singularity

Entries tagged as ‘health IT’

Health IT Ontology

July 20, 2009 · 6 Comments

2 weeks ago I solicited help to put together a Health IT Ontology (see Components of HIT…a start). This post is the result of 6 rounds of edits. The new name, I think, better represents the goal of defining all the entities and relationships within the domain of health IT. Click on the image below to see it full size.

Health IT Ontology

Following are the top-level categories:

  • Health Information Technology
    • Clinical Information System
    • Hospital/Clinic Management
    • Consumer-Oriented Technologies
    • Public Health & Biosurveillance
    • Reference
    • Research
    • Regional & System-Level HIS

The initial motivation behind this was to determine where ART-focused EMRs sat in the scope of HIT, but what I expected to be a trivial exercise quickly became a difficult task. Health IT is an extremely complex and expansive domain and every item in this heirarchy could be broken down into even smaller pieces (similar to EMR/EHR). My goal for this diagram was to cover the breadth of health IT more than the depth. It is certainly possible that there are some oversights, in which case I would love to hear from you.

I welcome your thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions on the HIT Onthology. Using social media (esp. Twitter and Aardvark) was so successful this time around that I plan to pursue more online collaborative projects in the future.

Many thanks to everyone who contributed, and a special shout out to Jacob Sattelmair, Janette Heung, blog commenters, Richard Thall and Eddie from Aardvark, and the score of Twitterers who provided very valuable feedback!

Categories: health information technology
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Components of HIT…a start

July 9, 2009 · 7 Comments

Health information technology (HIT) is a broad and extremely complex field, and I want to visualize it. I’m going to need your help to do it. But first it needs defining…

HIT could simply be defined as any information technology utilized within the healthcare industry vertical, but that would be too inclusive, because that means a MySQL database is considered HIT because it is sometimes used in a hospital. Brailer & Thompson, former ONC Secretary and former HHS Secretary respectively, define it as “the application of information processing involving both computer hardware and software that deals with the storage, retrieval, sharing, and use of health care information, data, and knowledge for communication and decision making” (Thompson & Braile, 2004). The line between HIT and health informatics is fuzzy and we’ll ignore it for now.

With this definition, I tried to create a hierarchical list of the types of health IT software. I want the list to be comprehensive in breadth and don’t care quite as much about depth (3 or 4 levels should be sufficient). There are dozens of ways to structure this list and probably hundreds of items I missed. This is a work in progress, so please leave a comment and let me know what you would change/add/remove. I’ll keep updating it until everyone feels good about it. After that comes the visualization…

HIT Categorization Hierarchy – Take 5

  • Clinical
    • EMR/EHR
      • Ambulatory
      • Specialty
      • Anti-Retroviral Treatment (ART) Focused (common in areas with high HIV/AIDS & TB prevalence)
    • eRx (CPOE)
    • Clinical Decision Support
    • Digital Imaging & Archiving Systems (e.g. PACS)
    • Medical Devices & Equipment
    • Clinical Document Management
    • “Personalized Medicine”
  • Hospital/Clinic Management
    • Physician Office Management Information System (POMIS)
    • Hospital Management Information System (HMIS)
    • Accounting
    • Patient Billing
    • Claims Processing
    • Human Resource Management
    • OR Scheduling
    • Appointment Scheduling
    • Lab/Pharmacy Management
  • Public Health & Biosurveillance
    • Public Health Reporting
    • Diesease Surveillance Networks (e.g. CDC Biomonitoring and Environmental Public Health Tracking Network)
    • Vital Registry (Birth, Death, & Marraige Records)
  • Consumer-Oriented Technologies
    • Personal Health Devices (e.g. WAN-enabled weight scale, phone-enabled glucose monitor, etc.)
    • Personal Health Applications (i.e. exercise & weight tracking)
    • Patient Portals
    • Personal Health Records (PHR)
    • Health-centered Social Networks (Patients Like Me, 23andme, etc.)
  • Medical References
    • Drug references (for docs and patients)
    • Medical references (like WebMD, also for docs and patients)
  • Research
    • Genomics
    • Medical data warehousing
    • Clinical Trial Recruitment, Management, etc.
  • Regional & Systems Level Health Information Systems
    • Vitals Registration
    • Health Information Exchange (HIE)
    • National Health Information Network (NHIN)

