Virtually Priceless Thoughts

Some months ago now I posted on the idea of creating patterns for EMRs akin to the work that others have done in User Interface design and other areas, all based on Christopher Alexander’s work. We are close to embarking on attempting to build some specific documentation patterns now at the Health Authority. Not the full blown vision with breadth and depth of Alexandrian patterns, but specific, fairly uniform sections of reusable electronic clinical documentation.

These are sitting somewhere in between openEHR archetypes and templates in terms of scope and size. The hope and plan is that these can be designed in a way that they will form the building blocks for the various e-Forms in the multiple clinical information systems, increasing interoperability and care standardization while decreasing rethink for common items. Each pattern will be designed to be a clinical cluster of content that is part of a reusable assessment.

These documentation patterns can managed by a central group (in this case the CARB – Clinical Architecture Review Board) and used, with simpler guidelines, by documentation teams in each application design team. Request for new patterns would come back to the CARB so they can be reviewed and ensure that they are consistent.

Some example patterns include:

• Problem List
• Past Medical History
• Allergies
• Glasgow Coma Scale
• Vital Signs

Some patterns will likely have multiple versions. This could be for a few reasons: evolution of the pattern or there are needs to have different levels of detail in different settings. Patterns evolve over time with improved design: initial design included minimal structure, now it should be more structured and we know how better to structure it. Patterns in different context may need more or less information. Vital Signs is a good example of this – vitals in an ambulatory clinic are much simpler than they are in the ICU. Still the information that does overlap should be the same (e.g. weight, BP, etc). These would be multiple versions of the pattern. Neurovitals will likely be a separate pattern to complement vital signs.

We are early days now, just starting to ramp up the necessary clinical and informatics skills to do this work. The two daunting aspects are: can we crack the clinical content into a sufficient number of truly reusable patterns to make this useful? (and related) how are we going to standardize clinical documentation across a large region that is actively using multiple documentation standards (including many ‘local’ standards) across several care settings and professions.

Yesterday I was lucky enough to be invited to give the opening Keynote for the Software Engineering in Health Care Workshop at ICSE 2009 and spend the whole day with a very thoughtful group of software engineers from around the world as we discussed issues related to designing software for healthcare. It was a very refreshing conversation with a slightly different perspective from the group. Some interesting activities and good people.

One of the topics that came back through the day was the issue of leveraging the context of data. This seemed to resonate in our discussions as a way to enhance current systems in new ways. The challenge is to define what those context could be and how they would support activities. The 5 W’s and 1 H are all important (who, what, when, where, why, and how). I’ve illustrated a few more specific elements in the diagram, but there are certainly more. Also important to consider which context we are talking about. So far, there are at least two distinct contexts that need to be considered:

1. Point of Capture – where the datum was documented. The context of that point in time is obviously important.
2. Point of (re)use – where the datum is being accessed. This might be future point of care activities, or it might be point of reflection activities (such as quality improvement or health planning, etc).

Model driven design and the overall socio-technical complexity of healthcare were also two additional resonating themes for me today. The challenge of the combination of these two (and our relative rates of failures of systems in healthcare in general) does lead one to look for new methodologies for system design and implementation. More explicit modeling of context into systems to provide more reusable information (as opposed to data) might be part of the answer.

A great workshop and I wished I could stay for the two days.

This is a follow on to my previous post on forms. I am working with a group now to design some clinical documentation and the information captured will be used in several very different environments. These locations are “hybrid” in that some information is electronic and other information is still on paper. A further wrinkle is that the evolution from paper to digital is not going to happen across the entire organization at the same rate, so we need to design a solution that will support various modalities as patients move in their journey.

Right now, the current practice for pre-admission work for elective surgeries is: store electronic results and transcribed documents electronically in a regional system that is accessible in multiple environments. The paper workflow is a little different. There is one paper chart – designed for inpatient care – and it is moved (or bits of it are moved) around to the various locations where a patient will be assessed over the up to 8 months prior to entering the hospital and the collect it all, make sure it is in the right order, and send it to the hospital just before the patient is scheduled to be admitted.

