EHR Technology: Where Meaningful Use, Compliance, and Clinical IT Intersect Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Similar documents
Stage 3 and ACI s Relationship to Medicaid MU Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Program

WHITE PAPER. Taking Meaningful Use to the Next Level: What You Need to Know about the MACRA Advancing Care Information Component

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

Meaningful Use and Care Transitions: Managing Change and Improving Quality of Care

Final Meaningful Use Rules Add Short-Term Flexibility

CMS Meaningful Use Proposed Rules Overview May 5, 2015

of 23 Meaningful Use 2015 PER THE CMS REVISION TO THE FINAL RULE RELEASED OCTOBER 6, 2015 CHARTMAKER MEDICAL SUITE

Meaningful Use and PCC EHR. Tim Proctor Users Conference 2017

Meaningful Use Stage 2

Meaningful Use Overview for Program Year 2017 Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Program

Recent and Proposed Rule Changes for Meaningful Use

Meaningful Use 2015 Measures

CMS Modifications to Meaningful Use in Final Rule. Slide materials and recording will be available after the webinar

Meaningful Use CHCANYS Webinar #1

2016 MEANINGFUL USE AND 2017 CHANGES to the Medicare EHR Incentive Program for EPs. September 27, 2016 Kathy Wild, Lisa Sagwitz, and Joe Pinto

Meaningful Use What You Need to Know for December 6, 2016

THE MEANING OF MEANINGFUL USE CHANGES IN THE STAGE 2 MU FINAL RULE. Angel L. Moore, MAEd, RHIA Eastern AHEC REC

Meaningful Use Audits for Medicare and Medicaid. Shay Surowiak, RN, BSN, CHTS-CP HIT Practice Advisor

CIO Legislative Brief

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. Stage 2 Final Rule Updates October 2, 2012 Rick Hoover & Andy Finnegan

Meaningful Use Stage 2. Physician Office October, 2012

Meaningful Use: Today and in the Future VMGMA Spring Conference Richmond, VA March 21, 2016

2016 Requirements for the EHR Incentive Programs: EligibleProfessionals

Prime Clinical Systems, Inc

How to Participate Today 4/28/2015. HealthFusion.com 2015 HealthFusion, Inc. 1. Meaningful Use Stage 3: What the Future Holds

EHR/Meaningful Use

2015 Meaningful Use and emipp Updates (for Eligible Professionals)

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. Stage 2 Final Rule Pennsylvania ehealth Initiative All Committee Meeting November 14, 2012

EHR Incentive Programs: 2015 through 2017 (Modified Stage 2) Overview

Meaningful Use Participation Basics for the Small Provider

Final Meaningful Use Stage 3 Requirements Released August 2018

Proposed Rules for Meaningful Use 1, 2 and 3. Paul Kleeberg, MD, FAAFP, FHIMSS CMIO Stratis Health

MEANINGFUL USE 2015 PROPOSED 2015 MEANINGFUL USE FLEXIBILITY RULE

MIPS Program: 2018 Advancing Care Information Category

Meaningful Use Stage 2. Physicians February 2013

The HITECH EHR "Meaningful Use" Requirements for Hospitals and Eligible Professionals

The History of Meaningful Use

Meaningful Use Update: Stage 3 and Beyond. Carla McCorkle, Midas+ Solutions CQM Product Lead

CMS EHR Incentive Programs in 2015 through 2017 Overview

Meaningful Use 2016 and beyond

Overview of the Changes to the Meaningful Use Program Called for in the Proposed Inpatient Prospective Payment System Rule April 27, 2018

Abstract. Are eligible providers participating? AdvancedMD EHR features streamline meaningful use processes: Complete & accurate information

Measures Reporting for Eligible Hospitals

Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017 Final Rule with Comment

Proposed Meaningful Use Content and Comment Period. What the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Means to Medical Practices

Meaningful Use Stages 1 & 2

Overview of the EHR Incentive Program Stage 2 Final Rule published August, 2012

CMS EHR Incentive Programs Overview

Transforming Health Care with Health IT

MEANINGFUL USE FOR THE OB/GYN. Steven L. Zielke, MD 6/13/2014

Agenda. Meaningful Use: What You Really Need to Know. Am I Eligible? Which Program? Meaningful Use Progression 6/14/2013. Overview of Meaningful Use

