if you are impaired, and take away your friend’s logon if they are.  These are failure factors.

Project Impaired Factors % of  the Responses
1. Incomplete Requirements 13.1%
2. Lack of User Involvement 12.4%
3. Lack of Resources 10.6%
4. Unrealistic Expectations 9.9%
5. Lack of Executive Support 9.3%
6. Changing Requirements & Specifications 8.7%
7. Lack of Planning 8.1%
8. Didn’t Need It Any Longer 7.5%
9. Lack of IT Management 6.2%
10. Technology Illiteracy 4.3%
11. Other 9.9%

My take on this is with overall “failures” so high, several respondents could have replied to “all of the above.”  Also of note is that these failure reasons differ from the ones listed previously.

Who knows, maybe if we multiply them by minus one we can call them success factors.

Whatever happened to Healthcare Reform?

Posted by

0

I wrote a piece last year titled ‘Robbing Peter to Pay Paul’.  Yesterday I read a thoughtful post by Kim Chandler McDonald which offered a very similar albeit somewhat different perspective on the topic of where the focus on healthcare really lies.  Kim wrote on ‘meHealth’, taking the responsibility for eHealth as the only real way to create an ROI in the space http://ow.ly/5NCPN.  For those who enjoy reading something by someone who knows the difference between an adverb and a potted plant and can actually write a proper sentence I encourage you to take a read.

Mine was on heCare and sheCare and it also speaks to the individual but does so without any attempt to disguise my belief that healthcare reform missed the mark http://ow.ly/5NDet.  Kim wrote asking what if anything has changed in the period since I penned my piece.  For those who may have missed it, and to borrow from FDR, my premise was that the only thing to fear about healthcare reform was reform itself.

For all the talking that healthcare reform created, the silence on the topic has risen to a new crescendo.  The only thing that has changed concerning reform is that the silence has grown louder.

Why has reform missed the mark and what can be done about it?  Permit me a moment to illustrate.  I would ask that all the altruists reading this post take one step forward—wait a minute Sparky, where are you going?  The reform package efforted (simple past tense and past participle of effort) to be all things to all people, especially to those who have been disenfranchised under the current system.

While the goal is laudable, it did not pass the test of being both necessary and sufficient.  Its insufficiency is hampered by the fact that when we are ill altruism ends at our individual front doors.  It goes back to the notion of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Do unto others, but do not undo unto me.

Most observers believe there is some dollar amount that contains the total spend available for healthcare and that to increase services to those less fortunate—the theyCare populous—means paying for it by removing services from those who presently have healthcare, the heCare and sheCare taxpayers.  And, it is those same people, the heCares and sheCares, whose support of reform has fallen silent.

While a rising tide may indeed lift all boats, it also drowns those tethered to the pier.

Strategy–The land of small ideas

Posted by

0

Hangin’ by a thread

“It will feel better when it quits hurtin’.” Well duh.  It will also feel better when we stop self-inflicting the hurt.

To help me understand how things work I need to decompose issues, not into small parts, but into a series of pictures or shapes.  The pictures I come up with represent my particular perspective of how things look.  That can be a far cry from how others view them.  Maybe that stems from when I was a child and enjoying putting puzzles together upside down.

Instead if hitting myself over the head with a hammer, I set aside the easy pieces—those with straight edges and the four corners.

The puzzle was equally complete no matter whether you worked with the picture or just the shapes, but the exercise was quite different.  The advantage in doing it my way is that upon staring at 500 pieces of cardboard backing I had to bring different problem solving skills to the table.  The disadvantage is that once I could picture the solution in my mind, I lost all interest in completing the last few pieces of the puzzle.

I find myself looking at coming up with a reasoned approach for attacking the large provider healthcare business model.  Puzzle pieces are scattered across my desk; some right-side up, others right-side down.

Here’s where the process breaks down or breaks up—I am sure the direction is irrelevant.  How does one change someone that either does not want to change or one who thinks change is not needed?

Just because you think you’re being followed does not mean you are paranoid—it could mean you are the only one with enough focus to know what is happening.  Charging someone eight dollars for a bag of popcorn to keep your business afloat is not insightful, frankly, it is embarrassing.  Charging forty dollars to check a bag on a plane does not earn a CEO the Baldridge Award, it only allows the airline to lose less money, to stave off inevitable bankruptcy a little bit longer.  Eastern, Pan-Am, Braniff, TWA, Republic, Northwest, Piedmont, Midway, Independence.  They proved the same thing.  Continuing to use the same failed strategy delivered the same failed result.  Just because the first five people to jump off the garage roof couldn’t fly doesn’t mean you can’t.  Or does it?  Bigger wasn’t better, was it?

