What does it take to be the best hospital?

Below is a reply I wrote to a question raised on Hospital Impact, “What does it take to be the best hospital on the planet?”

http://bit.ly/v4pr6

I’d like to hear what you think it would take.

Great question and one that needs to be asked with much regularity.  I target my comments at the healthcare business as opposed to the business of healthcare—the clinical part.

May I begin with a statement that may have many readers reaching for their delete keys?  As one who has consulted to many industries, to me the healthcare business appears to be stuck in a 0.2 business model and is being forced to rapidly reinvent itself in a 2.0 model—my use of the term 2.0 does not imply the Internet.

My comments are based on observations, conversation, and inference.  My executives have told me privately that world-class physicians do not necessarily become world-class business executives.  Many lack the depth of experience that is needed to know what aspects of the healthcare business is broken, duplicative, wasteful, or in need of repair.  While discussing EHR, I was told recently by a former CEO of a large hospital that his peers were making multi-multi-million dollar decisions without any sense of the data needed to support those decisions, basing them on what a friend had decided, what they read in an in-flight magazine, or a conversation they had at a convention.

There seems to be significant faith placed in the notion of, “That’s the way we’ve always done it.”  That expression surfaces often when one raises the issue of why a hospital has multiple IT departments, multiple HR groups, payroll, registration, and so forth.  Why do something once if you can do it less well five times.

There seems to be enough waste that for some hospitals looking at moving forward with EHR, my first piece of advice is instead of aiming for best practices, let’s aim for a single practice.  Evaluate how to implement a shared service or managed services approach to business functions that are not part of your core business model.

I close with the notion of what other businesses call customer relationship management (CRM).  For a hospital, patient relationship management (PRM) is one of the unspoken wins waiting for someone to lead the charge.  Add a social media effort to it, and all of a sudden it’s like the hospital gave itself a facelift, at least from the perspective of the patients.

pastedGraphic.tiff.converted

Controlling the patient dialog

pigsRemember when there were 200 firms in the Fortune 100?

How long ago was that? I think it was around the same time when people still thought you shouldn’t wear white after Labor Day. Time to drop-kick those white pumps to the back of the closet. What made me think of that bit of nonsense was a meeting I had recently with one of the sharpest people I’ve had the pleasure to meet professionally, and a classmate of mine from grad school. She happens to be the founder and president of one of the country’s go-to firms for dealing with business ethics. Having served as a board member for several publicly-traded firms, as well as chairing their audit committees, when the Andersen and Enron scandals hit she went looking for professionals who could help her help her firms. When she couldn’t find the help, she created it.

That conversation got me thinking and made me wonder why there were no longer 200 firms in the Fortune 100. Was it; is it, a matter of business ethics? How often do unethical practices come up when firms interact with their customers? A couple of takeaways from the meeting—for board members to be able to meet their obligation, they ought to do more than reply on the meeting book pulled together by the firm they serve. Simply relying on the book presumes ethical behavior, a presumption not always supported by fact—how much should one believe if the information is being provided by someone who purchased a $900 shower curtain?

What can they do? Due diligence is being reinvented, and the Social Network is leading the charge. One example is to go to Yahoo Chat to see what’s really being said about your organization. Other things I’ve done to obtain facts and opinions, things which particularly gauge how customers and employees feel about the firm include Google Reader, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to name just a few. You don’t need patient focus groups to learn what’s being said, or to learn how good a job your hospital is doing. The patients already have a laser focus. In many instances the group lacking the focus is the healthcare provider.

Firms should focus on maintaining a strong Reputation Bank, one strong enough to be able to handle withdrawals, because you never know when there might be a run on the bank. Might be a good time to look at your own bank deposit slips.  Deposits can be made easily through the social media network.  You can’t stop patients from talking about you but you can shape what they say.

saint

A doctor writes about his EMR experience

162_6The following is a response I received to a discussion I raised on a LinkedIn group.  It’s written by Dr. Richard Lamson and is used with his permission.  I liked that it didn’t follow some of the EMR/EHR cheerleading that seems to dominate much of what’s written.