Frequently Asked Questions

Updates to the EHR Incentive Programs Jason Felts, MS, CSCS HIT Practice Advisor

Texas Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)

Meaningful Use Modified Stage 2 Roadmap Eligible Hospitals

2015 MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EMR TECHNOLOGY

EHR Incentive Programs for Eligible Professionals: What You Need to Know for 2016 Tipsheet

Roll Out of the HIT Meaningful Use Standards and Certification Criteria

Game Plan. Meaningful Use Where are We? So is Anyone Registering? So, are EPs getting any money? $31,968,176,183

2015 MU Reporting Overview of Requirements/Tasks

Medicaid EHR Incentive Program What You Need to Know about Program Year 2016

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs HIT Policy Committee May 6, 2014

HITECH* Update Meaningful Use Regulations Eligible Professionals

Beyond Meaningful Use: Driving Improved Quality. CHCANYS Webinar #1: December 14, 2016

Welcome to the MS State Level Registry Companion Guide for

Meaningful Use - Modified Stage 2. Brett Paepke, OD David Wolfson Marni Anderson

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. Stage 2 Final Rule Travis Broome AMIA

Webinar #5 Meaningful Use: Looking Ahead to Stage 2 and CPS 12

Emerging Healthcare Issues:

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. Stage 2 Final Rule Jason McNamara Technical Director for Health IT HIMSS Meeting April 25, 2013

NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAID EHR INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Your Bridge to Health IT. Successfully Navigating MU Audits. July 18, 2017

Final Meaningful Use Objectives for 2017

CMS-3310-P & CMS-3311-FC,

MIPS Program: 2017 Advancing Care Information Category (formerly known as Meaningful Use) Proposed Rule Guide

Medicaid Provider Incentive Program

Computer Provider Order Entry (CPOE)

= AUDIO. Meaningful Use Audits for Medicare and Medicaid. An Important Reminder. Mission of OFMQ 9/23/2015. Jason Felts, MS HIT Practice Advisor

Alaska Medicaid Program

Frequently Asked Questions

Meaningful Use: Introduction to Meaningful Use Eligible Providers

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Specifics of the Program for Hospitals. August 11, 2010

THE ECONOMICS OF MEDICAL PRACTICE UNDER HIPAA/HITECH

Meaningful Use Virtual Office Hours Webinar for Eligible Providers and Hospitals

Agenda 2. EHR Incentive Programs 3/5/2015. Overview EHR incentive programs Meaningful Use Differences between Stage 1 and Stage 2

Meaningful Use and How it Relates to the Quality Payment Program. Erin Dormaier, CHTS-IM, PCMH CCE Transformation Support Services Manager

Eligible Professionals (EP) Meaningful Use Final Objectives and Measures for Stage 1, 2011

Comparison of Health IT Provisions in H.R. 6 (21 st Century Cures Act) and S (Improving Health Information Technology Act)

ONC Policy Overview. Session 66, February 21, Elise Sweeney Anthony, Director of Policy, ONC

Meaningful Use Hello Health v7 Guide for Eligible Professionals. Stage 1

Connecticut Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Flexibility Checklist for Eligible Professionals for Meaningful Use Last Revision: May 27, 2015

Meaningful Use Stage 2. Physicians Offices March 2014

PBSI-EHR Off the Charts Meaningful Use in 2016 The Patient Engagement Stage

Under the MACRAscope:

Frequently Asked Questions

Legal Issues in Medicare/Medicaid Incentive Programss

CMS Meaningful Use Incentives NPRM

Meaningful Use Stage 2 For Eligible and Critical Access Hospitals

MEANINGFUL USE STAGE FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EMR TECHNOLOGY

CMS Incentive Programs: Timeline And Reporting Requirements. Webcast Association of Northern California Oncologists May 21, 2013

Transcription:

EHR Technology: Where Meaningful Use, Compliance, and Clinical IT Intersect Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800,Chicago, IL 60654 312.832.4500 1 Presenters Rick Rifenbark Partner Foley & Lardner LLP rrifenbark@foley.com Leeann Habte Senior Counsel Foley & Lardner LLP lhabte@foley.com Ryan Haggerty Senior Manager Deloitte & Touche LLP rhaggerty@deloitte.com Cathy Mechsner Project Manager HIT L.A. Care Health Plan CMechsner@lacare.org 2 1

