The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Technology Review
The power of search engines is applied to health-care data.
Looking out his office window in Seattle, Thomas Payne can see two hospitals that use the same electronic record system as his own. And yet, says Payne, medical director of information technology services at the University of Washington, they all still exchange information by fax or paper.
That situation is the norm in today's fragmented and distributed health-care universe, where electronic medical records (EMRs) must increasingly draw on information from the multiple health-care institutions--clinics, hospitals, and specialists--where people receive care. But giving physicians access to the right information at the right time could dramatically streamline medical care. An estimated $77.8 billion, or about 5 percent of health-care costs, could be saved each year in the U.S. if a fully interoperable record-sharing system were in place, according to a 2005 study in Health Affairs. Most of the savings would come from preventing duplicate testing.
Michael Zalis, a radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, has experienced the drawbacks of the splintered system firsthand. He says gathering data on particular patients is a huge time sink for physicians, taking as much as 20 percent of their time. Even with an EMR, medical records are spread over multiple databases that don't necessarily communicate with each other. Older, less relevant test results could turn up as frequently as new ones, says Zalis, requiring the doctor to visually scan all of them. The problem will likely grow as many of the nation's hospitals and doctor's offices use new stimulus funding to implement EMR systems.
Zalis aims to alleviate that problem by applying lessons from search engines to medical databases. He likens the current EMR situation to the early days of the World Wide Web: larger and larger stores of data, with increasing need for indexing and searching capabilities. Before good search engines like Google arrived, finding the right webpage could be a challenge. Many links and pages had little relevance, or were so out of date they were almost useless.
Over the past five years, a team led by Zalis and his Massachusetts General Hospital colleague Mitchell Harris developed a program called Queriable Patient Inference Dossier. The program combines a search engine with a programming system to automatically pull data from various EMRs and databases and process the information. While this may sound simple, it's actually a major improvement for doctors, as most EMRs have little to no built-in search capabilities. They described their system in the August 2010 issue of Journal of the American College of Radiology.
While Google's PageRank system works by giving more weight to pages that are linked to more often, EMRs don't have links and therefore cannot employ that approach. Instead, the dossier system has the ability to "learn" certain types of searches from its users, understanding that a search for "squamous cell carcinoma" and another search for "lung cancer" are actually seeking the same information.
The program, which is employed by a network of Boston-area hospitals, now has more than 800 registered users and posts more than 10,000 pages of medical-record information per day. Zalis says other large health-care organizations are beginning to use it, though expanding its use is likely to be a challenge. While the Dossier program can integrate with other EMR systems to provide advanced search capabilities, doing so requires permission from the different hospitals and medical centers involved, as well as adequate export capabilities. Some hospitals say that the vendors of EMR systems have made it difficult to access information in the databases from outside their proprietary programs.
And while improving access to medical information is likely to decrease costs, that could actually reduce revenue to hospitals and doctors who perform diagnostic tests. (Insurers, on the other hand, would benefit because they would likely be covering fewer repeat tests.) Says Washington's Payne, "When it comes to exchanging information between organizations, the biggest problem is the alignment of incentives."
What are the mechanisms to allow authorized access while preventing unauthorized access to remote EMRs? When records are stored locally, whether electronic or not, access control to an individual's records is fairly straightforward; remote access requires more work and standardized control mechanisms.
That's complicated. Most EMRs don't communicate too well with other systems, unless they're instances of the same system, so not a lot of that goes on. In the UK, we deployed hospital systems which talked via HL7 with a central NHS patient registration database, checking eligibility, and adding some clinical info, not much. The security was intense.
Level Three at the workstations (chip and pin smartcards), you had to be previously authorised to see a patient's data, though you could "assert" authorisation in clinically necessary situations, but then you had to account for that.
Full transaction level auditing, which meant the audit log database (separate) quickly grew larger than the operational database. Programs which checked the audit log for unauthorised access. Penalties for such. In the States, you are sacked quickly. In the UK, very hard to sack people.
Any data sent outside the system is fully encrypted and sent by secure servers over a secure NHS network. No use of internet. Then decrypted. Absurdly expensive overkill. I think you could get the same level of security using the internet.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
colne
11 Comments
Connection problems
EMR designers have understandably concentrated on collecting, storing, and presenting data for individual patients. Docs care for one patient at a time.
Medical data is quite complex (just scheduling pt appts and staff assignments is a big problem) and emphasis has been on billing. Logical and physical schemas from disparate sub-systems (lab, rad, pharm, billing, reg, sched) have often been mashed together, simply bolted-on. Resulting superschemas are quite complex (try 5K+ tables). Reporting systems are barely managed and barely adequate, as the EMR schemas weren't designed for reporting.
Expressing clinical statements for sharing in response to a request is difficult and barely standardised. Internalising received statements is in its infancy. There are no real-time information clearinghouses, such as banks use.
Even though potential benefits (clinical and financial) are large, financial incentives for this sort of thing are largely absent (the problem of the Commons). Until we start seriously addressing the care of large clinical populations, things are unlikely to change.
Reply