I wish I could say it was a learning “curve”, it’s just a “slope” with no asymptote in sight for many EMR products.

Well, no, I guess that’s not right. Your cardiologist will eventually get to 30/30 or so instead of 10/50, so there is an asymptote, it’s just not what it was with paper charts. Say what you will about paper charts (they’re unreliable, slow, get lost easily — all true), they’ve been refined by several generations of physicians, using technology that was well understood 200+ years ago. The data density of pen/ink on paper is very high, (think genograms, drawings of the location of lesions, etc.), the input bandwidth very high, and it is something with which we have been familiar since preschool scribbling with crayons (of course, some physicians’ charts would be improved by scribbling lessons!).

The EMR user interfaces out there are at most 10-12 years old, The input bandwidth is not very high — at most it is dictation speed but with a higher error rate. Because of copy/paste technology, a lot of “information” in charts is copied and pasted from previous notes and does not necessarily reflect what the physican did on this visit. Also, it might not be true this time. Does every doctor look at every diabetic’s feet at every visit? I try to, but when I’m 45 minutes behind sometimes I defer it to the next visit, especially when they can’t put their own shoes back on after I take them off. I try to edit out the foot exam

Don’t get me started on the warnings that EMRs give you every time you open a new patient, write a prescription, etc. You get warning fatigue and tend to blow past them without reading them after a while, since 99+% of them are not germane (oh, this patient’s taking aspirin, maybe they’ve had a heart attack in the last 10 minutes, better not write them for a migraine medication…). These warnings are basically lawsuits waiting to happen. I can hear the attorney now: “But, Doctor, your EMR warned you that this was a bad medication to use in this case, why did you write it anyway?” “Well, you see, it had given me that warning buried in among 20 other warnings, and it was probably the only warning all day that was useful, how can I read 400 warnings a day to see which one is useful?” Cha-ching!

pastedGraphic.tiff.converted

Universal Patient Record-can that save EHR?

fermat800Today is the anniversary of the solving of Fermat’s last theorem.  As a long recovering mathematician, these types of thing interest me so I sought a copy of the proof and began reading.  The mathematics for librarians description of the proof is something like this:

  • The Pythagorean theorem states that for a right triangle the sum of the squares of the sides equals the square of the hypotenuse.
  • Fermat stated that the theorem only holds for a coefficient of 2, squaring, and that no other coefficient will work
  • This went unproven until recently

One might have thought that the solution could be solved by brute force using a computer.  How many numbers are there to be dealt with? If you approach the problem this way you’ve got to do it for infinitely many numbers. So, after you’ve done it for one, how much closer have you got? Well, there’s still infinitely many left. After you’ve done it for a thousand numbers, how many, how much closer have you got? Well, there’s still infinitely many left. After you’ve done it for a million, well, there’s still infinitely many left. In fact, you haven’t done very many, have you?  In fact, using this approach, you’ll never finish.  This got me thinking about our EHR system.

I think something has been lost in the confusion about a national EHR system.  After all, that’s the target right, a national system?  We only unleash the power of EHR if we are able to make it work out outside of the provider’s four walls.  Is it possible that perhaps the logic of how we have been viewing developing a solution for the problem is wrong?  I think it is.  Since the outset, the problem has been defined as how do we develop a system that will enable us to get everyone’s health records (let’s call an individual record A) to some arbitrary set of healthcare providers, call them P.  There are some 350 million A’s and for simplicity let’s agree that there are 100,000 P’s.  So now, the system to which everyone is working is the system that will enable all of the A’s to get to any combination of P’s.

See?  Now what happens if we place a few hundred Rhios and health information exchanges (HIEs) in between the A’s and the P’s?  Let’s label them G’s for gatekeepers.  So, in the current framework all the A’s (everybody’s health records) have to pass through all the G’s, make it up to the national network, then back through all the G’s and then sorted through all the P’s to the correct P.