A special thanks to the Twitterers that have already helped me on this: @chadosgood, @oneofthefreds, @ChristineKraft, @ePatientDave, @MedC2, and my good friend Jake. And a shout out to Sam Adam’s HIT Primer on his blog, IT (R)EVOLUTION, that helped get me started.

A few other helpful sources:

Categories: health information technology
Tagged: , , ,

OpenMRS Implementers Meeting in Boston

May 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Follow me on Twitter @paynejd to receive links to SlideShare during the conference. I will post a summary when the conference is complete.

Here’s the agenda:

Introduction Hamish Fraser
What is OpenMRS? Burke Mamlin
OpenMRS Example: AMPATH, Kenya Burke Mamlin
OpenMRS Example: Rwinkwavu, Rwanda Hamish Fraser
OpenMRS Example: South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique and OASIS Chris Seebregts
OpenMRS Example: Millennium Villages Project Andrew Kanter
OpenMRS Features Darius Jazayeri
OpenMRS Vision Hamish Fraser

In addition, there will be several panels in the afternoon.

Categories: health information technology
Tagged: , ,

Can Health IT Save Health Care?

March 19, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Adding health IT to our current system and claiming that will solve our health care problem is like taking a 1971 Ford Pinto and giving it a new paint job and sound system. It looks cool. It sounds cool. But you’re missing the point.

Health IT can be and should be a piece of the health reform puzzle. And it’s one of the few- and perhaps the only puzzle piece that holds bipartisan support. Even accounting for the initial upfront costs, health IT is touted to save billions of dollars. (And recent new argument: It’ll create jobs.)

This CBO report lists how health IT can:
• Eliminate the use of medical transcription and allow a physician to enter notes about a patient’s condition and care directly into a computerized record;
• Eliminate or substantially reduce the need to physically pull medical charts from office files for patients’ visits;
• Prompt providers to prescribe generic medicines instead of more costly brand-name drugs; and
• Reduce the duplication of diagnostic tests.

In addition to the above mechanisms to cut wasteful care given, there is very little doubt that health IT can improve the quality of care given. From that same CBO report, health IT can:
• Remind physicians about appropriate preventive care;
• Identify harmful drug interactions or possible allergic reactions to prescribed medicines, and
• Help physicians manage patients with complex chronic conditions.
• All problems cost money to fix, so preventing these problems from occurring does save money.

In public circles, the common rhetoric is that this higher quality of care results in lower costs. And this is where I take issue.

Yes, healthy people cost less. If you don’t need a doctor, you don’t cost much (duh). But healthy people don’t undergo high quality care; they don’t undergo any care!

On the other hand, by definition, those with chronic conditions are in constant need of care. High quality care to this population means doing more tests and providing more care more often.

That’s because only 56% of those with chronic conditions receive the recommended level of care. So higher quality care means more care. And in our system built on a la carte financing, more care means more money. Now this a real problem!

Those with one or more chronic condition currently make up 75% of our health care costs. And that number will only rise. (Explaining why is a whole other post)

Health IT can help providers know what care needs to be provided in order to adhere to these standards. Many EMRs in place today force providers to go through check-lists while caring for a patient to ensure that everything that is ‘supposed to be done’ is in fact done. EMRs also allow providers to be proactive and give patients appointment reminders to increase quality (and quantity) of care.

Does this mean we should forgo implementation of health IT? Of course not! Health IT can help us reduce needless spending for needless care and increase needed spending for needed care. It’s just that in weighing these two, spending may prevail.

Health IT is a powerful tool. But we have to recognize its place among other tools on the tool belt.

Categories: health information technology · policy · politics
Tagged: , , , ,