What does it cost to fly from New York to Seattle?  It depends.  What does it cost to have an angioplasty on Philadelphia?  It depends.  Did the airlines adopt their pricing model from hospitals, or was it the other way around?  Does it matter?  Probably not.

The land of small ideas, like Monty Python’s silly walks.  Somebody actually comes up with these ideas.  I doubt it is someone on the board.  People who lead do not one day lose their marbles and decry, “Our model is not working, let’s start charging passengers if they sit during the flight.”

If staying afloat requires a hospital to charge eight dollars a unit for Tylenol, the land of small ideas is winning.

Wayne Newton’s 4th law of relative immobility

Posted by

0

Last night I was speaking with a woman at a gathering of graduates from my high school.  She got into the subject of reading glasses and then commented that she first learned she needed regular glasses since the age of four.

As she was not wearing glasses, I asked her if she’d had Lasik.  No, she said, “I always hated how I looked in them, so I quit wearing them in high school.”

“Don’t you miss being able to see things?” I asked.

“Not really.  This is how I’ve seen the world for the past thirty years.  I’ve grown comfortable with how I see the world.”

I think many business leaders have the same perspective.  They get comfortable with how they see their world—comfortable with the issues and how to address them.  Given the choice, people will stay in their comfort zone.

Do you remember your physics?  Relative motion is the branch of physics that studies the motion of the body relative to the motion of another moving body (Newton).  For example, if you are in a train and another traveling at the same speed pulls alongside you, it appears to both set of passengers that neither train is moving.  If your train decelerates it will appear to you the other train has accelerated.

Now, take the perspective of someone standing on the platform viewing the two trains.  To that person, there is no illusion.  The bystander can see exactly what is happening; who is moving forward and who isn’t.

Some business leaders get caught up in what I call Wayne Newton’s 4th law of relative immobility.  When they look out their windows at the executive in the hospital across the street, it appears they are both moving at the same speed and at the same direction.  That is how they have seen the world each day for the last several years.  They look at each other, wave, and then go about their business, knowing their competitor hasn’t passed them or changed course.

But you and I know why it looks that way to them.  The reason they have not been passed is because neither hospital is moving forward.  The reason they do not perceive a change of direction is that they are both moving in the same direction.  In actuality, there is no motion.  Only an outsider can see neither hospital is moving.

Healthcare 2.0, Web 2.0, etc

Posted by

0

I am a huge fan of the phrase, “What if?”  Thinking is vastly underrated, especially by those who don’t—think, that is.  Where are all the what-iffers?

On the overrated side are the 2.0’s and 3.0’s.  Those terms connote a handful of things, none of which are particularly helpful.  It is as though those in the web 2.0 club see themselves as having arrived; as being somewhere better than those still mired in the one-dot-oh’s that comprise their cloistered universe.  Maybe it is just a level of enlightenment or attainment which comes from having been to the mountain top.  They Tweet with their David Attenboroughish British accents, revealing tidbits information heretofore unknown to the 1.0 crowd.

May I suggest the problem with the dot-ohs is the notion that there is some sort of deliverable, some point at which one is no longer striving to get to the oh-ness because one has arrived.  Then what?  I think that is why the uptake of the dot-oh concepts by the C-suiters is so low.  Web 2.0.  Health 2.0.  Social Media 2.0.  They are still paying for all the one-dot-oh initiatives, initiatives which for the most part failed to deliver.

There is no end point, no date in late October where anyone can say with any credibility, “We’ve arrived at the dot-oh end point.  It is a silly notion to believe that any of these initiatives are ever complete or exist in isolation.  I propose we use new nomenclature, something which suggest does not have an endpoint.  A transcendental number, a number with no end.  Irrational—like me.  Pi—π.  Health π.  Web π.  Social media π.

Why is the large provider business model obsolescing?

Posted by

0

Margaret Thatcher said, “Anyone who finds themselves on public transport after the age of 26 must consider themselves a failure.” There’s probably some sort of corollary for anyone twice that age that spends part of every day writing to imaginary people on the web.

When I write I like to pick a side and stand by it instead of standing in the middle of the road where you can get run over by the traffic from both sides. Likewise, I don’t look for consensus around an idea. Consensus is the process of everyone abandoning their beliefs and principles and meeting in the middle. When was it decided that meeting in the middle is beneficial? So, achieving consensus about a problem is nothing more than that state of lukewarm affection one feels when one neither believes in nor objects to a proposition.