How can we know this design will work for every possibility?  The only way is to test every combination of A’s, G’s and P’s.  It’s a difficult problem.  It becomes more difficult when we acknowledge that there are hundreds of EHR vendors supplying software to all of those P’s.  Many of those P’s will have modified the software, meaning that there are probably thousands of variations of EHR systems.  Oh, and did I mention that all of this is being done without any single set of standards?  That means my stuff will look different from your stuff, and the G’s will have to move different stuff, and from an “IT” perspective the EHRs at the end of the food chain will have to interpret different stuff and then update your stuff with their stuff.  That’s a lot of stuff.

So, if that is where things are, what can be done about it?  My take on a solution is that the problem with this model lies with the word in italics, ‘everyone’.  Every possible patient with every possible need getting to every possible provider.  How to solve this or at least simplify the magnitude of the problem?  One possible solution is to build out the EHR system and the network such that one patient’s record can go to one provider and have that record updated.  Would it not make more sense to build it for a single patient, create a universal patient record (UPR) that can handle all instances?  Do it right once.  Prove that it works and then replicate it instead of building millions of different ones and hoping they work?

021_18A

The relationship between 2 words: reform and EHR

Part of the reform discussion should include reform that requires and/or will only come about through EHR.

The other part of the discussion should be about reforming EHR.  Neither will work without the other

saint

EHR: What questions remain unanswered?

red stapler

“We need to talk about your TSP reports.”  Office Space—Possibly the best movie ever made. Ever worked for a boss like Lumbergh? Here’s a smart bit of dialog for your Friday.

Peter Gibbons: I work in a small cubicle. I uh, I don’t like my job, and, uh, I don’t think I’m gonna go anymore.

Joanna: You’re just not gonna go?

Peter Gibbons: Yeah.

Joanna: Won’t you get fired?

Peter Gibbons: I don’t know, but I really don’t like it, and, uh, I’m not gonna go.

Joanna: So you’re gonna quit?

Peter Gibbons: Nuh-uh. Not really. Uh… I’m just gonna stop going.

Joanna: When did you decide all that?

Peter Gibbons: About an hour ago.

Joanna: Oh, really? About an hour ago… so you’re gonna get another job?

Peter Gibbons: I don’t think I’d like another job.

Joanna: Well, what are you going to do about money and bills and…

Peter Gibbons: You know, I’ve never really liked paying bills. I don’t think I’m gonna do that, either.

One more tidbit:

Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door – that way

Lumbergh can’t see me, heh heh – and, uh, after that I just sorta space out for about an hour.

Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?

Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I’m working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too. I’d say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

I like to think of Peter as my alter-ego.

When I’m playing me in a parallel universe, I’m reading about a surfer dude cum freelance physicist, Garrett Lisi. Even the title of his theory, “An exceptionally simple theory of everything,” seems oxymoronic. He surfs Hawaii and does physics things—physicates—in Tahoe. (I just invented that word; it’s the verb form of doing physics, physicates.)

Ignoring that I can’t surf, and know very little physics, I like to think that Garrett and I have a lot in common. I already know Peter Gibbons and I do. So, where does this take us?

It may be apparent that I look at EHR from a different perspective than many of others involved in this debate; I’m the guy who doesn’t mind yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. The guy who will never be invited to speak at the HIT convention unless they need a heretic to burn for the evening entertainment. I can live with that.

Like Garrett, I too see an exceptionally simple theory in everything, especially when it comes to improving business. It’s not rocket surgery, but then, it was never meant to be. You’ve seen the people running it, they are definitely not rocket surgeons—before someone writes, I know it should be scientists.

Sometimes I like to look at the problem from a different dementia—Word didn’t have a problem with that usage. I look at EHR and ask myself three questions:

1. Why do people really believe the existing national roll out plan will work?

2. How did the plan ever get so complex?

3. How much money will be wasted before people look for a realistic solution?

What do you think?

pastedGraphic.tiff.converted

Revising patient interactions via social media and CRM

SmidgeFor those who don’t have time for 140 characters, or who don’t have much to say, I’ve created an alternative, smidge.com. The Urban Dictionary defines a smidge as a small amount of something, short for smidegeon.

This will revolutionize the interaction between patient/customers and the healthcare provider. We all know how annoying customers can be. Why should providers continue to enable bad behavior? They call, fax, email, and tweet. Enough already.

