Virtually Priceless Thoughts

Here is an interesting conference on line from Mayo. I’ve just watched Clay Christensen’s keynote on disruptive technologies and healthcare.

He spends time comparing business and healthcare and does it quite well.

An interesting piece at about 21 minutes, where he talks about non-disruptive competition leading to increased prices. He gives examples in the Boston-area and others where head on competition results in increased prices. Competing groups tend compete on features, driving up costs.

He argues that disruptive technologies come in that are simpler and cheaper. They enter the marker in a related, but more decentralized market that could not afford the incumbent’s full product but could use some features (his big example was the mainframe computer being disrupted by the minicomputer being disrupted by the personal computer). Each one was increasingly cheaper, less powerful, and more widely available – they were increasingly decentralized and thus were able to provide value in markets that where the others could not / would not compete and then provided more over time.

In healthcare this means enabling outpatient services and primary care to do many of the things that hospitals do. IV antibiotics, for example, could be given at my clinic much cheaper than they could in the Emergency Department, with all of its overhead, skills and equipment that are there, designed to manage acute traumas and heart attacks.

Today, our nurse practitioners and nurses in my clinic do many of the things I might have done in my private office (or might still be done in a typical family physician office without nursing support).

This decentralization ultimately would extend out far beyond the walls of hospitals directly to patients, providing them with the technology for self management.

Three Enablers for disruption to be successful:

• Simplifying Technology – that can maintain quality
• Business Model allows for innovation
• New Value Ecosystem that can consume the disruptive technology

At around 39 minutes, he makes a statement that general hospitals are not a viable business model and spends some time talking about types of business models and how general hospitals are really a mush of all three major types of models. No wonder that hospitals and the flows of patients through hospitals are so complex.

He ends with an interesting piece on where chronic disease management is best situated, in terms of motivation. While I have concerns about heavily engaging employers in patient care, I found his mapping of motivation and requirements for behavioural change something that resonating both my clinical experience and my work on PHRs at the National Research Council.

Here’s a version of his chart from my notes:

(click for larger version)

I found this an hour well spent – thanks KL for the link to this excellent talk.

I’ve been lucky over the years to have worked with some very good and well intentioned groups.

This post, from Eight to Late relates Elinor Ostrom’s work to project management and I found it an enjoyable read.

Elinor Ostrom is the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on how groups can effectively self manage shared resources. This goes against the prevailing theory that groups with access to limited resources must be governed otherwise self-interest will lead to dwindling of that resource (i.e. short-term individual gains would win out over collective, long-term gains).

This work definitely resonates with my experiences with my favourite teams. Whether on project teams or on standing groups or working with patients, whether being a leader or a member, I have found “light hand on the rudder” approach works well. Having everyone in a collaborative mode, managing scare resources for the common — and collectively agreed to — good, is very important. Add to that having fun and what you have is just about ideal. For me, that usually means coupling a clear ability for everyone to have a sense “safe autonomy” and a good chance of reaching success both individually and as a group.

It is an approach that, at least anecdotally from patients and team members, appears to work.

Thank you to all the various teams I’ve been involved in like these – and you know who you are, those conspirators for the common good, the skunkwyrrks, the rebel alliances. Thank you all.

I enjoyed this Joel on Software post about scalability of consultants and dangers of creating the Method (with a capital M). Using McDonalds vs the Naked Chef is a nice story.

Improvisational fit to the context of one’s work is important to making the best use of what you have.

I find that this was a nice supporting reason to stay small.

Here’s a wonderful You Tube video that relates too well to my life and work – both tongue and cheek and spot on.

I came across this little slide show that I quite liked this morning on visual thinking. I like the 4 Ms and 6 steps of visual thinking (starting on slide 21).

“Across VIHA Regional Clinical Information Systems, clinical information must have a defined Source of Truth, be up to date, and consistently available.”

In order to achieve consistent and comprehensive information across VIHA’s regional CISs, clear delineation of the sources of truth is required, both for individual data elements (author) and for types of information (system).

Information will be available to users (in accordance with access policies) consistently in each regional CIS. Information accessed in each system should be consistent in terms of content, currency, and presentation. This is important for safe practice and to ensure continuity. There are several approaches to ensuring consistency:

1. One integrated system – no sharing needed. Display, functionality and content are consistent. This is the preferred approach in VIHA.
2. Information will be shared between such that each piece of clinical information is stored only once. The other system accesses and displays that information through background messaging. Functionality (e.g. CDSS rules) will need to be duplicated and display standards will be required to ensure consistency and safety. This is the second preferred option.
3. The less desirable approach would be to duplicate information and have copies of data stored in each system. Full multi-directional synchronization will be required for clinical information documented in more than one system (e.g. if allergies were to be documented in three systems).
4. The final option is that some information is not available through one of the CISs. In this case, providers may view or use the other regional system as needed (links may be provided). This is not interoperability.

It is not acceptable to have similar information captured in multiple systems without any form of syncing. The risk of not clearly defining sources of truth is that some systems may have partial information; the information is not up to date, or conflicting. Providers will not know what information is missing. Gaps in continuity of information will occur. The risk is that clinical decision-making will suffer due to incomplete / inaccurate information. This is a safety issue.