Having this approach to solving business problems tends to yield a high number of critics. I don’t mind critics; those are the same people who after seeing me walk across a swimming pool would say that my walking only proves that I can’t swim. I rather enjoy it when someone offers a decidedly personal attack on something I wrote if only because it means they can’t find a legitimate business principle on which to base their argument. I love the debate, and I don’t expect anyone to agree with me just because I say it is so.

In trying to promote a different way of looking at the large provider business model, I’ve learned that it’s not possible to lead from within the crowd. The “as-is” hospital business model (how the hospital is run) was created over time, by followers. I may be wrong, but the most innovative alteration I have seen to the hospital business model in the last decade has been the addition of mini Starbucks, and the revamping of their lobbies to make hospitals look more like hotels.  The future will be created by someone who believes the strategy of how hospitals run can be done better. I believe firmly in the notion that improving the business model by building off the current one is like trying to cure a cold with leeches.

The approach that has been used to grow the business for the last fifty years is that the hospital is responsible for everything. And yet, who is responsible for the hospital? Who is accountable for the fact that the business model is obsolescing itself?  We have loads of new stuff—expensive stuff.  No other industry can tout new and improved services better than healthcare.  However, in those industries new and improved means faster, smaller, cheaper–it means adding services to reach significantly more customers, not fewer.

Each new and improved procedure with its more costly overhead has application to a smaller percentage of the health population, thereby allocating that overhead across fewer patients.  In turn, that makes the low-margin services unprofitable.  Those services will be cut lose, picked up by new entrants with lower overhead.  Those entrants will make a good business out of services discarded by hospitals.  The cycle will repeat, as it has for decades.  The profitable new entrants will move up-market.

Is it a question of scale versus scope, or scale and scope?  What happens if instead of continuing to repeat the cycle, large healthcare providers were to invert it?  What makes them more relevant, adding the capability to perform a procedure used once a month or one used once an hour?  Which is more important to the future model, inpatient care or outpatient care?  I suggest that “in” or “out” will become irrelevant.

Those phone booths in the photo used to be the way to make public calls, now you can’t even find a booth.  Maybe some day someone will take a photo of a group of hospitals stacked next to each other in a vacant lot.

“FaceBook” EHR –Visionary, or is it time for me to take a nap?

Posted by

0

This is what happens when my mind is allowed to free-associate when I run. I was watching a show on the science channel on the mathematics behind the principle of “6 degrees of separation and Small World”. The show demonstrated that very simple networks can be developed to get person A to any other person or entity, B.

This got me thinking–always a dangerous proposition–why couldn’t Small World networks be developed for EHR on a national level?  One Super EHR. Cradle to grave healthcare records, one person (patient) and at time via a Small World network. Super EMRs, patient owned, to a single, repeatable, standardized EHR.  Eliminate the RHIOs with their multiplicitous standards, eliminate hospital’s mini-EHRs.  Document the functionality required of the specialist practices and enable the data to be captured at the EMR level.

EHRBook; but with real privacy controls.

What do you think?

What is IT’s role in Accountable Care Organizations?

Posted by

0

I published this article today in healthsystemcio.com (http://ow.ly/4ecmg), and thought you might find it interesting. Please feel free to comment.

 

 

 

When was the last time you looked at a hospital bill, or one sent directly from your physician? The reason I ask is I have been spending some time trying to develop a clear enough picture of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to describe them easily. After all, ACOs are not something you can touch and see. You cannot just walk up to the third floor of Our Lady of Perpetual Billing and be shown an ACO.

 

I think it is extremely important to understand what an ACO is before trying to build one. Much of the difficulty in building an ACO has to do with the fact that something, in fact a great many somethings, will have to change for an ACO to function. The question then becomes, change from what to what?

Back to the hospital bill. Scan through the list of charges, and then press the F5 key to let me know when you are ready. Now, highlight all the line items that charge you for the care you received … I found the same thing; there are not any. Volume versus value. Caring for you versus doing stuff to you. The bill of charges under today’s business model is a blow-by-blow description of what was done to you; x-rays, medicines given, IVs, etc.

Hospital billing is not unlike a hotel bill; it is just longer and you do not earn frequent illness points. Embedded in your hospital bill are charges for food and cable television, just like you had been staying at the Four Seasons.

So, as we move from volume to value, how will that impact healthcare information technology, assuming anyone remains standing after Meaningful Use and ICD-10? I keep preaching about how the hospital’s business model must change in order to understand what will be required of IT. To do so, let us compare two very different business models and their operations, both of which are in the same industry.