It’s time providers show a little backbone, show the customers who’s in charge.

Here’s how smidge.com works. Each time a customer interacts with you, give the patient their smidegeon account. Explain to them that this is their private way to communicate with you. It’s instantaneous, totally secure, and it operates 7 x 24 x 365. No more navigating IVRs, no more being placed on hold, no longer will they be transferred to another agent, never again will they be monitored for quality control purposes. Let the customers know that anytime they want to smidge, the world is theirs.

Explain to them that you are doing away with archaic forms of interacting; closing your call centers, throwing away your fax machines, and deleting your presence on the web. What are the advantages to your firm? They’re almost too many to document. Think of the capital savings. No more IT expenditures to support those millions of whining customers. No more CSRs complaining about not being allowed to browse the web, or about not getting their mid-morning break.

And now for the best part. In order to minimize bandwidth and storage costs, each smidegeon only allows the user to use each letter of the alphabet one time, meaning the largest smidge can’t exceed 26 characters. The longest message one could get is, “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog”.  That being the case, there will no longer be any justification for the customer complaining that your company didn’t resolve their problem.The roles will be reversed. The upper hand will now go to the company.

How? Let’s look at an example. The patient wants to smidge the following change of address information, “We are moving on October 13 to 1175 Harmony Hill Road, Spokane, Washington. Please forward our bill.” Since smidges don’t allow numbers, we’ve already simplified the message, and the ease of entry. Now, if we translate the message into a correctly formatted smidegeon, we get the following message, “We ar moving ctb Hny l d Spk f u b d.” Now, how can you be expected to understand that kind of nonsense? If you can’t understand it, how can your patients possibly blame you?

pastedGraphic.tiff.converted

EHR: How to recover from poor planning

feathersSuccess and failure are often separated by the slimmest of margins. Sometimes you have to be prepared to think on your feet to out think unfavorable circumstances. Sometimes success hinges on how you present your idea. It is possible to force the circumstances via rapid evolution to pass from problem, to possible solution, to believable, to heroic? I believe so.

Permit me to illustrate with frozen chicken. Several hours before dinner I threw the frozen chicken breasts into the sink, choosing to thaw them with water instead of the microwave. Some twenty minutes later while checking emails I wondered what we were having for dinner. Not to be outdone by own inadequacies, I remembered we were having chicken. I remembered that we were having chicken because I remembered turning on the hot water. The only thing I couldn’t remember was turning off the hot water.

I raced to the kitchen. My memory was correct. Grabbing every towel I could find, I soaked up the puddles from the hardwood flooring, thinking while mopping about how I might answer to my wife if she happened to return to a kitchen that looked like the Land of Lakes. My first reaction, admittedly poor, was to tell her that I thought the countertop wasn’t level and that the only way to know for sure was to see which direction the water ran. Telling her the truth never entered my mind.

Once the major puddles had been removed, I worked on version two of the story, quickly arriving at a version of the truth that was more palatable—tell her I decided to wash all the towels. Why not get bonus points instead of getting in trouble? Version three looked even better. Since I was wiping the floor with the towels, instead of telling her I washed the towels, why not double the bonus points? I decided to wash the floor, and wash the towels. Husband of the year can’t be far off.

A few hours have passed. The floor is dry—and clean, the towels are neatly folded and back in the linen closet, and the chicken is on the grill. All the bases covered. A difficult and embarrassing situation turned into a positive by quick thinking.

A few of you have asked, let’s say we buy into what you are saying, how do you propose we turn around our EHR approach? All kidding aside, it comes down to presentation. Clearly you can’t walk into a room with a bunch of slides showing that your EHR investment was wasted. The first step involves defining the quantitative returns that can be achieved by changing the focus of EHR away from ARRA money and Washington the the business problems EHR will address.

So, how did the dinner turn out? I was feeling confident that I had sidestepped to worst of it. Overconfident, as it turned out. My son hollered from the basement, “Dad, why is all this water down here?”

saint

Can you blame providers if they fail Meaningful Use?

