Health Information Technology use in Iowa Medical Laboratories: A Study for Iowa e-health

Similar documents
Health Information Technology use in Iowa Long- Term Care Facilities: A Study for Iowa e-health

Health Information Technology use in Iowa Radiology Facilities: A Study for Iowa e-health

Iowa Health Information Technology and Meaningful Use Landscape in 2015

HIE/HIO Organizations Supporting Meaningful Use (MU) Stage 2 Goals Q Update from 2013 HIE Survey Participants

2004 HIMSS NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY. July 21, 2004

First Look at Iowa's Medicaid Expansion: How Well Did Members Transition to the Iowa Health & Wellness Plan from IowaCare

HIE/HIO Organizations Supporting Meaningful Use (MU) Stage 2 Goals

Medicaid and HIT: EHR s s for Medicaid Providers

Background and Context:

Copyright All Rights Reserved.

ONC Cooperative Agreement HIE Program Update. Arizona Rural & Public Health Policy Forum January 19, 2012

A Framework for Evaluating Electronic Health Records Overview - Applying to the Davies Ambulatory Awards Program Revised May 2012

Moving HIT and Meaningful Use

Illinois HIE Strategic & Operational Plan

AMIA Public Policy and Government Relations Update

ACCF Diabetes Collaborative Registry Program Requirements v1.2 Posted on 9/14/2015

Michelle Brunsen & Sandy Swallow May 25, , Telligen, Inc.

AHA Survey on Hospitals Ability to Meet Meaningful Use Requirements of the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Records Incentive Programs

Our Journey In Health IT And Health Information Exchange Working Towards Ubiquitous, Computable Care. Review Data Systems For Monitoring HIV Care

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL INCIDENT- BASED REPORTING SYSTEM IN IOWA

Health Current: Roadmap Practice Transformation using Information & Data

s n a p s h o t The State of Health Information Technology in California: Use Among Hospitals and Long Term Care Facilities

2018 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Process

A strategy for building a value-based care program

EMERGING TRENDS AND ISSUES

Challenges for National Large Laboratories to Ensure Implementation of ELR Meaningful Use

HITECH Act. Overview and Estimated Timeline

California HIPAA Privacy Implementation Survey

An Exploratory Study of the Use of Telehealth Services by Federally Qualified Health Centers and Hospitals in New York State

SHIN-NY 2020 Roadmap Extended Presentation. Val Grey Executive Director July 25, 2017

ALLIED HEALTH VACANCY REPORT

Minnesota s Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist (LMFT) Workforce, 2017 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE 2016 LMFT SURVEY

Evaluation of the WHO Patient Safety Solutions Aides Memoir

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

Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Survey of Registrants 2015 Summary of Findings

PHR and the Issue of Patients Altering Professionally-Sourced Data

Chapter 9 Section 1. Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Reimbursement

HIE and Meaningful Use Stage 2 Matrix

HIMSS 2011 Implementation of Standardized Terminologies Survey Results

STAGE 2 PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR MEETING MEANINGFUL USE OF EHRs 1

Use of Information Technology in Physician Practices

SNOMED CT AND 3M HDD: THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Medical Practitioner Reimbursement

WV MEDICAID PROVIDER WORKSHOPS & TRAINING SESSIONS. Amber Nary Business Development Manager

Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Health Information Exchange Objective Stage 3 Updated: February 2017

The Minnesota Accountable Health Model STATE INNOVATION MODEL (SIM) GRANT OVERVIEW, GOALS, & ACTIVITIES

Meaningful Use and Public Health. Chris Wells Public Health IT Director June 30, 2014

Provider Perspectives on Patient Information: Results of 2017 Survey. October 19, 2017

OHA s Technology Strategic Initiative

Multiple Value Propositions of Health Information Exchange

MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2

Calibrating your tablet allows you to ensure accuracy as you handwrite on the screen and/or select items on the screen. Prime Clinical Systems, Inc 1

Meaningful Use Stages 1 & 2

The Journey to Meaningful Use: Where we were, where we are, and where we may be going

Request for Information NJ Health Information Network. State of New Jersey. New Jersey HIT Coordinators Office. Request for Information

The Joint Commission's Performance Measurement Journey

Relevance of Meaningful Use Requirements for Pathologists and Laboratories Pathology Informatics 2011 October 5, 2011

Lessons Learned: Indiana

UPDATE ON MEANINGFUL USE. HITECH Stimulus Act of 2009: CSC Point of View

PCMH 2014 Recognition Checklist

Blue Button Use to Access and Share Health Record Information

Detailed Charts From The North Dakota Hospital Survey Results:

Joint Commission Laboratory Accreditation: Why It Is Right For Your Organization

TRICARE Reimbursement Manual M, February 1, 2008 Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs) Chapter 9 Section 1

Transforming Health Care with Health IT

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

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

GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE SELF-STUDY REPORT UTILIZING THE 2013 ACEN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

Go! Knowledge Activity: Meaningful Use and the Hospital EHR

Virginia s Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program

Universal Public Health Node (UPHN): HIE and the Opportunities for Health Information Management

Why are doctors still waiting for interoperability?

