For many physicians looking to apply for federal incentive payments when they adopt electronic health records, switching to newer EHRs will be necessary as they update their health information technology to demonstrate meaningful use. However, while newer systems come with improved features, the transition between systems poses significant problems, a study from Weill Cornell Medical College shows. The study, which was supported by funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, was conducted by a team of physician-scientists from Weill Cornell Medical College, who monitored the prescription errors of 19 physicians in an adult ambulatory clinic before the switch from an older EHR to a newer system, then again 12 weeks after the switch and once again a year later. Results of the study, which was conducted to gauge the reaction of physicians on the transition to newer EHRs and to track prescription errors, were published recently in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
A panel developing clinical and process measures for meaningful use endorsed the delay of stage 2 for one year until 2014. As a result, providers will have three years through 2013 in which to verify that they have met stage 1 meaningful use requirements. The delay is designed to avoid the train wreck that probably would result from the publication of the final rule for stage 2 requirements just several months before the provider reporting period would begin. The timing revision will only affect those providers who have attested to stage 1 in 2011. The delay is among the stage 2 recommendations that the Health IT Policy Committee approved at its meeting June 8 by an overwhelming vote of 12 to 5. The original 2013 timeframe does not give vendors enough time to design, develop, and test new functionality and providers to deploy it and report measures for one year, said Dr. Paul Tang, vice chair of the Health IT Policy Committee and chair of its meaningful use work group.
Pfizer Inc. is running the first U.S. clinical study in which patients participate by using mobile phones and the Internet, rather than repeatedly visiting a participating hospital. The study is a pilot project, approved by the Food and Drug Administration and known by the acronym REMOTE. The goal is to determine whether such "virtual" clinical studies can produce the same results as traditional ones that require patients to live near and regularly visit a hospital or clinic for an initial screening and multiple checkups. If it works, it could mean that patients all over America could participate in many future medical studies, allowing under-represented groups to take part, speeding up data collection and likely reducing costs and the rate of participants dropping out. FDA spokeswoman Karen Riley confirmed that this is the first such study in the country.
A proposed federal rule would require hospitals, doctors' offices and health insurers to tell patients of anyone who has accessed their electronic medical records, if requested.Under the rule proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), health-care-related businesses must list everyone in their firms — from doctors to data-entry clerks — who has accessed a patient's electronic records and when."It is important to protect a person's right to know how their health information has been used or disclosed," said Rachel Seeger, spokeswoman for HHS' Office of Civil Rights. For example, in 2008, the UCLA Medical Center fired several employees who looked at Britney Spears' medical records without being directly involved in her care. Under the new rule, Spears could see who accessed her records.
The reaction to the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations that women in their 40s did not need routine mammograms was swift and furious. Using email, social networking sites and electronic bulletin boards, breast cancer survivors vented their outrage. Researchers say the magnitude of the reaction heralded a new era in the online exchange of health information -- one that's faster, fiercer and more powerful than before. The reaction to the task force's recommendations "was a great illustration of how two worlds collide," said Kristin K. Barker, a sociologist at Oregon State University, and lead author of a new study. "On the one hand, you had the science that was saying mammography for women in their 40s might not be as effective as we thought, and on the other hand, you had the personal experiences of the women who believed they were saved by having a mammogram."
With the growing popularity of tablets and smartphones--and the explosion of E-health record products for clinicians and patients--we're seeing lots of useful, innovative mobile health tools hit the market. Will the threat of increased fedetal regulation stifle this rush of innovation? That's a question a lot of developers are probably asking themselves as they hear the latest news from the FDA. Until fairly recently, most mobile health apps have been geared to consumers, including those who want handy access to information online about a health topic of interest--or to track details about their own health and wellness. But a growing number of mobile health apps are also aimed at patients with chronic conditions, measuring parameters like blood glucose, blood pressure, and the like. As these apps become increasingly more sophisticated--some can send data to patients' health records or help clinicians make diagnoses or treatment decisions--experts worry that some devices and applications may do more harm than good, especially if they don't meet basic standards of reliability, safety, and security.