HITEC-LA Regional Extension Center LA County based Eligible Providers Subsidized Technical Services: ONC: Medicare/Medi-Cal Primary Care EPs thru Stage 1 CTAP: Medi-Cal EPs (Primary & Specialists) thru 2018+, all Stages of MU Over 5,000 Members, nearly 3,000 at meaningful use Stage 1 3 Meaningful Use Overview Modified Stage 2: Effective 12/15/2015 2015-2017 Modifications Stage 1 Exclusions/Alternatives 2015-16 Reporting period 90 days for 2015 No change to 2014 CQMs: 9 (EP)/10 (EH) out of 64 measures 3 out of 6 NQS domains Stage 3 2017 2018 & Beyond CMS Comment Period Open until 12/14/15 4 2

Modified Measures 2015 Only Objectives Stage 1 Thresholds Public Health Measure CPOE (Med/Lab/Rad) 30%, Excl. for Lab/Rad Immunization Data Bi-directional interface CDS w/interaction Checking Enabled Patient Specific Education Medication Reconciliation View/Download/ Transmit Summary of Care/HIE 1 CDS Rule Syndromic Surveillance Active Engagement Exclusion Specialized Registry Active Engagement Exclusion 50% & Exclusion from 1 Patient/Portal Exclusion Reportable Labs (EH only) Active Engagement Security Annual Assessment Stage in 2015 EH / EP erx w/drug Formulary 40%-EP, Exclusion-EH Stage 1 2 of 4 1 of 3 Secure Messaging (EP only) Exclusion 5 Modified Measures - Registries Medicare CMS NLR website open for 2015 MU attestations 1/4/2016 2/29/16 Medi-Cal CA State Level Registry (SLR) will close approximately 12/15/15 for Modified Stage 2 software upgrades. CA SLR will reopen for 2015 MU attestations Spring 2016 thru June 2016? 6 3

Modified Measures - Registries CA SLR will remain open for 2015 AIU attestations while it upgrades the Registry for MU modifications. Medi-Cal 2016 is the last year to start the meaningful use program and be eligible for the Federal Incentives. 7 Modified Measures 2016 Only Objectives Stage 1 Thresholds Public Health Measure CPOE (Med/Lab/Rad) 30%, Excl. for Lab/Rad Immunization Data Bi-directional interface CDS w/interaction Checking Enabled Patient Specific Education Medication Reconciliation View/Download/ Transmit Summary of Care/HIE 5 CDS Rules Syndromic Surveillance Active Engagement >10% Specialized Registry Active Engagement >50% Reportable Labs (EH only) 50% & 1 Patient/Portal Exclusion Active Engagement Security Annual Assessment Stage in 2016 EH / EP erx w/drug Formulary 50%-EP, Exclusion-EH Stage 1 3 of 4 2 of 3 Secure Messaging (EP only) 1 Patient 8 4

Modified Measures 2015-2017 Objectives Stage 2 Thresholds Public Health Measure CPOE (Med/Lab/Rad) >60%, >30%, >30% Immunization Data Bi-directional interface CDS w/interaction Checking Enabled Patient Specific Education 5 CDS Rules Syndromic Surveillance Active Engagement >10% Specialized Registry Active Engagement Medication Reconciliation View/Download/ Transmit Summary of Care/HIE >10% >50% Reportable Labs (EH only) 50% & 1 Patient/Portal 2017>5% Patient/Portal Active Engagement Security Annual Assessment 2015-2017 EH / EP erx w/drug Formulary 50% - EP, >10% - EH Stage 2 3 of 4 2 of 3 Secure Messaging (EP only) 2015 - Yes/No 2016-1 Patient 2017 - >5% 9 Stage 3 Overview Comments due to CMS by 12/15/15 Stage 3 begins 1/1/17 All users (EH/EP) must start Stage 3 by 1/1/18 All users (EH/EP) must have 2015 CEHRT by 1/1/18 EHR Incentive Program evolves into Alternate Payment Plans 2019 & beyond MACRA & MIPS 10 5