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

How can we make patients appy with their Outpatient Journey?

The PHDSC Quarterly Standard E-Newsletter

1. What are the requirements for Stage 1 of the HITECH Act for CPOE to qualify for incentive payments?

ehealth Report for Ed Clark November 10, 2016 My Background and Context:

Breaking HIE Barriers

Performance Improvement & Analytics. Broward Health - Coral Springs Medical Center Case Study

The results will also be used for public reporting for MN Community Measurement on mnhealthscores.org.

Improving Care Coordination Through Health Information Exchange

WHO SHARES? A look at the status of HIT and HIE in Arkansas

Chronic Disease Management: Breakthrough Opportunities for Improving the Health And Productivity of Iowans

Are physicians ready for macra/qpp?

Uncover Beliefs About Patient-Generated Health Data

MN E-HEALTH REPORT: 2011 Minnesota Clinical Laboratory Survey of Readiness and Needs for Electronic Health Information Exchange

Results will be used for public reporting by MDH and MN Community Measurement on mnhealthscores.org.

U.S. Healthcare Problem

Meaningful Use Stage 2

Missouri Health Connection. One Connection For A Healthier Missouri

CARE1ST HEALTH PLAN POLICY & PROCEDURE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Sharing health information electronically eliminates the need for faxing, copying and handcarrying your health record from provider to provider.

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

Frequently Asked Questions. Inofile FAQs

This study serves as an annual follow-up to the initial study conducted in 2016.

Incident Reporting and Hazard Control. James M. Walker, MD, FACP Chief Health Information Officer

WHAT WE HEARD. Indigenous Climate Leadership Initiative

Computer Provider Order Entry (CPOE)

Guideline for Applicants to the Building Resilience to Climate Change Grants Program August 2014

Kentucky HIE Examples of Successful Interoperability Description Template

Transcription:

Health Policy 11-1-2010 Health Information Technology use in Iowa Medical Laboratories: A Study for Iowa e-health Damiano C. Peter Ki Park Kristi Law Copyright 2010 Public Policy Center, The Hosted by Iowa Research Online. For more information please contact: lib-ir@uiowa.edu.

Thirty-five percent of Iowa laboratories send some data to other providers electronically; 57% receive some data from other providers electronically A study for Iowa e- Health Background Iowa e-health is a public and private collaboration that seeks to improve health care quality, safety and efficiency through the use of health information technology (HIT). This includes electronic health records (EHRs) to collect and store patient health information, and a statewide health information exchange (HIE) to share health records across the boundaries of individual care settings. To better understand HIT use by a variety of health care provider types, Iowa e- Health, in collaboration with the University of Iowa Public Policy Center (UI PPC), conducted an assessment of HIT issues Methodology An on-line survey assessment was used to evaluate the use of HIT in Iowa laboratories. The survey instrument was developed in collaboration with laboratory content experts from the e-health Assessment Subcommittee and then pilot tested with several Iowa laboratories. A comprehensive list of Iowa laboratories was compiled based on a list provided on the CLIA website for Iowa and the Iowa Medicaid Enterprise. On-line resources were then used to identify contact information for the laboratories and to obtain the email address for the person most knowledgeable about HIT in the pharmacies. The on-line survey process itself included: 1) An e-vite from IDPH Director Tom Newton requesting participation in the assessment survey (including a link to the website for completion of the survey) 2) A follow-up email from UI PPC requesting participation facing health care providers in Iowa. The current effort included five health provider settings: 1) home health, 2) longterm care, 3) pharmacies, 4) laboratories, and 5) radiology centers. This Brief presents information about the Medical Laboratory Assessment. The assessments were intended to gather information about a range of health IT topics including: 1) provider health IT capabilities and preparedness to participate in a statewide HIE; 2) preferences for types of high value clinical data exchange or HIE services; and 3) benefits and barriers to health IT adoption. 3) Telephone follow-up calls to nonrespondents from the UI Social Science Research Center to identify that the email reached the most appropriate person 4) Closing of the survey process after about 6 weeks. The data were then cleaned and the analyses began Participation Rates November 2010 Health Information Technology use in Iowa Medical Laboratories Of the 791 laboratories identified in Iowa, 127 completed a usable survey, for a 16% participation rate. Three of the chain/group responses were completed by the headquarters representing all of their laboratories, so these responses were weighted. While the participating facilities were well distributed around the state, they are likely to be biased toward those more interested in the topic of HIT (not necessarily more likely to have electronic systems). Thus, we suggest the results from this assessment be used to evaluate potential trends rather than focusing on the exact percentages for any particular questions.