3Here’s what I wrote in reply to a post on Healthcare Informatics, http://bit.ly/LX8Jb

I don’t wake up each day planning to be at odds with ninety-eight percent—I’m probably being overly generous assuming two percent of the people are as jaded as me—of the HIT community, maybe I just come by it naturally.

The first time I heard of RECs (regional extension centers) the first thing that came to mind was playgrounds, something akin to what the Police Athletic League might find useful.  Five hundred and ninety-eight million dollars.  They tried 597 and determined it wouldn’t be enough and figured 599 would be too much, but 598 million was just right.  Then Goldilocks made her way over to the porridge—sorry for turning left at the fairy tale ramp.

A large part of the success or failure of reform hinges on the success or failure of EHR.  Accordingly, the government made the egregious decision to manage the process of building and rolling out a national EHR down at the molecular level.  They have involved themselves at the front-end, at the vendor level, and at the back-end.  The more anxious they become, the more money they waste, adding another guise to get the healthcare providers to take their eyes off the ball.  Five hundred ninety-eight million “we’re just here to help you” dollars.

This money could be spent to pay the top EHR vendors to create one set of standards and modify their systems to fit those standards.

Meaningful Use.  Don’t get me started.  How can I fault thee; let me count the ways.  Those tested early for Meaningful Use will be examined less rigorously than those tested later.  This is like the IRS saying that if you file your taxes in February, don’t worry about those silly little math errors.  Healthcare will be the only industry whose software quality assurance check occurs after they pass the fail-safe point, the point of no return.

With good leadership providers should know EHR will pass meaningful use before implementing the system. If they fail to pass Meaningful Use, shame on them.

saint

Could Mashups solve the EHR integration problems?

Silly walks

Silly walks

That number represents the number of different ways to arrange the seventy-five numbers on a BINGO card—five columns of a specific group of fifteen numbers.

I may have mentioned that part of what drives me to write is the need to help me frame ideas for myself.  It serves as a checkpoint before I unlock the gate and let them loose on you.  This idea required a good deal of thought, just to get me comfortable that the premise even made sense.

Here’s what got me thinking about it.  It seems there are three major groupings of things that need to work together precisely in order for EHR to work.  Each time one fails, the network fails.  What are those groupings?

  1. Data
  2. Systems
  3. Transport

The data are Personal Health Records (PHRs), Electronic Medical Records (EMRs), and standards.  There are perhaps hundreds of variations among the elements of that group.  Secondly, there are the systems, the Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems.  Again, hundreds of different systems can house the data.  How many possible combinations are there at this point in the process?  The correct answer is that there are too many.  Finally, there is the issue of transport, getting the data from one system to another system.  Under the present model (the one to which everyone seems to be building) let’s include the Health Information Exchanges (HIEs), the Regional Health Information Organizations (Rhios), and the National Health Information Network (NHIN).

The problem with each of these grouping (data, systems, transport) is that their individual elements are not grouped.  That lack of grouping means that the total number of paths that can be ridden to get a health record from provider A to provider B is much larger than that of the BINGO illustration.

Therefore, for inter-EHR (the transport part of EHR) to have any hope of functioning the groupings need to be fully grouped in such a manner so as to remove the hypergeometric distribution among the elements.

This is the point where some of you may tell me that I am not spending enough time on this planet.  If the prior discussion is at all correct we need to solve the grouping problem.  Here’s where I leave my pay-grade and need your help to see if this dog can hunt.  I was able to clarify the idea for myself by thinking about potatoes–please don’t stop reading, this is not an attempt on my part to be funny.  What happens if you take two potatoes and mash them together?  The two become one, and any individual distinctions are lost.

Is it possible to create mashups of each of these groups such that instead of having billions of billions of permutations, we have just a few?  A mash-up is a Web page or application that integrates complementary elements from two or more sources.  That one sentence used up the entirety of what I know about the topic.  I don’t know enough about it to know if the technology will work with EHR, however that is not my point.  What I am pushing for is that we look at the concept of using mashups.  If the concept is sound, then let’s figure out the technology that would be needed to drive it.  I think a solution along these lines is what is needed to have a working national EHR system.

What do you think?

saint