Stage 3 Objectives 2017-2018 Objectives Stage 3 Public Health Measure CPOE (Med/Lab/Rad) >60%, >60%, >60% Immunization Data Bi-directional Interface CDS w/interaction Checking Enabled Active Engagement 5 CDS Rules Syndromic Surveillance Active Engagement Security Annual Assessment Electronic Case Reporting Active Engagement eprescribe 60% - EP, >25% - EH Public Health Registry Active Engagement Electronic Access to Health Information 1. V/D/T 2. Patient Specific Educ. 1. >80% Patient Portal, API/Both 2. >35% Clinical Data Registry Active Engagement Reportable Labs (EH only) Active Engagement 2017-2018 EH / EP Stage 3 4 of 6 2 of 5 11 Stage 3 Objectives Cont d Objectives Stage 3 2017-2018 Health Information Exchange 1. Electronic Transition of Care 2. Incorporate Available Data 3. Medications, Problems, Medication Allergies Reconciliation 1. >50% 2. >40% 3. >80% 2 of 3 Coordination of Care Patient Engagement 1. Patient Engage - EHR 2. Secure Message 3. Patient Generated Info 2017 1. >5% (Pt Portal/ API) 2. >5% (EH & EP) 3. >5% 2018 1. >10% (Pt Portal/ API) 2. >25% (EH & EP) 3. >5% 12 6

What s Next in EHR Payment Programs? Medicare Payment Adjustments Began in 2015 Eliminate the 90-day EHR reporting period for new meaningful EHR users beginning with the EHR reporting period in 2017, with a limited exception for Medicaid EPs demonstrating meaningful use for the first time. Medicaid EPs and EHs have an EHR reporting period of any continuous 90-day period in the CY that is their PY, for their first PY of MU. 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP 13 Alternative Payment Methods Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, Medicare Incentive Payment System The Medicare EHR incentive program payment adjustments for EPs in 2018 will be the last of the penalties under the current program. MIPS continues the EHR payment penalties but also extends the incentives for MU of CEHRT as a component of its framework for quality incentives. Under MIPS, whether an EP is a Meaningful User of CEHRT is one of four performance categories used to calculate a composite score. The other performance categories are quality, resource use, and clinical practice improvement activities. Twenty-five percent (25%) of an EP s composite score is based on Meaningful Use of CEHRT. 14 7

Alternative Payment Methods EPs who fall below or exceed the performance threshold for the composite scores will be assigned payment adjustment factors that begin at four percent (4%) in 2019 and increase to nine percent (9%) for 2022 and subsequent years. MIPS is budget neutral, as bonuses for EPs who score above the performance threshold will be funded by penalties imposed on EPs who fall below the threshold. The maximum calendar year payment adjustment factor for MIPS bonuses is equal to three times the payment adjustment factor for MIPS penalties for that same year. EPs who receive a significant portion of their revenue from alternative payment models (such as Accountable Care Organizations or through medical homes that meet certain criteria) would be exempt from MIPS and would receive enhanced payments from Medicare. 15 MU Directions for the Future MU Stage 3 Ongoing Focus Privacy and Security HIPAA Security Risk Assessments Exchange of health information Patient access to EHR/patient portals Secure messaging with patient MU Stage 3 New Directions in Patient Engagement Measure of % of Patients Connecting to EHR via applications of patient s choice Measure of % of patients incorporating patient-generated data into EHR 8

HIT Directions for the Future Health Information Technology Strategic Plan 2015 2020: Select Goals and Objectives Advance Secure and Interoperable Health Information Enable individuals, providers, and public health entities to securely send, receive, find, and use electronic health information Identify, prioritize, and advance technical standards to support secure and interoperable health information Protect the privacy and security of health information Advance the Health and Well-Being of Individuals and Communities Empower individual, family, and caregiver health management and engagement Advance Research, Scientific Knowledge, and Innovation Increase access to and usability of high-quality electronic health information and services Accelerate the development and commercialization of innovative technologies and solutions Privacy/Security Risks Growing Risk of Data Breaches. Healthcare sector accounted for 42.5% of breaches in 2014. Criminal attacks increased by 125% in past 5 years. Medical identity theft doubled in past 5 years. Source: Ponemon Institute Fifth Annual Benchmark Study on Privacy and Security of Healthcare Data. 9

Privacy/Security Compliance Need for Ongoing Focus on Risk Assessment and Security Management Process. Coordination between HIPAA Privacy Officer and Security Officer. Evaluate Cyber-Liability Insurance Coverage and Indemnification by Vendors. Incident Response Plan. Privacy Compliance Risks - HIE Trust Framework Chain of Trust Definition of permissible purposes for exchange Common privacy/security standards Consent management Access management Breach liability Contracting Issues Data ownership Secondary uses of data Indemnification 10

Health Data Legal Landscape S T A T E L A W S Sector-specific. Jurisdiction-specific and may apply to either certain providers or to certain types of information. Consumer Protection Laws. Health Information Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Health Information Technology for Economic & Clinical Health (HITECH). Federal substance abuse confidentiality regulations. Genetic data. Mental health information. Substance abuse information. HIV/AIDS/communicable disease data. Laboratory results. Marketing restrictions. Federal Trade Commission. State Breach Reporting. F E D E R A L L A W S Privacy Compliance Risks - HIE Implementation of Federal and State law Privacy laws that Restrict Disclosure of Sensitive Data through HIE - HIV/AIDS Substance Abuse Mental Health Restriction of Parental Access - Health information about sensitive services to which minor can consent. Information about mature minors and emancipated minors. Data Segmentation Issues DS4P standards for behavioral health information exchange. 11

EHRs & MU Directions for the Future What are the existing and future challenges for privacy and security compliance? Adequate internal security management process Integration of Privacy/Security functions Implementation of privacy restrictions in electronic environment Address new security risks associated with digital health Integration with consumer-focused applications MU Audits We will review Medicare incentive payments to eligible health care professionals and hospitals for adopting EHRs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) safeguards to prevent erroneous incentive payments. We will review Medicare incentive payment data from 2011 to identify payments to providers that should not have received incentive payments (e.g., those not meeting selected meaningful use criteria). We will also assess CMS s plans to oversee incentive payments for the duration of the program and actions taken to remedy erroneous incentive payments. - OIG Fiscal Year 2015 Work Plan 12

MU Audits: Process CMS audit processes Pre-payment edit checks Pre-payment audits Post-payment audits CMS pre and post payment audits Conducted by Figliozzi and Company Initial letter Follow up requests Potential on site review CMS reportedly intends to conduct pre- and post-payment audits on 5-10% of attestations OIG is auditing as well! MU Audits: Penalties 13

MU Audits: Penalties Recoupment Medicare payment penalties associated with failure to meet MU objectives Potential criminal/civil penalties 28 MU Audits: Appeals Medicare appeal process set forth on CMS website Process consists of the submission of an appeal request form and relevant materials Pay attention to MU appeal deadlines, which vary based on whether the submission is by an EP or Hospital Information to be submitted depends on reason for MU appeal Certain issues are not appealable Denial of hardship waiver request 14

MU Audits: Compliance Measures Work with the person who will attest for your organization (e.g., practice manager, IT, finance dept. personnel) Maintain documentation relevant to MU attestation Source documents Documentation for non-percentage-based objectives Other relevant documents (e.g., ONC EHR certification) Pay attention to document retention periods 6 years for MU objectives and clinical quality measures Payment calculation data (e.g., cost reports) should follow current documentation retention processes States may require longer periods for Medicaid Conduct self audits Consider development of MU policies Health Information Blocking ONC Report on Health Information Blocking (2015) Examples of health information blocking Data lock in Contractual provisions High costs for interfaces Non-standard technology ONC strategy to address health information blocking Coordinate with CMS and OIG re AKS and Stark issues Work with HHS to create payment incentives that reward interoperability Several other approaches identified Legal risks and compliance measures 15