Hyundai and Bentley. Volume to value. Just-in-time manufacturing versus don’t-rush-me manufacturing. Nobody would argue with the fact that the information systems and business processes needed to run Hyundai’s business are very different from those of Bentley.

I watched a show on how Bentleys are built. A team of people is assigned to each car. Depending on the car’s options, some people roll off the team and others are added, but the team “owns” the car from start to finish, and each subsequent person inspects the work of the prior person.

At Hyundai, it is not apparent that anyone “owns” the car. People have line responsibility; they own a piece of a process. I could be the “left lug nut guy,” having absolutely no responsibility for the rest of the car.

I think this is the degree of change an ACO will require in order to be effective. We will have to change from being lug nut specialists to becoming care owners. This then brings us back to the question of what IT systems will be needed to charge for and manage care.

Unlike moving from ICD-9 to ICD-10, there is no mapping model to guide the change from today’s business model to an ACO model. Three IVs and one MRI do not translate well to 4.5 Accountable Care Units (ACUs) which are then billed at whatever happens to be the going rate.

Today’s systems calculate charges based on what was done to you — $86 million gazillion for the MRI. If requested, nobody in finance or information technology will be able to vivisect the bowels of SAP or Lawson and show you where the information is that records how much the MRI procedure costs. Few can explain how the business processes and information systems that support today’s lug-nut charging model can support and report how the hospital manages its business. Nobody even pretends to explain how effective those same processes and systems are at reporting the quality of care delivered.

The ACO model will require processes and systems that capture, allocate, and report costs. The ACO model will also require processes and systems that can aggregate people and procedures into ACUs and relate patient costs against those ACUs.

We do not have those systems. Since current hospital systems are incapable of really managing today’s business requirements, we should not adapt them to the ACO model.

 

AP reports EHR plan will fail. Now what?

Posted by

0

I just fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. But lest I get ahead of myself, let us begin at the beginning. It started with homework–not mine–theirs. Among the three children of which I had oversight; coloring, spelling, reading, and exponents. How do parents without a math degree help their children with sixth-grade math?

“My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.” Hedley Lamar (Blazing Saddles). Unfortunately, mine, as I was soon to learn was merely flooded. Homework, answering the phone, running baths, drying hair, stories, prayers. The quality of my efforts seemed to be inversely proportional to the number of efforts undertaken. Eight-thirty–all three children tucked into bed.

Eight-thirty-one. The eleven-year-old enters the room complaining about his skinned knee. Without a moment’s hesitation, Super Dad springs into action, returning moments later with a band aid and a tube of salve. Thirty seconds later I was beaming–problem solved. At which point he asked me why I put Orajel on his cut. My wife gave me one of her patented “I told you so” smiles, and from the corner of my eye I happened to see my last viable neuron scamper across the floor.

One must tread carefully as one toys with the upper limits of the Peter Principle. There seems to be another postulate overlooked in the Principia Mathematica, which states that the number of spectators will grow exponentially as one approaches their limit of ineptitude.

Another frequently missed postulate is that committees are capable of accelerating the time required to reach their individual ineptitude limit. They circumvent the planning process to get quickly to doing, forgetting to ask if what they are doing will work. They then compound the problem by ignoring questions of feasibility, questions for which the committee is even less interested in answering. If we were discussing particle theory we would be describing a cataclysmic chain reaction, the breakdown of all matter. Here we are merely describing the breakdown of a national EHR roll out.

What is your point?  Fair question.  How will we get the nationalization of EHR to work?  I know “Duh” is not considered a term of art in any profession, however, it is exactly the word needed.  It appears they  are deciding that this—“this” being the current plan that will enable point-to-point connection of an individual record—will not work, and 2014 may be in jeopardy—not the actual year, interoperability.  Thanks for riding along with us, now return your seat back and tray table to their upright and most uncomfortable position.

Even as some throw away their membership in the flat earth society, those same they’s continue to press forward in Lemming-lock-step as though nothing is wrong.

It is a failed plan.  It can’t be tweaked.  We can’t simply revisit RHIOs and HIEs.  We have reached the do-over moment, not necessarily at the provider level, although marching along without standards will cause a great deal of rework for healthcare providers.  Having reached that moment, let us do something.  Focusing on certification, ARRA, and meaningful use will prove to be nothing more than a smoke screen.

That swishing sound you keep hearing is the sound of productivity in free fall.  The functionality of most installed EHRs ends at the front door.  We have been discussing that point for a few months.  When you reach the fork in the road, take it.  Each dollar spent from this moment forth going down the wrong EHR tine will cost two dollars to overcome.