Laboratory Assessment Page 2 of 4 Laboratories and EHRs Whether laboratory orders were sent to the main reference lab was used as determinant of the use of EHRs by laboratories as suggested by the content experts on the e-health Assessment Subcommittee. Electronic use is shown in Table 1. 60% used HL7 for submissions but 40% did not know the format. Most used CPT coding, few used SNOWMED or LOINC. Table 1. Format for submitting orders to main reference lab Lab results, patient histories, and reports on communicable diseases were among the types of clinical information deemed most valuable for sharing by Iowa laboratories Paper requisitions 40 37% Electronic order entry 64 60% Other 3 3% Total 107 100% Similarly, receipt of information from the main reference lab was used to evaluate use of EHRs by Iowa laboratories (Table 2). Sixty percent used HL7; while, 35% did not know format, most used CPT coding. Table 2. Format for receiving orders from main reference lab Paper results received via onsite printer 29 26% Paper results received via mail 3 3% Electronic result receipt 57 51% Other 22 20% Total 111 100% Sharing of clinical information by Iowa laboratories 35% send some data to other providers electronically: Physicians (76%) Hospitals (55%) 57% received some data from other providers electronically: Other labs (73%) Physicians (40%) Hospitals (37%) Most valuable for sharing: Lab results Reporting communicable diseases Patient history

Laboratory Assessment Page 3 of 4 Use of a LIS/LIMS for storing new data Facility-based laboratories were most likely to store their new data electronically using an LIS/LIMS (Table 3). Labs in urban areas and larger labs were more likely to store data electronically. Table 3. Storage of new laboratory data Organizational structure Non-electronic storage Electronic storage Facility-based 31 (38%) 51 (62%) Independent/free standing 3 (33%) 6 (67%) LTC facilities with small labs 1 (100%) 0 (0%) Ambulance and Fire department 5 (83%) 1 (17%) Public-county-communityuniversity health clinic 3 (76%) 1 (25%) Total 43 (42%) 59 (58%) Facility-based labs were most likely to store new data electronically using an LIS/LMS; large and urban labs were more likely to store data electronically Functions of EHRs for Iowa laboratories Most common uses: Check for out of range values Download results into an EHR Clinical lab notes Perceived benefits of EHRs in Iowa laboratories Most common potential benefits*: Timely availability of clinical information Accuracy of clinical information Lab efficiency Two-thirds of Iowa laboratories without an EHR were not planning to invest in one in the next 2 years Future uses of an LIS/LIMS in Iowa laboratories Among those without a LIS/LIMS 2/3rds were not planning to invest in an EHR in the next two years The main reasons were: Initial cost of installation Ongoing operational cost Among those with an EHR 3/4 were very likely to invest in their system in next two years Cost was the main concern Barriers to installing and EHR included cost of installation and ongoing operational cost

Laboratory Assessment Page 4 of 4 Health Information Exchange and Iowa laboratories Interest in participating in a Health Information Exchange (HIE) Two thirds were very interested (37%) or somewhat interested (26%) in participating in a HIE Table 4. Laboratories interest in participating in a HIE Very interested 45 37% Somewhat interested 31 26% Not at all interested 19 16% Don't know yet 26 22% Total 121 100% Major concerns with participating in a HIE For more information on this topic contact: Peter C. Damiano Director Public Policy Center 209 South Quadrangle Iowa City, IA 52242 peter-damiano@uiowa.edu Phone: 319.335.6800 Fax: 319.335.6801 Other research reports are available for download on our Website: http://ppc.uiowa.edu Initial cost of product/installation Potential liability Client privacy Summary About 60% of labs stored their new data electronically in a LIS/LIMS, however their use for sending/receiving orders or results varied. Currently, about one-third of labs submitted orders and about half received orders electronically. They were most interested in having the ability to share lab results, communicable diseases and patient histories electronically with other labs, physicians and hospitals. Improved efficiency and accuracy were deemed as the benefits of electronic systems. Costs (initial and operational) were the biggest concerns among both those with and without an LIS/LIMS, with ¾ of those with an LIS/LIMS likely in invest in their system in the near future. The vast majority of the radiology facilities had interest in participating in a HIE with potential costs, liabilities and client privacy the greatest concerns if they were to move in this direction. Iowa e-health Iowa e-health is a public/private collaboration designed to improve health care quality and efficiency through the use of HIT. For more information, contact: Iowa e-health Email: ehealth@idph.state.ia.us Website: www.iowaehealth.org Toll-Free Number: 866-924-4636 Iowa Department of Public Health, Office of Health IT About these policy briefs The 's Public Policy Center s Policy Briefs are designed to provide our research findings in a succinct and accessible format. The nature of the Briefs does not allow for extensive explanation regarding the methods used in our research. More information about specific methodologies used in any particular study can be obtained by contacting researchers at the Center and/or by downloading reports from our website. We hope you find these policy briefs helpful to your discourse on some of the most challenging societal issues. About the Public Policy Center The 's Public Policy Center s mission is to provide policymakers with information that can make our lives and communities thrive in sustainable ways through academic research. The vibrant Center that brings together researchers from a variety of fields and disciplines to impact policy at the local, state and national level through sound academic scholarship.