Commentary:

There are some strong words in this last principle. They speak to the dangers and safety issues when having information in silos that are inappropriately inaccessible. I realize that “option 5″ (not shown, but is basically disconnected systems that are not accessible) is very common practice today, at least in Canada. Still, the intent of the principle is to put a stake in the ground, or some writing on a page, that can be pointed to when another isolated system is requested or when IM/IT project teams are looking for guidance on how to prioritize how systems are selected / configured. Thus some strong words seemed important.

The ranking of options was debated. Specifically 2 and 3 were heavily discussed. The very real issue that many disparate systems cannot realistically support option 2 was debated over, what I have begun to call the “Syncing Calendar Issue”(1) that would plague option 3. In the end, from a principle perspective, we agreed that 2 outranked 3. We also agreed would likely see more HL7 messages floating around copying and syncing content than shared tables, from a practical perspective. Shooting for option 3 is never my favorite target (nor is it Seth Godin’s) and I would like to push for option 1.

This principle is focused on information continuity. It does not really speak to the workflow issues of having multiple systems and the challenges providers face in trying to manage multiple systems with overlapping content. We were leaving that for part 2 – a set of clinical business process principles.

______________________

1. Syncing Calendar Issue: Every once in a while, my calendar syncing goes awry. Somewhere between the cloud, my desktop, my phone, my laptop, and some (I think) edit to a recurring series from exchange, my syncing gets a bit broken. I have to decide which calendar is the “best”, manually make changes to make sure “best” is accurate and then push that calendar back to my other devices. I’m sure many of us have this problem – and patient records are much more complex than our schedules.

“Approved vocabularies will be consistently adopted wherever appropriate in all regional Clinical Systems.”

One of the benefits of using Clinical Systems is that passive data, previously found in paper charts, can become active and actionable. It can be reused to display in different contexts and it can be used to support Clinical Decision Support (such as proactive care delivery) and Health Planning (at multiple levels). In order to achieve this level of activity, information needs to be coded in a way that can be consistently interpreted both by users and by the information systems. Thus, standardized vocabularies are desired to provide that consistency.   There are three levels of vocabularies that can be considered.

Reference Vocabularies are designed to have maximum details in to support the information needs of clinical care. SNOMED CT is recommended as one of the primary clinical coding terminologies. It is supported by provincial and national standards and is actively developing on an international level. Additional reference vocabularies will be included where SNOMED CT does not have sufficient clinical coverage.

For Health Planning and Reporting activities, Classification Vocabularies and Group Vocabularies will be used, as they are today. ICD 10 is currently used for chart abstraction functions and various reporting as a Classification Vocabulary. The level of detail in ICD-10 is not truly sufficient for clinical documentation but provides useful data at an aggregate level. Mapping from reference vocabularies to classification vocabularies is possible and recommended to reduce manual re-coding of information.

Commentary:

Here, the focus is on the need to develop a nomenclature approach and leverage the right detail level of existing standards for their purposes. This principle relates to Principle 3 in that data should be captured at a granularity level for appropriate clinical purposes and then can be mapped up to the higher level reporting needs.

SNOMED CT is called out explicitly in this principle to ensure that energy and resources are applied to gaining knowledge about this powerful – but complex – terminology.

“Documentation will be constructed from standardized building blocks or “patterns” that are interactive and support decision-making.”

A “pattern” is a collection of clinical content and system functionality that supports a specific care activity that is part of an overall assessment (e.g. vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale assessment). Patterns are reused across the region.   Patterns will be used as building blocks.

Pattern development, including the creation of resulting detailed data models and data definitions will be tightly controlled by the CARB. Patterns will be approved by EHR SC. The design will consider current documentation standards, redesigned care processes, and advanced EHR functionality, such as CDSS. Patterns will be applied to all regional systems in VIHA. Patterns will be shared.

There will be several versions of some patterns to support variable needs of providers across the region. They will have varying levels of detail, depending on clinical need (e.g. Vital Signs may have 4-5 patterns, depending on details required, context, and user). Amount of structure in patterns will vary.

The collection of patterns and their various versions will constitute VIHA’s “Pattern Collection”. Specific clinical electronic tools (e.g. electronic documentation) can be built up through the selection of patterns that best fit the best practices for specific programs. There will be a recommended order for patterns, such as SOAP.

Not adopting a pattern approach will result in increase work as common assessments are repeatedly rebuilt across the region. Continuity of care, user training, and health planning would all be affected if data is not consistently captured and stored.

Commentary:

I have written about this concept before here and here.

For VIHA, the concept of patterns is very focused — this principle describes a new way for VIHA IM/IT to consider how to develop electronic documentation, not other aspects of their clinical information systems. Instead of building unique (or similar) forms for each particular need, forms can be thought of a collection of building blocks (called patterns). Patterns could be Vital Signs, ADLs, etc etc. Once they are designed, they can be reused throughout the organization and perhaps shared more broadly. This is not that dissimilar to the openEHR design, especially if you notice on the diagram where there are also models that relate the various data elements.

This structure and reuse should (a) make the data more consistent and (b) speed form design one the patterns are developed. The patterns are meant to be designed independently of a particular system, so they can be replicated in the various CISs in VIHA.

The tricky part for VIHA is to find the natural joints or break points in clinical content so that reuse is maximized. If too many unique patterns are developed, then the work to maintain these external to any system is negated.