PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11(02): 356-365
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710310
Research Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Twilighted Homegrown Systems: The Experience of Six Traditional Electronic Health Record Developers in the Post–Meaningful Use Era

Tiago K. Colicchio
1   Informatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
,
James J. Cimino
1   Informatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding This study was supported by research funds from the Informatics Institute of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

04. Februar 2020

31. März 2020

Publikationsdatum:
20. Mai 2020 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to understand if and how homegrown electronic health record (EHR) systems are used in the post–Meaningful Use (MU) era according to the experience of six traditional EHR developers.

Methods We invited informatics leaders from a convenience sample of six health care organizations that have recently replaced their long used homegrown systems with commercial EHRs. Participants were asked to complete a written questionnaire with open-ended questions designed to explore if and how their homegrown system(s) is being used and maintained after adoption of a commercial EHR. We used snowball sampling to identify other potential respondents and institutions.

Results Participants from all six organizations included in our initial sample completed the questionnaire and provided referrals to four other organizations; from these, two did not respond to our invitations and two had not yet replaced their system and were excluded. Two organizations (Columbia University and University of Alabama at Birmingham) still use their homegrown system for direct patient care and as a downtime system. Four organizations (Intermountain Healthcare, Partners Healthcare, Regenstrief Institute, and Vanderbilt University) kept their systems primarily to access historical data. All organizations reported the need to continue to develop or maintain local applications despite having adopted a commercial EHR. The most common applications developed include display and visualization tools and clinical decision support systems.

Conclusion Homegrown EHR systems continue to be used for different purposes according to the experience of six traditional homegrown EHR developers. The annual cost to maintain these systems varies from $21,000 to over 1 million. The collective experience of these organizations indicates that commercial EHRs have not been able to provide all functionality needed for patient care and local applications are often developed for multiple purposes, which presents opportunities for future research and EHR development.

Keywords

electronic health records - meaningful use - homegrown systems - medical informatics applications

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

Human subjects were not involved in this project.


 