Evolving Use of the EHR Why should the Compliance Department care? Electronic Health Record (EHR) adoption has increased rapidly in the United States through the EHR Incentive Program and Affordable Care Act. With the increased use of EHRs, increased attention from regulators has followed. The 2014 OIG work plan 1 stated that EHR fraud would remain a high priority through 2018. The OIG s 2015 work plan 2 justification stated the need to adopt oversight approaches that are suited to an increasingly sophisticated healthcare system and that are tailored to protect programs and patients from existing and new vulnerabilities. Sources: 1. http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/workplan/2014/work-plan-2014.pdf 2. http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/workplan/2015/fy15-work-plan.pdf Benefits Associated with Proper Use of EHR Technology Proper use of electronic documentation can potentially provide a number of benefits as compared to paper-based documentation, including: Improved legibility, Real time accessibility, Reduction of medical errors, and; Decreased cost Benefits of properly utilized documentation assist features include improved efficiency of: Data capture, Timeliness, Consistency, and; Completeness 16

Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Misuse of EHR technology functionality has the potential to result in or contribute to several challenges, with significant Regulatory, Financial and Legal implications. However, it is important to note that the risks of improper EHR use extend well beyond Regulatory, Financial and Legal risks, including but not limited to: Quality of Patient Care Patient Safety Reputation Patient Trust and Satisfaction, Clinical Collaboration Improper Use of EHR Technology Common Risk Areas Risk Considerations related to the proper use of EHR technology and some of the common documentation assist features include but are not limited to: Copy and Paste Access / Authorship / Authentication Documentation Templates Amendments Availability / Use of Audit Log Functionality Patient Identification Patient Portals 17

Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Copy and Paste These Copy and Paste Activities: Unique Information from a different patient s record Documentation from another provider which includes their attestation statement Identical verbiage used repeatedly for all patients seen by a provider for a specific timeframe with little or no modification regardless of the nature of the presenting problem or intensity of the service May result in: Inaccurate or outdated information Redundancy, which makes it difficult to identify the current information Inability to identify the author or intent of documentation Inability to identify when the documentation was first created Propagation of false information Internally inconsistent progress notes Unnecessarily lengthy progress notes Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Access, Authorship and Authentication Lack of Controls over Access, Authorship and Authentication such as: Proper role based restrictions related to authorization to perform certain actions Ability to identify each individual s documentation contribution where multiple authors / contributors are involved at multiple points in the care delivery May result in: Inability to demonstrate that certain activities in the clinical workflow were performed by appropriate / authorized individual Inability to identify who was responsible for an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis. Inability to determine who made updates and edits to the health records 18

Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Documentation Templates Improper documentation template design and/or use, increases exposure to risk Reliance on documentation templates which have limited information entry and / or differential diagnosis choices Misuse of quick-links to frequently used medications, diagnostic codes and recommended treatments, images, labs, etc. Misuse of Chart by exception" capability: some templates are customized to auto-fill with all clinical fields with common data at the start of the encounter - requiring the physician to deselect / change what is not applicable to the specific encounter May result in: Incorrect or incomplete documentation of specific encounter details Decrease in face to face, inquiry, examination and interaction based care encounters Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Availability / Use of Audit Log Functionality If the Audit Log functionality and reporting capabilities for your EHR are: Unavailable; Poorly designed; Inconsistently or incorrectly used; or Disabled, either permanently or temporarily The following limitations exist: Inability to demonstrate that certain activities in the clinical workflow were performed by appropriate / authorized individual Inability to identify who was responsible for an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis. Inability to determine who made updates and edits to the health records and when they are made Inability to determine who viewed, extracted, or deleted a record and when the action occurred 19

Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Patient Portals Key Compliance Considerations related to Patient Portals Accuracy Completeness Timeliness Consistency Managing Expectations of Key Stakeholders / Disclaimers Patient Requests for Edits (Accuracy vs. Preference) Documentation that is inappropriate or clinically unnecessary Mitigating Risks Associated with Improper Use of EHR Technology Many hospitals have recommended audit and compliance functions but are not fully utilizing them to assess or mitigate risk related to the improper use of EHR technology Risk mitigating considerations include but are not limited to: Policies and Procedures Education and Training Performing Independent and Departmental Auditing and Monitoring Activities Enabling the EHR Audit Log and Monitoring Capabilities Regulatory Environment Awareness Tone at the Top Messaging and Consistency Key Stakeholder Collaboration (not just IT and Clinical Leadership) Peer Pressure to Collectively Own the Patient s Care Consistent, Open, Inclusive Dialogue and Healthy Debate 20