Many challenges here, not the least of which is the workflow associated with completing forms that are not designed for you to do your assessment, but are designed to support inpatient workflows pre and post operatively.

What we are looking at now is how to support two very different workflows in a manner that allows for standardization and flexibility at the same time. Flexibility in the sense that each workflow needs to be supported. Standardization in that the data needs to be captured in a way that allows logical reuse throughout the care process. With the wrinkle that some of that reuse will have to be that the data captured electronically needs to be able to recreate the inpatient PAPER chart through a report writer as the inpatient world will not be changing to electronic documentation at the same time as our pilot sites in the outpatient world.

Interesting times! I will post more on our approaches as we move forward.

It is interesting how paper-trained we are. It is often hard for clinicians to think about how to design EHR systems – particularly documentation – in a way that breaks the locality of information and the paper-bound thinking of forms and move to information. I see a lot of systems out there that promote having “digital forms” that are direct copies of paper forms — including having forms that do not fit on a single screen (because they are 8 1/2 x 11 format instead of screen shaped) and “page turning” that corresponds to the pages of the form not the GUI design of the computer.

You can see how this thinking works, when clinicians request that certain forms are available on the computer. Building forms to match paper is often the quickest technical solution and one that, sadly, get’s an easy “check” from users as they can compare the form to the computer screen for “accuracy”. Without thinking too far along the path, you can see how things get developed. Quickly scanning in the blank form as a PDF to create a background that REALLY matches the form and then adding fields on top to add text. For pizzazz add some auto-populating demographics and BOOM! It works even better than paper… Four hundred forms later and you have the electronic paper record.

The forms are important – as they are a way we consistently communicate with various groups on paper and THEY have benefits of having standard forms, just like standardized electronic user interfaces improve efficiency and safety, so do standard paper forms. But the benefit is for the end consumer, not necessarily for the clinician entering the data into the form.

Often there are better ways to design systems to support a user’s workflow while supporting the required output. There are examples of how to do this – building data capture to support clinical workflow. Clinical Decision Support (CDS) can be used to ensure that the right information is captured. Reports can then be generated to print out the appropriate forms as needed. Multiple forms would use the same data and the clinician would not have to jump around re-populating different “standard” forms with multiple pages that scroll off the screen.

The tricky part is, of course, being able to capture the data in an efficient manner that provides sufficient semantics that allows the computer to translate your documentation into the various unstandardized tick boxes for concepts developed for specific forms, something that works for CDS, and is something a clinician will tolerate.

And that takes more work and a deeper understanding of the types of knowledge that are needed without the limitations of paper.

Of course, health information systems are not the only systems that have been built from their predecessors — that is how we evolve many things. Web “pages”, for example… oh and there there were trains that evolved from horse and carriages.

Johnson et al. have published the results of a survey in Academic Medicine of recent physician graduates previously trained at Vanderbilt University on their perceptions of the use of technology. They compared graduates who were working in areas that were LESS technology enabled to those graduates who reported they were working in environments that were as or more technology enabled that Venderbilt’s Medical Centre. Those in less technology enabled environments felt less able to:

• “practice safe pateint care”
• “utilize evidence at the point of care”
• “work efficiently”
• “share and communicate information”
• “work effectively within the local system”

Based on 328 survey (60% response rate).

Interesting results that will, no doubt be interpreted in many ways — does this mean that technology makes us practice safer, more evidence based, more efficiently, etc? Or are we hampered in our training so we are reliant on these tools to do our jobs? I am sure this study will only fuel that fire.

At the Family Medicine Forum this year, I attended the OSCAR User Group Meeting. This is their second annual meeting and the first time I have reconnected with the group in a number of years.

The user group has come a long way in a few years.

OSCAR has made some advances as well. The big change is the replacement of the running text blob to track visits to discrete visits. It’s called “eChart”. It is tracking date (both actual and intended), changes per visit note are tracked and there is a form of digital signature. This also allows for locking / signing / verifying individual notes. Issues can be assigned to notes- these are coded in ICD 9. Visits have types now. The note is still text based. There are still additional, parallel “forms” and “e-forms” that can be filled out. These three streams seem to store similar data in different places inside OSCAR – I couldn’t confirm it, but it looks that way.

Part of the afternoon consisted of a presentation by an outside group recommending changes in structure to take OSCAR to the “next level” – more organization, road map, etc. This is the third time I have personally seen this type of presentation formally made to the OSCAR group. OSCAR has an active community and active development, but still does not have explicit architectural documentation, road maps, etc. The recommendations were sound, from the level that they were at. The language might have been off and the group seemed to be an “outsider” group so I do not know how much the recommendations resonated as opposed to something more “corporate takeover” (despite being presented by two University Department Chairs).

I would very much like to see an academically driven and open EMR being supported more broadly in Canada. It could allow for some amazing work – both EMR and clinical if we had a structured backbone across our campuses with consistent data models that allowed for easy recruitment of patients into studies, sharing of best practice research and guidelines, etc. I hope that one day OSCAR could grow into that — there are certainly many very intelligent people getting involved and if they could be rallied… who knows where things would go.

We had our second Engineering 4 Health Challenge at UVic yesterday and it was another success! Some great students who participated and some really fantastic ideas that were generated. The topic for this challenge was the same — use the OLPC (One laptop per Child) as the design platform for creating health applications for students in developing countries. One project was focusing on engaging the whole family in their health through the OLPC and the other was a health oriented game that provided health education in the form of game challenges. Really interesting approaches.

The paper storyboarding design for the event seems to be quite manageable and has generated some good results. We managed to squeeze it into a 1/2 day.

We started by having a group brainstorming session – timed, with two facilitators. Facilitators helped clarify ideas from the participants and encouraged students to speak out their ideas, often using one initial idea “build a game” to create several specific ideas about games. On of our facilitators (not me!) started concept mapping ideas, to show the linkages.

Students were then broken into small groups and encouraged to choose and idea. The small groups (4-5 students plus 2-3 facilitators) often found as they selected ideas, they not only drew out more detail, but some also merged several ideas into one package.

The next step for the students was to begin to work out the details of the design and a high level flow. We did this with the students through paper prototyping and pasting together a high level storyboard on 4′x6′ paper. We used paper mock-ups of the OLPC laptops (below) so the students could draw their rough screen sketches on them and describe some of the functional activities on the pages. This really helped quickly make ideas real and also was accessible to students — some focused more on GUI design and others more on functional description.

All the individual pictures were placed on the paper with arrows used to denote typical screen flows for users. Not everything was on the storyboard, obviously. Many of the ideas they had were quite complex and would require a fair amount of content, but the pages really did give a good idea about how the systems might work, following along a specific scenario or giving an overview of the path of a game.

At the end of the morning, each group was able to present their idea to the rest of the students.

I definitely enjoyed this project and wanted to thank all the students, volunteers, faculty, staff and teachers who made this happen.

I have been working with a friend and colleague over the past month sketching out an idea to develop software for the XO laptop, which is part of the one laptop per child
(OLPC) project. The idea is more about how to get others to design and build software for OLPC and we can help facilitate.

We are exploring how to engage students in BC to design and develop health and health education materials with partner communities in developing countries who are part of the OLPC. It is an exciting idea to get students, both high school and university students, to get together and learn about computer science and about healthcare while flexing their creative design muscles in coming up with tools to help children thousands of miles away.

Seems like we are not the only group who has thought of this, of course. There are several projects proposed and in development through the OLPC and can be found on the OLPC Wiki.

We are piloting our OLPC-Health Design Fest this month – it’s a half day paper prototyping event. I am very excited to see how it works.