  • References

  • 1 Nelson R, Staggers N. Health Informatics: An Interprofessional Approach, 2nd ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2017: 600-602
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Greene JA, Lea AS. Digital futures past - the long arc of big data in medicine. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (05) 480-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Warner HR. History of medical informatics at Utah. In: Blum BI, Duncan K. , eds. A History of Medical Informatics. University of Michigan, MI: ACM Press; 1990: 357-369
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Warner HR, Toronto AF, Veasey LG, Stephenson R. A mathematical approach to medical diagnosis. Application to congenital heart disease. JAMA 1961; 177: 177-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Warner HR, Olmsted CM, Rutherford BD. HELP--a program for medical decision-making. Comput Biomed Res 1972; 5 (01) 65-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Barnett GO. Computer-stored ambulatory record (COSTAR). Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Resources Administration, National Center for Health Services Research; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Schultz JR, Cantrill SV, Morgan KG. An initial operational problem oriented medical record system for storage, manipulation and retrieval of medical data. ACM Digital Library 1971; 38: 239-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Tierney WM. , et al. The Regenstrief Medical Record System: a quarter century experience. Int J Med Inform 1999; 54 (03) 225-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dick RS, Steen EB, Detmer DE. , eds. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Revised Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Menachemi N, Ford EW, Beitsch LM, Brooks RG. Incomplete EHR adoption: late uptake of patient safety and cost control functions. Am J Med Qual 2007; 22 (05) 319-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 United States Department of Health and Human Services. HITECH Act § 13400(5). Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/hitechact.pdf . Accessed January 31, 2020
    PubMed
  • 12 Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S. , et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (10) 742-752
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, Shekelle PG. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28 (02) w282-w293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30 (03) 464-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Colicchio TK, Del Fiol G, Cimino JJ. Health information technology as a learning health system: Call for a national monitoring system. Learn Health Syst 2019; 4 (01) e10207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bowes III WA. Impacts of EHR Certification and Meaningful Use Implementation on an Integrated Delivery Network. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2014; 2014: 325-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Health IT Dashboard. Available at: https://dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/quickstats.php . Accessed July 27, 2019
    PubMed
  • 18 Hospital EMR Market Share – KLAS. US hospital EMR market share 2018: small hospitals hungry for new technology. Available at: https://klasresearch.com/report/us-hospital-emr-market-share-2018/1279 . Accessed July 27, 2019
    PubMed
  • 19 Jenders RA, Hripcsak G, Sideli RV. , et al. Medical decision support: experience with implementing the Arden Syntax at the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1995; 169-173 ; doi:PMC2579077
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Krauthammer M, Hripcsak G. A knowledge model for the interpretation and visualization of NLP-parsed discharged summaries. Proc AMIA Symp 2001; 339-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cimino JJ, Clayton PD, Hripcsak G, Johnson SB. Knowledge-based approaches to the maintenance of a large controlled medical terminology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; 1 (01) 35-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Haug PJ, Gardner RM, Tate KE. , et al. Decision support in medicine: examples from the HELP system. Comput Biomed Res 1994; 27 (05) 396-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gardner RM, Pryor TA, Warner HR. The HELP hospital information system: update 1998. Int J Med Inform 1999; 54 (03) 169-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Clayton PD, Narus SP, Huff SM. , et al. Building a comprehensive clinical information system from components. The approach at Intermountain Health Care. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (01) 1-7
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sittig DF, Pace NL, Gardner RM, Beck E, Morris AH. Implementation of a computerized patient advice system using the HELP clinical information system. Comput Biomed Res 1989; 22 (05) 474-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC. , et al. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (04) 232-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Barnett GO. The modular hospital information system. In: Stacy RW, Waxman BD. (eds). Computers in Biomedical Research. Vol. IV. New York, NY: Academic; 1974: 243-285
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Safran C, Slack WV, Bleich HL. Role of computing in patient care in two hospitals. MD Comput 1989; 6 (03) 141-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Teich JM, Glaser JP, Beckley RF. , et al. The Brigham integrated computing system (BICS): advanced clinical systems in an academic hospital environment. Int J Med Inform 1999; 54 (03) 197-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Varghese P, Wright A, Andersen MJ, Yoshida IE, Bates DW. Clinical decision support: the experience at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Partners Healthcare. In: Berner E. , ed. Clinical Decision Support Systems: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016: 227-231
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ. , et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998; 280 (15) 1311-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Bates DW. , et al. Detecting alerts, notifying the physician, and offering action items: a comprehensive alerting system. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1996; 704-708
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mc Donald CJ. Use of a computer to detect and respond to clinical events: its effect on clinician behavior. Ann Intern Med 1976; 84 (02) 162-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 McDonald CJ. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med 1976; 295 (24) 1351-1355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 McDonald CJ. The medical gopher—a microcomputer based physician work station. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1984; 453-459
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 McDonald C, Wiederhold G, Simborg DW. A discussion of the draft proposal for data exchange standards for clinical laboratory results. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1984; 406
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Barnes M. , et al; INPC Management Committee. The Indiana network for patient care: a working local health information infrastructure. An example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24 (05) 1214-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Miller RA, Waitman LR, Chen S, Rosenbloom ST. The anatomy of decision support during inpatient care provider order entry (CPOE): empirical observations from a decade of CPOE experience at Vanderbilt. J Biomed Inform 2005; 38 (06) 469-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Geissbuhler A, Miller RA. Clinical application of the UMLS in a computerized order entry and decision-support system. Proc AMIA Symp 1998; 320-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Joos D, Chen Q, Jirjis J, Johnson KB. An electronic medical record in primary care: impact on satisfaction, work efficiency and clinic processes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006; 2006: 394-398
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Waitman LR, Phillips IE, McCoy AB. , et al. Adopting real-time surveillance dashboards as a component of an enterprisewide medication safety strategy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2011; 37 (07) 326-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Colicchio TK, Cimino JJ, Del Fiol G. Unintended consequences of nationwide electronic health record adoption: challenges and opportunities in the post-meaningful use era. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (06) e13313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wachter R, Goldsmith J. To combat physician burnout and improve care, fix the electronic health record. J Harv Bus Rev 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA. , et al; American Medical Informatics Association. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (e1): e2-e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Howe JL, Adams KT, Hettinger AZ, Ratwani RM. Electronic health record usability issues and potential contribution to patient harm. JAMA 2018; 319 (12) 1276-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Colicchio TK, Cimino JJ. Clinicians' reasoning as reflected in electronic clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (02) 172-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Siegler EL, Adelman R. Copy and paste: a remediable hazard of electronic health records. Am J Med 2009; 122 (06) 495-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 2007: 26-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (05) 899-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 CDS Hooks. Available at: https://cds-hooks.org . Accessed July 27, 2019
    PubMed
  • 51 Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A. , et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24 (05) 1103-1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Colicchio TK, Del Fiol G, Scammon DL, Facelli JC, Bowes III WA, Narus SP. Comprehensive methodology to monitor longitudinal change patterns during EHR implementations: a case study at a large health care delivery network. J Biomed Inform 2018; 83: 40-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Colicchio TK, Borbolla D, Colicchio VD. , et al. Looking behind the curtain: identifying factors contributing to changes on care outcomes during a large commercial EHR implementation. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2019; 7 (01) 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Russo E, Sittig DF, Wei L, Singh H. The burden of inbox notifications in commercial electronic health records. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176 (04) 559-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bryant AD, Fletcher GS, Payne TH. Drug interaction alert override rates in the Meaningful Use era: no evidence of progress. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (03) 802-813
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018; 319 (10) 1024-1039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Epic System Failure: Pain at Plainsboro Medical Center. Available at: http://www.ijicases.com/search/epic-system-failure-pain-at-plainsboro-medical-center/ . Accessed July 27, 2019
    PubMed
  • 58 Larsen E, Hoffman D, Rivera C, Kleiner BM, Wernz C, Ratwani RM. Continuing patient care during electronic health record downtime. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (03) 495-504
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Slayton TB. Ransomware: the virus attacking the healthcare industry. J Leg Med 2018; 38 (02) 287-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar