Massive Health IT Outage: But, Of Course, Patient Safety Was Not Compromised

Having been 'Down Under' in Sydney addressing the Health Informatics Society of Australia on the need to slow down their national health IT program - and on the need to think critically about HIT seller public relations exaggerations and hubris - and being very busy, I missed this quite stunning story of a major health IT outage.

Just a typical "glitch":

Some lessons from a major outage
Posted on July 31, 2012
By Tony Collins

Last week Cerner had a major outage across the US. Its international customers might also have been affected.

InformationWeek Healthcare reported that Cerner’s remote hosting service went down for about six hours on Monday, 23 July. It hit “hospital and physician practice clients all over the country”. Information Week said the unusual outage “reportedly took down the vendor’s entire network” and raised “new questions about the reliability of cloud-based hosting services”.

A Cerner spokesperson Kelli Christman told Information Week,

“Cerner’s remote-hosted clients experienced unscheduled downtime this week. Our clients all have downtime procedures in place to ensure patient safety.  [Meaning, for the most part, blank paper - ed.] The issue has been resolved and clients are back up and running. A human error caused the outage.  [I don't think they mean human error as in poor disaster recovery and business continuity engineering - ed.]  As a result, we are reviewing our training protocol and documented work instructions for any improvements that can be made.”

Christman did not respond to a question about how many Cerner clients were affected. HIStalk, a popular health IT blog, reported that hospital staff resorted to paper [if that was true, that paper was OK in an unplanned workflow disruption of major proportions, then why do we need to spend billions on health IT, one might ask? - ed.] but it is unclear whether they would have had access to the most recent information on patients.

One Tweet by @UhVeeNesh said “Thank you Cerner for being down all day. Just how I like to start my week…with the computer system crashing for all of NorCal [Northern California].”

Tony Collins is a commentator for ComputerWorldUK.com.  He's quoted me, as I wrote in my May 2011 post Key lesson from the NPfIT - The Tony Collins Blog.

This incident brings to life longstanding concerns about hospitals outsourcing their crucial functions to IT companies.  

Quite simply, I think it's insane, at least in the foreseeable future, as this example shows.

It also brings to mind the concerns that health IT, as an unregulated technology, causes dangers in hospitals with inadequate internal disaster and business continuity functions aside from fresh sheets of paper.  Such capabilities would likely be mandatory if health IT were meaningfully regulated.

The Joint Commission, for example, likely issued its stamp of approval for the affected hospitals, hospitals who had outsourced their crucial medical records functions to an outside party that sometimes went mute.  If someone was injured or died due to this outage, they would not care very much about the supposed advantages.

There's this in the article:

... “Issue appears to have something to do with DNS entries being deleted across RHO network and possible Active Directory corruption. Outage was across all North America clients as well as some international clients.”

Of course, patient safety was not compromised.

Finally:

Imagine being a patient, perhaps with a complex history, in extremis at the time of this outage.  

I, for one, do not want my own medical care nor that of my relatives and friends subject to cybernetic recordkeeping unreliability and incompetence like this, and the risk it creates.

-- SS

Aug. 8, 2012 addendum:

The Los Angeles Times covered this outage in a story aptly entitled "Patient data outage exposes risks of electronic medical records."

They write:

Dozens of hospitals across the country lost access to crucial electronic medical records for about five hours during a major computer outage last week, raising fresh concerns about whether poorly designed technology can compromise patient care.

My only comment is that the answer to this question is rather axiomatic.

They also quote Jacob Reider, acting chief medical officer at the federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, who said:

"These types of outages are quite rare and there's no way to completely eliminate human error"

This is precisely the type of political spin and misdirection I cautioned the Australian health authorities to evaluate critically.

Paper, unless there is a mass outbreak of use of disappearing ink, or locally hosted clinical IT, do not go blank en masse across multiple states and countries for any length of time, raising risk across multiple hospitals greatly, acutely and simultaneously.  (Locally hosted IT outages only cause "local" mayhem; see my further thoughts on this issue here).

-- SS

Did Toxic Effects of an EHR Kill Rory Staunton?

A stunning story about the death of a young man from sepsis (blood poisoning by infection), missed in an ED, appeared in the New York Times:

An Infection, Unnoticed, Turns Unstoppable

By JIM DWYER
New York Times
Published: July 11, 2012

For a moment, an emergency room doctor stepped away from the scrum of people working on Rory Staunton, 12, and spoke to his parents.

“Your son is seriously ill,” the doctor said.

“How seriously?” Rory’s mother, Orlaith Staunton, asked.

The doctor paused.

“Gravely ill,” he said.

How could that be?

Two days earlier, diving for a basketball at his school gym, Rory had cut his arm. He arrived at his pediatrician’s office the next day, Thursday, March 29, vomiting, feverish and with pain in his leg. He was sent to the emergency room at NYU Langone Medical Center. The doctors agreed: He was suffering from an upset stomach and dehydration. He was given fluids, told to take Tylenol, and sent home.

Partially camouflaged by ordinary childhood woes, Rory’s condition was, in fact, already dire. Bacteria had gotten into his blood, probably through the cut on his arm. He was sliding into a septic crisis, an avalanche of immune responses to infection from which he would not escape. On April 1, three nights after he was sent home from the emergency room, he died in the intensive care unit. The cause was severe septic shock brought on by the infection, hospital records say. 

Rory Staunton, age 12, 5 feet 9 inches tall and 169 pounds, had suffered a cut on his arm.  He presented with a marked fever of 102 F (39 C), pulse markedly elevated at 131, respiratory rate elevated at 22; reported to have hit as high as 36 breaths per minute (in essence, panting).  It was reported by the NYT that before the ED visit his parents said his temperature had reached 104 F (40 C).

That alone should have set off some level of concern.  (It is possible narrative details of his history never made it into the ED chart; ED EHR's are often templated point-and-click affairs that can impair or discourage capture of narrative.)

Per the NYT, the bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes normally dwells in the throat or on the skin, areas where the body is well defended.  Also known as Group A streptococcus, the strain typically causes strep throat or impetigo.  However, if it gets into the blood stream (e.g., via a cut in the skin, as this patient suffered playing ball), the results can be devastating.

The lab results from the first ED visit are particularly stunning:

(From NYT article; click to enlarge)

The white blood cell count is markedly elevated at 14.7, meaning 14,700 cells per microliter of blood (cubic millimeter or 1 mm³).  Further, there is a plain evidence of greatly accelerated new white cell production, in the form of "bands", at 53% of the total (normally 5-15%).  Bands are immature white blood cells that are seen in the blood, being produced as part of the body's response to infection.

Herein is a significant issue.  The NYT noted that:

"Three hours later [i.e., after the ED visit, which reportedly only lasted 2 hours - ed.], Rory’s blood tests came back. High levels of neutrophils and “bands” – immature white blood cells – are evidence of infection. But nobody called the Stauntons, and by the time Rory returned to the hospital the next day, his infection was unstoppable. He died two days later."

Not getting into the issue regarding the patient apparently being discharged before the labs got back (itself an invitation to disaster), and the other abnormalities such as low sodium, low platelets, elevated glucose all pointing to a very sick patient... nobody called the Stantons with white cell results like these?   Nobody entertained the thought of ... antibiotics as a precaution?

It is possible - dare I say likely - that no clinical person in the ED ever saw these results.

EHR's that are poorly designed or implemented can have a toxic effect on care.  For instance, EHR's can cause user confusion if the user interface is complex, data can be lost due to poor relational design.  Data from the wrong patient's data can be presented (misidentification), or data from a lab can come back to the system after a patient has left, and despite being abnormal, just sit there in a silo without being looked at ("out of sight, out of mind"; a "silent silo" syndrome).

It is usually difficult to ascertain exactly which EHR product is being used at a particular hospital.  I note this medical center actively promoted its EPIC EHR in a June 2011 press release "NYU Langone Medical Center Launches Next Phase of Its Electronic Health Record System", although another system "ICIS"  (for Integrated Clinical Information System, "a state-of-the-art healthcare information management system that connects all NYULMC caregivers involved in patient care") is mentioned here.  The ICIS may also contain the Eclipsys Sunrise Clinical Manager, per this link. (I'd noted some clinically relevant problems with the latter in an FDA report here.)

In any case, magical powers are attributed to the technology that are not strongly or uniformly supported by the literature (link), but strongly pushed by industry marketing memes of deterministic health IT benefits and absolute beneficence:

“... Our electronic health record system is an integral part of our ongoing efforts to leverage technology and enhance our ability to provide patient-centered care and enable the highest level of quality care management,” said Bernard A. Birnbaum, MD, senior vice president and vice dean, chief of hospital operations at NYU Langone. “These front-end and back-end services are an important step in assuring our patient’s experience from beginning to end is a seamless one.”

I've documented examples of situations where EHR's and other IT components of clinical ERP systems (enterprise resource planning and management systems, a term that more accurately describes what exists in many hospitals now than the misleading, file cabinet-evoking term "EHR") contributed to or caused patient harm, such as at "Babies' deaths spotlight safety risks linked to computerized systems" - a computer error caused a central line placement x-ray to have gone unread, leading to death; "The Sweet death that wasn't very sweet" - a missing "difficult intubation" EHR flag led to a middle-aged man suffocating during an intubation attempt; and others.  An Australian researcher thoroughly studied the potential risks of an EHR meant specifically for ED's ("A Study of an Enterprise Health information System", PDF executive summary at this link).

The following passage in the NYT article also offers another clue:

... Two hours later, though, he had three [signs of sepsis]: his temperature had risen to 102, his pulse was 131 and his respiration rate was 22. But by the time those vital signs were recorded, at 9:26 p.m., they had no bearing on his treatment. In fact, the doctor had already decided that Rory was going home. Rory’s “ExitCare” instructions, signed by his father, were printed 12 minutes before those readings. 

Did those readings escape notice due to delayed charting (data entry), a common problem with EHRs in busy clinical environments?

The Institute of Medicine in its 2011 IOM report on health IT safety admitted harms are reported but the magnitude of harms is unknown due to multiple reporting impediments, as did the FDA in its 2010 internal memo on "H-IT Safety Issues" divulged by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund (see here and here).  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admits in its 2011 report on HIT usability that EHR usability is often poor and may lead to "use error" (error caused or promoted by poor design, as distinguished from simple user error, see here), magnitude of problem also unknown.

In a startling medical situation such as Rory Stanton's, where crucial labs seem to have evaporated causing or contributing to delayed treatment of a devastating and obvious illness, I believe EHR-related factors need to be examined and ruled out first.

For, quite simply, if the EHR caused or contributed to this tragic debacle, the public could be at risk.


-- SS

Additional thought:  could this be the "cybernetic Libby Zion case" I've written of?

-- SS

July 18, 2012 Addendum:

The Stauntons, who appeared on the NBC Today Show are seeking to create a “Rory’s Law” in New York to ensure that parents have full access to blood and lab tests done on their children as soon as results are available, and that a doctor will be present to assess the findings. Story here.

-- SS

FDA: Software Failures Responsible for 24% Of All Medical Device Recalls

At "FDA: Software Failures Responsible for 24% Of All Medical Device Recalls" via Kapersky Labs, a software security company, it is observed (emphases mine):

Software failures were behind 24 percent of all the medical device recalls in 2011, according to data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which said it is gearing up its labs to spend more time analyzing the quality and security of software-based medical instruments and equipment.

The FDA's Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories (OSEL) released the data in its 2011 Annual Report on June 15, amid reports of a compromise of a Web site used to distribute software updates for hospital respirators. The absence of solid architecture and "principled engineering practices" in software development affects a wide range of medical devices, with potentially life-threatening consequences, the Agency said. In response, FDA told Threatpost that it is developing tools to disassemble and test medical device software and locate security problems and weak design.

... "Manufacturers are responsible for identifying risks and hazards associated with medical device software (or) firmware, including risks related to security, and are responsible for putting appropriate mitigations in place to address patient safety," the agency said in an e-mail statement.

Health IT medical devices are the exception, of course.  A health IT virtual medical device is always of rock-solid architecture, always uses "principled engineering practices" in software development, and never has life-threatening consequences, of course.

Hence its special regulatory accommodations over non-virtual (tangible) medical devices.

-- SS

Why non-medical amateurs need to be kept away from authority roles in health IT ... lest their ignorance kill people

This example of a disaster waiting to happen, in the form of an error-promoting CPOE, is a poster example of why the net of litigation needs to be cast far wider than just clinicians when EHR-related errors result in injury or death:

CPOE selection screen for crucial blood thinner, coumadin (Warfarin).  Click to enlarge.

This order entry screen, from a production system (of a vendor whose stock price has recently taken a dive) shows the following.  In all fairness, I do note it's unclear if the vendor or the customer's configuration "experts" were responsible for this:

COUMADIN (warfarin) tablet 2 mg Oral daily once.
CAUTION: Potential look-Alike or Sound-Alike medication - this product is COUMADIN

with similar entries for other doses.

Below and not indented as is the selection, where the clinician is liable not to look very carefully, is the helpful interpretation:  "warfarin (COUMADIN) Tablet 2 milligram Oral daily for 1 Times."

"Oral daily for 1 Times?"

This drug needs to be given daily, generally for a very long term.  Its effect on blood clotting varies for numerous reasons in an individual over time, and needs to be checked frequently via a blood test (International Normalized Ratio or INR) to ensure the level of effect is neither too little (which could result in clots) or too much (which could result in serious or fatal bleeding).

In this case, the clinician wanted Coumadin to be administered "daily", as in "each and every day", but this was the default - daily, but only once.  "Oral daily for 1 Times."

Brilliant!  

Daily Coumadin (i.e., daily EVERY DAY), the clinician related, could be ordered only with "painstaking difficulty."

"X mg Oral daily once" is an unimaginably absurd and bizarre dosing selection to have on a CPOE system for such a critical drug - or any drug.  "Daily - once?"  

It should not, and does not, take a rocket scientist to realize this selection could quite easily lull the busy clinician into believing they have selected a dose to be continued every day - i.e., "once daily" - as per the standard usage of this drug.

To order this drug for (true) daily administration, a user must find a "repeat" icon and click the number of days the drug is to be administered.  The "repeat" icon is not readily apparent amidst screen clutter.

For other drugs, the order choices are "## mg oral daily" or similar. 

This semantic and human-computer interaction ineptitude is truly a disaster waiting to happen, especially with the medical/nursing/trainee staff turnaround that goes on in hospitals, and with the reality that clinicians are working at various hospitals with different CPOE/EHR systems.

Is this some sort scheme to prevent endless-administration Coumadin errors when the drug is actually deliberately discontinued, I ask?  If so, it's ill-conceived and dangerous at best.

By way of further information, this drug is a common anticoagulant whose use is often protective of injurious or fatal blood clots that can cause strokes or death in people with common conditions such as atrial fibrillation or prosthetic heart valves:

Warfarin is used to decrease the tendency for thrombosis or as secondary prophylaxis (prevention of further episodes) in those individuals that have already formed a blood clot (thrombus). Warfarin treatment can help prevent formation of future blood clots and help reduce the risk of embolism (migration of a thrombus to a spot where it blocks blood supply to a vital organ).

The type of anticoagulation (clot formation inhibition) for which warfarin is best suited, is that in areas of slowly-running blood, such as in veins and the pooled blood behind artificial and natural valves, and pooled in dysfunctional cardiac atria. Thus, common clinical indications for warfarin use are atrial fibrillation, the presence of artificial heart valves, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism (where the embolized clots first form in veins).

This is an example of the kinds of mission hostility (other equally bizarre examples presented here) that results when amateurs attempt to play doctor.

I add that this type of "errorgenicity" is inexcusable.  If patients suffer harm from this type of "feature", the net of liability needs to go further than just the clinician who was caught in a web of cybernetic clinical toxicity.

-- SS

5/1/2012 Addendum:

More EHR madness and another physician, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist, who also believes these should be considered medical devices.

From DrWes blog (excerpts, and emphases mine; see entire post at link below):

The Electronic Medical Record Should be Viewed as a Medical Device 
Apr. 30, 2012

This week I received a medical record from a large academic medical center somewhere in the United States (the details were are unimportant) that has one of these new pioneering EMR systems manufactured by $13 billion-dollar company, Cerner Corporation ... what I saw was one of the better examples of how EMRs are contributing to misinformation and confusion when health care is delivered.

I received a copy of an internal medicine consult that was performed on a patient at this outside hospital. I have extracted the "medications" portion of the internist's note exactly as it was displayed in the note below ... Needless to say, I was terrified at what the system had listed as the patient's medications:

In this example, we see multitudes of medications listed more than once. We see drugs of similar classes (antihistamines, beta blockers) on the same list. We see warfarin, one of our most dangerous drugs dispensed, without a dose included. We see what seems to be outpatient meds listed with inpatient meds, I'm not sure. Honestly, we really have no idea what medications are actually being taken from this list. And yet this list of medications is listed by the EMR as the patient's "Active Medications."

Med list (page 1).  Click to enlarge; see original post for part 2.


... What the heck have we created? 

Certainly, any capable physician who cares for patients would describe this medication list as worthless.

This "med list" is similar to the list I showed at part 4 of my multi-part series on the mission hostile user experience of most commercial EHR's, from yet another system, redrawn by me in redacting the vendor ID.  These lists reflect a mercantile computing person's view of a med list as an inventory of pills:

 Another "what the heck have we created?" EHR med list, on screen. Click to enlarge.

 Dr. Wes also asks:

... So how will we measure problems with EMRs? It seems industry representatives would rather not address these concerns. We should ask ourselves, is anyone thinking about this?

Yes, they are.  And we are spreading our thinking to one place where action might actually occur sooner rather than later:  to the Plaintiff's Bar.

-- SS

Forbes: Obamacare Billionaire: What One Entrepreneur's Rise Says About The Future Of Medicine

An article in Forbes appeared today (4/18/12) entitled "Obamacare Billionaire: What One Entrepreneur's Rise Says About The Future Of Medicine" by Matthew Herper.

The article is largely a hagiography of Cerner founder Neal Patterson:

North Kansas City is an unlikely place to launch a revolution in American health care. Yet here, amid the dilapidated grain elevators, fast food joints and vast green plains, the dream of using computers to keep you alive at a reasonable cost is battling onward. In a bunkerlike building built to withstand a direct hit by a category five tornado, 22,000 servers handle 150 million health care transactions a day, roughly one-third of the patient data for the entire U.S. Records of your blood pressure, cholesterol, lab test results, that gallbladder surgery last year—and how much you paid for it—may sit there right now. Armed guards stand watch.

This is a data center at the headquarters of Cerner, the world’s largest stand-alone maker of health IT systems—and company number 1,621 on FORBES’ Global 2000 list—where the blood-and-guts realities of medicine meet the ­sterile speed and exactitude of the computer revolution.

Omitted are some pertinent negative accounts, such as Cerner's role in the failed £12.7bn ($20bn U.S.) National Programme for IT in the NHS (NPfIT), as described here and here.

Patterson is quoted with the standard industry bellicose grandiosity and hysterics about computers "revolutionizing" (as opposed to facilitating) medicine:

... In 1999 a report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine gave Patterson hope that the rest of medicine was ready to follow in Mayo’s footsteps. Titled “To Err Is Human,” the report detailed how between 44,000 and 98,000 people die every year in hospitals from preventable mistakes, like getting the wrong medicine or the wrong dose of the right one. The ­report specifically prescribed better computer systems as a way to prevent these deadly mistakes. Patterson cites that study as the moment when health IT entered the mainstream. But it was still slow going, and that drove him nuts. His customers at that time were more worried about the Y2K bug than they were about revolutionizing health care.

I first heard him and other HIT CEO's uttering the "revolution" line at a Microsoft Healthcare Users Group meeting ca. 1997 and attended largely by IT technicians. I was probably the only Medical Informatics-trained professional in attendance, and perhaps the only physician there.

When I then asked those in the room how many had healthcare experience or had even read the Merck Manual, few hands went up. The CEO's could not then satisfactorily explain how medicine would be "revolutionized" by such a crowd. (One of those CEO's, of erstwhile HIT vendor HBOC, was later found to be seriously cooking the books after acquisition by McKesson. See "Former McKesson HBOC Chairman Convicted of Securities Fraud; Defrauded Investors Lost in Excess of $8 Billion" at FBI.gov. Some revolution...)

Unfortunately, most medical errors have little to do with documentation, either paper or electronic, as I wrote in Dec. 2010 at "Is Healthcare IT a Solution to the Wrong Problem?". The latter, however, has introduced many new errors modes and other social-technical problems, permitted massive security breaches (it's very hard to haul away 10,000 paper charts without being noticed) and opportunities for medical records evidence spoliation simply not possible with paper.

There are a few Ddulite-ish quotes from Eric Topol and David Bates in an article with a clear tone of exalting health IT.

I am quoted in the Forbes article in about the only comment critical of health IT, and the only comment concerning the ethics of human subjects experimentation conducted with this technology, as it exists in 2012:

... the Hippocratic oath says nothing about breaking eggs to make omelets. “We’re kind of headed in the wrong direction,” says Scot Silverstein, a health IT expert at Drexel University who believes that the current systems are too prone to randomly losing data [I had cited this study - ed.] and complicating doctors’ lives.

While the "breaking eggs to make omelets" metaphor was not mine, it reminded me that I just carried out my final earthly duty for my mother, injured in mid 2010 by a health IT-related error and deceased since June 2011. I filed her final IRS tax return yesterday, the due date.

I just hope my mother is enjoying her omelet in the Pearly Gates Diner. Scrambled eggs were about all she could eat well after the health IT accident.

As a result of that experience, my new business card (phone # redacted):

(Click to enlarge)

I no longer merely write about health IT risks. I find past involvement with attorneys early in my medical career, as Manager of Medical Programs and Medical Review Officer (drug testing officer) for one of the largest public transit authorities in the United States, quite helpful in this new role.

The "eggs that get broken", as in a well known old nursery rhyme from the early 1800's, cannot be reassembled. Those injured or killed in the unregulated, thoughtless, cavalier journey to some mystical medical cybernetic utopia deserve justice, and the eggheads responsible for their harms have earned the privilege of explaining themselves in the courtroom and being properly penalized where appropriate.

The future of medicine - if it is to not become a nightmare ignoring the lessons of history, repeating the mistakes of the past - belongs to those willing to take an ethical stand in defense of medicine's core values, and in defense of patients.

-- SS

An Expensive Healthcare Computing Mistake: $1.5 Million

At my June 2011 post "Babies' deaths spotlight safety risks linked to computerized systems" I reported on a case (case #2) of an infant death in part attributed to HIT (PACS) interference in otherwise simple care processes.

In "Allen-Blake vs. Abington Memorial Hospital", a critical x-ray of a PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter) line placement allegedly was never read due to misdating.

The Allen-Blake case was settled 2/29/12 for $1.5 million, according to the public docket count 78 (link):

2/29/2012

Order

OF 2/28/12 OTT, J PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF $1,500,000.00 APPROVED CC

That $1.5 million might have paid for a lot of other things, such as provision of better medical care through hiring/retention of more staff. The legal fees for defense incurred must also have been substantial, representing yet more precious healthcare capital down the proverbial drain.

Add cases like this to the "total cost of ownership" of health IT.

-- SS

Doctors and EHRs: Reframing the "Modernists v. Luddites" Canard to The Accurate "Ardent Technophiles vs. Pragmatists" Reality

One manner by which Healthcare's core values are usurped is via distortions and slander about physicians and other clinicians.

At "Health IT: Ddulites and Irrational Exuberance" and related posts (query link) I've described the phenomenon of the:

'Hyper-enthusiastic technophile who either deliberately ignores or is blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.'

I have called this personality type the "Ddulite", which is "Luddite" with the first four letter reversed. I have also pointed out that the two are not exact opposites, as the Luddites did not endanger anyone in trying to preserve their textile jobs, whereas the Ddulites in healthcare IT do endanger patients.

Yet, in the 20 years I've been professionally involved in health IT, I have frequently heard the refrain, usually from IT personnel and their management, that "Doctors resists EHRs because they are [backwards, technophobic, reactionary, dinosaurs, unable/unwilling to change, think they are Gods, ..... insert other slanderous/libelous comment].

I've heard this at Informatics meetings, at medical meetings, at commercial health IT meetings (e.g., Microsoft's Health Users Group, and at HIMSS), at government meetings (e.g., GS1 healthcare), and others.

The summary catchphrase I've heard and seen (even in the comments on this blog) is that doctors are "Luddites" while IT personnel are forward-thinking, know better than doctors, and are "Modernists."

This slander and libel of physicians and other clinicians needs to stop, and the entire issue needs to be reframed.

Doctors are pragmatists. When a new technology is rigorously shown to be beneficial to patients, and (perhaps more importantly) rigorously shown not to be of little benefit or worse, significantly harmful, doctors will embrace it. There are countless examples of this that I need not go into. They also have responsibilities, obligations, ethical considerations, liabilities, and other factors to consider in their decisions:

Pragmatism (Merriam-Webster):

: a practical approach to problems and affairs

The reality is not:

Luddite doctors <---- are in tension with ----> Modernist IT personnel

but is:

Pragmatist doctors <---- are in tension with ----> Ardent technophiles (Ddulites)

The technophiles' views may be due, on the one hand, to ignorance of medicine's true complexities and "innocent" overconfidence in technology. Unfortunately, it is a gargantuan leap of logic to go from "well, computers work in tracking FedEx packages and allowing me to withdraw money from my U.S. bank when I'm abroad, to "therefore with just a little work they will transform medicine."

Anyone familiar with even the most fundamental issues in Medical Informatics is aware of this. (This is the problem with "generic management" of healthcare IT - healthcare amateurs are unfamiliar with these issues.) Due to the complex, messy social, scientific, informational, ethical, cultural, emotional and other issues relatively unique to medicine, that leap from banking/widget tracking/mercantile computing --> medicine is probably more naive than the leap in logic, for instance, that would have a person believe since a hot air balloon can go high in the sky, it can take a person to the moon, as I observed here.

On the other hand the technophile's expressed views can also be a territorial ploy with full awareness of, and reckless disregard for, the consequences of technology's downsides.

(The CIO where I was a CMIO was well-known to be an aficionado of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" in his corporate politics - the polar opposite of a 'team player.' I might add that the doctors were fully expected to be 'team players'.)

Part of the struggle between the health IT industry and medical professionals has also been control of information flow about HIT.

This has been brought to the fore by my observation of the almost uniformly negative comments on today's HIT at the physician-only site Sermo.com. Sermo is populated, I might add, not by computerphobes but by physicians in a wide variety of specialties using computers for social networking. These comments will hopefully soon be published.

(They are not dissimilar to the many comments I reported in my Jan. 2010 post "An Honest Physician Survey on EHR's", although some might call the sponsor of the latter survey, AAPS, biased. I do not think the same can be said of Sermo.com, an open site for all physicians.)

I have mentioned on this blog the numerous impediments to flow of information about health IT's downsides, and these impediments are well described, for example, in the Joint Commission Sentinel Events Alert on Health IT (link), the FDA Internal Memorandum on H-IT Safety (link) and elsewhere (such as at link, link).

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies noted this in their late 2011 study on EHR safety:

... While some studies suggest improvements in patient safety can be made, others have found no effect. Instances of health IT–associated harm have been reported. However, little published evidence could be found quantifying the magnitude of the risk.

Several reasons health IT–related safety data are lacking include the absence of measures and a central repository (or linkages among decentralized repositories) to collect, analyze, and act on information related to safety of this technology. Another impediment to gathering safety data is contractual barriers (e.g., nondisclosure, confidentiality clauses) that can prevent users from sharing information about health IT–related adverse events. These barriers limit users’ abilities to share knowledge of risk-prone user interfaces, for instance through screenshots and descriptions of potentially unsafe processes. In addition, some vendors include language in their sales contracts and escape responsibility for errors or defects in their software (i.e., “hold harmless clauses”). The committee believes these types of contractual restrictions limit transparency, which significantly contributes to the gaps in knowledge of health IT–related patient safety risks. These barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety.

[IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care (PDF). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pg. S-2.]

The impediments effectively rise to the level of legalized censorship, as observed by Koppel and Kreda regarding gag and hold-harmless clauses in their JAMA article "Health Care Information Technology Vendors' Hold Harmless Clause: Implications for Patients and Clinicians", JAMA 2009;301(12):1276-1278. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.398.

Pragmatist physicians are quite rightly very wary of the technology as it now exists.

Ultimately, even when information on HIT risks or defects does surface, it is highly inappropriately labeled as "anecdotal" (see this post on anecdotes for why this behavior is inappropriate).

This "anecdotalist" phenomenon occurs right up to the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), as I described in my post "Making a Stat Less Significant: Common Sense on 'Side Effects' Lacking in Healthcare IT Sector" and elsewhere.

Therefore, another part of reframing the pragmatism vs. technophilia issue is for clinicians to put an end to censorship of HIT adverse experiences.

I have the following practical suggestions, used myself, to start to accomplish the latter goal.

These suggestions are in the interest of protecting public health and safety:

When a physician or other clinician observes health IT problems, defects, malfunctions, mission hostility (e.g., poor user interfaces), significant downtimes, lost data, erroneous data, misidentified data, and so forth ... and most certainly, patient 'close calls' or actual injuries ... they should (anonymously if necessary if in a hostile management setting):

• Inform their facility's senior management, if deemed safe and not likely to result in retaliation such as being slandered as a "disruptive physician" and/or or being subjected to sham peer review (link).

• Inform their personal and organizational insurance carriers, in writing. Insurance carriers do not enjoy paying out for preventable IT-related medical mistakes. They have begun to become aware of HIT risks. See, for example, the essay on Norcal Mutual Insurance Company's newsletter on HIT risks at this link. (Note - many medical malpractice insurance policies can be interpreted as requiring this reporting, observed occasional guest blogger Dr. Scott Monteith in a comment to me about this post.)

• Inform the Joint Commission (or similar national accreditor of hospital safety if not in the U.S.) via their complaint site at http://www.jointcommission.org/report_a_complaint.aspx . Also consider writing the JC senior officers (link to officer's list), whose awareness of HIT issues I can personally attest to via our correspondences.

• Inform the FDA (or similar healthcare regulator if not in the U.S.) via the FDA Medwatch Form 3500 reporting site at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/medwatch-online.htm. An example of such an adverse event report I filed myself (when the involved hospital refused) is at this link in the FDA MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database.

• Inform the State Medical Society and local Medical Society of your locale.
  

• Inform the appropriate Board of Health for your locale.

• If applicable (and it often is), inform the Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) of your state or region. Example: in Pennsylvania, the QIO is "Quality Insights of PA."

• Inform a personal attorney.

• Inform local, state and national representatives such as congressional representatives. Sen. Grassley of Iowa is aware of these issues, for example.
  

• As clinicians are often forced to use health IT, at their own risk even when "certified" (link), if a healthcare organization or HIT seller is sluggish or resistant in taking corrective actions, consider taking another risk (perhaps this is for the very daring or those near the end of their clinical career). Present your organization's management with a statement for them to sign to the effect of:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby acknowledge the concerns of [Dr. Jones] about care quality issues at [Mount St. Elsewhere Hospital] regarding EHR difficulties that were reported, namely [event A, event B, event C ... etc.]

We hereby indemnify [Dr. Jones] for malpractice liability regarding patient care errors that occur due to EHR issues beyond his/her control, but within the control of hospital management, including but not limited to: [system downtimes, lost orders, missing or erroneous data, etc.] that are known to pose risk to patients. We assume responsibility for any such malpractice.

With regard to health IT and its potential negative effects on care, Dr. Jones has provided us with the Joint Commission Sentinel Events Alert on Health IT at http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/SEA_42.PDF, the IOM report on HIT safety at http://www.modernhealthcare.com/Assets/pdf/CH76254118.PDF, and the FDA Internal Memorandum on H-IT Safety Issues at http://www.scribd.com/huffpostfund/d/33754943-Internal-FDA-Report-on-Adverse-Events-Involving-Health-Information-Technology.

CMO __________ (date, time)
CIO ___________ (date, time)
CMIO _________ (date, time)
General Counsel ___________ (date, time)
etc."

• If the hospital or organizational management refuses to sign such a waiver (and they likely will!), note the refusal, with date and time of refusal, and file away with your attorney. It could come in handy if EHR-related med mal does occur.

• As EHRs remain experimental, I note that indemnifications such as the above probably belong in medical staff contracts and bylaws when EHR use is coerced.
  

These measures can help "light a fire" under the decision makers, and "get the lead out" of efforts to improve this technology to the point where it is usable, efficacious and safe.

-- SS

ECRI Institute's Top Health Technology Hazards for 2012

In my Dec. 2010 post "ECRI: Healthcare IT In Top Ten Health Technology Threats to Patient Safety", I wrote that:

The ECRI Institute is an independent, unbiased, evidence-based healthcare research, information, and advice provider. They have been in operation for more than 40 years and are one of only a handful of organizations designated as both a Collaborating Center of the World Health Organization and an Evidence-Based Practice Center by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

... (from WSJ) For the fourth year running, the nonprofit ECRI Institute has put together a list of what it judges to be the top ten health technology hazards on which health-care facilities should focus their efforts.

... #5 Data loss, system incompatibilities and other health IT complications: Problems with electronic-health records and other health IT systems can lead to problems including lost data, the need for repeat testing and even patient injury or death.

From Medscape (account required), here is ECRI's #6 on the list of top technology threats for 2012:

Failing to Pay Sufficient Attention to New Device Connectivity

Medical technology and information technology (IT) can create risks. Hazards can arise from software problems, interoperability between systems, and poor network performance. Problems could create a domino effect, in which changes to one component of the system affect the operation of another.

Potential problems also include issues about wireless networks, cybersecurity, and software upgrades. "Hospitals must stay on top of routine updates," says Keller.

ECRI's recommendations: Make sure that hardware and software changes, security changes, and planned maintenance are approved and implemented in a controlled manner. Because IT help desks are usually the first point of contact for problems with health IT, provide the help desk team with education, training, and clear escalation procedures.

I would add "Failing to Pay Sufficient Attention to New Health IT Defects" to the list.

-- SS

The First State's Deadest (Deadliest?) Duck - Is This ED EHR Harming or Killing Anyone in NSW?

Nobody seems to be asking this simple question:

Is This ED EHR harming or killing anyone in NSW?

It cannot be "not compromising patient care" on first principles.

This type of practical and ethical question seems to never get asked, while what appears to be a tit-for-tat political kerfuffle goes on.

This is due in part to the baffling special accommodations afforded worldwide towards an extremely profitable but potentially extremely dangerous medical device, as well as due to the issues I described in my post about reckless technophilia and the accompanying disregard for rights of others here.

The Register

NSW government accused of dodgy software cover-up

FirstNet: the First State's deadest duck [or "deadliest duck?" - ed.]

By Richard Chirgwin

Posted in Business, 12th February 2012 22:00 GMT

The buggy FirstNet emergency department software has become the subject of a political argument in NSW. [What about a clinical and ethical argument? - ed.]

In one of those paradoxes of democracy, an opposition which, in government, was responsible for a now-despised implementation is now using the IT project as a stick to beat a government which was in opposition when the system was chosen.

Last week, the Sydney Morning Herald obtained a report into the system by Deloitte, under a freedom of information request. It says [1] the Deloitte report criticises FirstNet because it is:

- Is chronically under-funded;

- Produces inadequate records;

- Was unreliable in delivering messages, and did not provide alerts when messages failed to reach their destination; and

- Demanded excessive amounts of screen time from clinicians.

[But is it harming or killing anyone? Are those statistics being collected robustly and scientifically, or are self-serving statements by hospital executives that "care was never compromised, and nobody was injured" simply being taken at face value?

Further, the obvious increased risk of harm due to deficient IT currently in operation is being cavalierly ignored. This is alien to medicine, and could cause career termination or land people in jail in fields such as aviation if planes with known potentially-dangerous avionics software or other defects are kept flying - ed.]

In spite of its inadequacies, the Deloitte report seen by the SMH said the $AU100-plus million Cerner FirstNet system is too entrenched to abandon.

[I'm quite sure dead or injured patents would not appreciate that explanation - ed.]

Over the weekend, opposition health spokesperson Dr Andrew McDonald issued a statement accusing NSW health minister Jillian Skinner of covering up the report since August 2011.

However, other published studies into FirstNet, such as a detailed investigation by Sydney University e-health expert Professor Jon Patrick here [2], identify problems similar to those apparently cited by Deloitte. This study was undertaken to investigate issues with FirstNet outlined in November 2008 in a special commission of review, conducted by Peter Garling,

While noting that FirstNet represented an improvement on some aspects of its predecessor, Garling said the system attracted complaints that it was unfriendly to users, that the vendor and Health Department did not respond to complaints about the software, and that emergency department patients were being held in triage for excessive times, while clinical staff fought with the software.

[What sane patient would want such a system used in their care? - ed.]

Deloitte, on the other hand, was far less critical of FirstNet in 2008, when in a review [3] of triage benchmarks it managed to turn up a downtime issue, difficulty in uploading triage data to the Health Department, and the identification of the wrong doctor or nurse with a patient’s records.

Links

1. http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/hospital-computer-system-found-lacking-20120210-1so7j.html
2. http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146
3. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/resources/news/pdf/triage-bench-rev.pdf

Stunning.

On the argument that "the older system was worse", or the corollary argument that "paper harms and kills too", I suggest anyone who proffers that argument should realize VIOXX (refoxicib) helped far more people than it harmed in reducing pain while sparing them from GI side effects compared to "older" drugs.

Over 84 million people were prescribed rofecoxib at some time and only mere thousands, or tens of thousands, are presumed to have been injured or died.

Therefore, following their own illogic and ethical (dis)orientation, they should put all their family members on the drug - especially the elderly with cardiovascular disease - to benefit from pain relief and VIOXX's other miraculous effect, suppression of colonic polyps.

Surely those benefits outweigh the risks, and therefore it is ethical to do so, no?

Of course not.

Health IT, as I've written in many posts on this blog, has a magnitude of harms that is admittedly unknown. Health IT needs significant further study and improvement, certainly before national rollouts, and before decisions are made that particular systems are "too entrenched to abandon."

-- SS

Health IT Ddulites and Disregard for the Rights of Others

At my Feb. 8, 2012 post "Health IT: Ddulites and Irrational Exuberance " I defined a "Ddulite" (Luddite with the first four characters reversed) as the opposite of a Luddite, specifically:

Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

An astute reader points out that "opposite" may be an incomplete description, as the Luddites:

"were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest."

In other words, they were merely trying to save their jobs, and their actions did not cause life-threatening adverse events, such as death by freezing due to lack of warm garments.

Ddulites, on the other hand, ignore the downsides (patient harms) of health IT.

This is despite being already aware of, or informed of patient harms, even by reputable sources such as FDA (Internal FDA memo on H-IT risks), The Joint Commission (Sentinel Events Alert on health IT), the NHS (Examples of potential harm presented by health software - Annex A starting at p. 38), and the ECRI Institute (Top ten healthcare technology risks), to name just a few.

In fact, the hyper-enthusiastic health IT technophiles will go out of their way to incorrectly dismiss risk management-valuable case reports as "anecdotes" not worthy of consideration (see "Anecdotes and medicine" essay at this link).

They will also make unsubstantiated, often hysterical-sounding claims that health IT systems are necessary to, or simply will "transform" (into what, exactly, is usually left a mystery) or even "revolutionize" medicine (whatever that means).

This is despite the fact that many of this mindset are medical and/or Medical Informatics professionals who know better. They also ignore the draining waste of resources of failed or ineffectual IT, potentially depriving patients of the best healthcare possible.

Thus, as the reader pointed out, there could be an element of psychopathy or, at best, reckless disregard for rights of others in their thinking.

Reckless disregard: An act of proceeding to do something with a conscious awareness of danger, while ignoring any potential consequences of so doing. Reckless disregard, while not necessarily suggesting an intent to cause harm, is a harsher condition than ordinary negligence.

In my opinion, at a time of mass funding and pressure for rapid rollout of health IT in its present state of experimental development, this is not an observation that should be casually dismissed.

-- SS

London Ambulance Service: Would You Like Some Death And Mayhem With Your American Healthcare IT?

It seems American companies are good at producing really noisome commercial healthcare IT and foisting it on other countries, such as outlined at "Is clinical IT mayhem good for [the IT] business? UK CfH leader Richard Granger speaks out" and at "Cerner's Blitzkrieg on London: Where's the RAF?".

Yet another example: Software for the London Ambulance Service (LAS). From Wikipedia:

The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (LAS) is the largest "free at the point of contact" emergency ambulance service in the world. It responds to medical emergencies in Greater London, England, with its ambulances and other response vehicles and over 5,000 staff at its disposal.

Thanks to the U.S., the inhabitants of London are now the unconsenting subjects of an American IT beta-testing experiment that could cost them their lives.

From E-Health Insider.com:

LAS plans for IT go-live and failure
E-Health Insider.com

25 January 2012
Shanna Crispin

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust may terminate its contract with American supplier Northrop Grumman if a second attempt to go-live with a new dispatch system fails.

The trust initially attempted to launch the CommandPoint computer aided dispatch system in early June last year.

However, the technical switch-over to the new system had disastrous effects; with the system failing, staff having to use pen and paper, and then finally aborting the go-live by reverting to the old CTAK dispatch system.

Health IT can kill you ever before you ever reach the hospital...

An investigation into the incident has found the response to calls was delayed by more than three hours in some cases. One patient has lodged a legal claim for the delay he experienced, and the service has received four additional complaints.

A patient died in one of the calls affected. However, a separate investigation concluded that it could not be determined whether they would have survived if the response had been faster.

In other words, the patient very well might have survived without long delays for the ambulance to arrive.

Board papers drawn up for a board meeting next week say an investigation into the 8 June go-live attempt concluded that critical configuration issues were not identified during the testing phase.

It also found there were no operational procedures in place in the event of a critical system failure and that the product failed to deliver the system, technical and operational functionality expected.

At least in this case an absolution for the software itself was not made. One wonder if the vendor was "held harmless" contractually for this somber outcome.

The trust has since been working to further test the system, and is planning to go-live again on 28 March.

However, the trust’s director of information management and technology, Peter Suter, said if that go-live failed then “the contract with Northrop Grumman would need to be reconsidered.”

That will make two chances to get it right. In life-critical IT, I would only have given one.

A defective first-responder system is, on first principles, a public health menace. There is nothing to argue here, nothing to discuss on that point.

I note that disrupting the first-responder system in London would be the envy of terrorists, especially at the time of the London 2012 Olympic Games. However, who needs them when you have U.S. IT personnel who create a system as described?

The trust completed testing the software prior to Christmas, when it began training staff. Leading up the March go-live, the software will be subjected to four separate live runs, with the system staying live for progressively longer periods of time.

If the system fails to go live in March, the trust will abandon any further attempts to go-live before the Olympics in July.

That's still very tight timing to discover all the bugs in an IT system, in preparation for expected increased need during the Olympics...

Instead, it will keep operating the current CTAK system. However, the trust decided to procure a new system in 2007 because CTAK was deemed ‘unstable’ and in need of replacement.

An analysis of the CTAK system has now determined it is stable enough to handle the increased pressure during the Olympics, which is estimated to be an increase of 5.6% to 8.9% on top of the usual volume for this time of year.

One wonders if the "new system" was not needed at all, but was instead sold as vaporware by impressively attired, good-haired, shiny-toothed, fast-talking salespeople to hapless decision-makers with all sorts of promises of cybernetic and financial miracles.

(I've been in that game before from both sides - as a potential customer, and as part of a health IT sales team.)

One also wonders if, should the system be dismantled due to a second failure, the British taxpayers who paid for it will get their tax dollars refunded.

-- SS

An "Anecdotal Complaint" About An ICU EHR

An "anecdotal complaint" (see health IT-specific definition of 'anecdotal' at this link) from a practicing medical informaticist on an EMR system being rapidly rolled out - in a neonatal ICU, where a single slip is an ended life or lifelong crippling injury, and a multimillion dollar lawsuit, in the making:

... Having just exited a 4 week “Night call” rotation of q3 nights (16 hours in house) or weekend days (16-26 hour shift in house) call / attesting/checking and signaturing horror show, my first with our “New” {#$@#**%%$@!*&!!*} charting and attesting, etc system [symbolic praise in the original - ed.], I can 100% attest that everything [another colleague -ed.] said is exactly why I’m scared to death of all the UCs [unintended consequences - ed.] of this current effort, when adult outpatient systems hit quaternary NICUs of 50-60 patients, with untested crash [i.e., artificially rushed - ed.] rollouts.

Dozens and dozens>>>>thousands of examples of each and every comment [made by the other colleague on EHR problems - ed.], plus more is exactly what I’m personally suffering. The more is bilateral horrible carpel tunnel flare ups (7-10 clicks and scrolls to get an “overview” of anything) so right now both my hands are numb.

Plus, one to two minute logons, is a lifetime when a baby is suddenly crashing. This is a “coding horror” and a safety nightmare. I live in constant fear of somebody screwing up something important, and perhaps uncorrectable. We do our work in real-time, most of the time. Where is the FDA when you need them? [Scared of hot potatoes as I wrote here - ed.]

And we do still talk to each other – but even that doesn’t always “work out”, because we’ve lost our operational minds (collectively) – the shared-by-all compact, visually all data in one place, and temporally arranged – i.e., the shared nurse/doc/resp flowsheet [traditionally in an ICU, a long tabular scroll of paper for "at a glance" patient status overview - ed.] – where everybody was looking at the same page, which we no longer are – as the team is slowly discovering.

And which required no logon for sign-over bedside rounding (~40 minutes for 20-30 babies was the allotted time). The flowsheet needed only a 10-15 second glance to spot developing problems; “the computer” is effectively inaccessible in the time allotted for the twice daily sign-n-out “rounds”.

A traditional ICU flowsheet (click to enlarge)

One wonders how often this scenario - what I now call a "But ... patient safety is not compromised" scenario in the words of the typical hospital administrator - is being repeated around the country.

Of course, the problem just can't be the software (as in the post at this link). It's those dullard clinicians and hospital IT staff who have misconfigured the cybernetic miracle.

This is certainly an example where the customs, traditions and methodologies of business IT (e.g., implement on-time and on-budget, at all costs, according to a strict timeline with benchmarks) are highly ill-suited for medicine. That assumes that there are not kickbacks or other financial 'incentives' or COI's in play, of course.

In fact, it would not surprise me if the IT vendor, a major company, has insulated itself from liability through a "hold harmless " clause. If so, as I have written in 2009 in JAMA at this link in response to an article by Koppel and Kreda [1], and at my Drexel Univ. health IT difficulties site at this link, having signed such a clause would represent a breach of hospital governance's fiduciary responsibilities to their clinical employees and agents (in effect, laying the liability for EHR-induced malpractice solely on them), and to patients.

I advised this doctor to 'be safe', as I would not want to have to be expert witness for a plaintiff whose child they injured or killed due to EHR-mediated obstacles to accepted professional standards of healthcare.

Finally, if this doctor were to resign, perhaps a case could be made for constructive discharge.

-- SS

[1] Health Care Information Technology Vendors' “Hold Harmless” Clause Implications for Patients and Clinicians. Koppel R, Kreda B. JAMA. 2009;301(12):1276-1278. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.398

North Bristol Hits Appointment Problems: Another "Our Lousy IT Systems Screwed Up, But Patient Safety Was Never Compromised" Story

At my Dec. 2011 post "IT Malpractice? Yet Another "Glitch" Affecting Thousands of Patients. Of Course, As Always, Patient Care Was "Not Compromised" referencing prior posts, I wrote:

... At my Nov. 2011 post "Lifespan (Rhode Island): Yet another health IT glitch affecting thousands - that, of course, caused no patient harm that they know of - yet" I wrote:

There's been yet another health IT "glitch" that, of course, caused no patients to be harmed. See other "glitches" here, here, here and at other posts which can be found by searching this blog on the banal term 'glitch'.

Another "our clinical IT crapped out , BUT ... patient care/safety was never compromised" story just arose:

North Bristol hits appointment problems
E-Health Insider
11 January 2012
Rebecca Todd

Clinicians working at North Bristol NHS Trust have expressed concern about disruption to patient care, which they say is caused by appointment problems following the go-live of a new Cerner Millennium electronic patient record system.

I would have entitled the article "North Bristol hit by IT-created appointment problems."

Reported problems include patients being booked into non-existent clinic appointments or not being told about scheduled operations, resulting in some operations being cancelled.

No patient care compromise possible there. Who, after all, needs a timely operation? It frees up a lot of money for IT golf tournaments to let those of no value to society (i.e., the old, and those who will not admit computers in healthcare with deterministically revolutionize medicine because, well, they're magic) simply die due to delayed or cancelled surgery...

Ehealth Insider understands that some of the problems relate to the way the trust configured the EPR system; including setting up dummy clinics for which appointment letters were subsequently sent out.

It's never the software or computer's fault.

As a matter of fact, I have not seen any official response to the work of Dr. Jon Patrick at U. Sydney on the many software engineering flaws of another product of the same company. His work is entitled "A study of an Enterprise Health information System" and is at this link: http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146. Do they have Class Action lawsuits in Australia?

In a regional BBC news report, aired on Monday evening, anonymous hospital clinicians called the implementation a “complete shambles” and said it represented a “potential danger” to patients.

According to the BBC report, the problems meant patients were being booked for impossible appointment times, such as 12.05 am, and quoted correspondence saying staff and the system were both on the “verge of meltdown."

The clinician comments are anonymous since non-anonymous reporting would get the clinicians declared health IT apostates, and then excommunicated. Non-anonymous 'whistleblowers' could also fear being sued due to possible gag clauses - the kind of clause hospital executives sign in violation of their fiduciary responsibilities to their staff and to patients. (See my 2009 JAMA letter to the editor "Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards"at this link and the much-expanded essay on the same themes "Health Care Information Technology Vendors' Hold Harmless and Keep Defects Secret Clauses" at this link.)

Martin Bell, director of IM&T at the trust, confirmed to EHI that North Bristol had experienced some “unexpected problems” in the past few weeks with some of the outpatient appointments and theatre lists.

Bell stressed, however, that patient safety had not been compromised and that this continued to be the top priority.

There's that line again. Perhaps it's part of some hospital administrator JournoList-recommended catchphrase for describing how safety was not compromised during a major workflow disruption?

He said the problems were not down to the software itself, but due to “implementation and data migration difficulties in some clinics."

Right. Quite credible.

“Our information management and technology team, supported by our suppliers BT and Cerner, have been working very hard to sort out any initial issues as quickly as possible and we are already seeing improvements,” he said.

Congratulations are due. They are seeing "improvements" in dangerous clinical IT malfunctions that should never have to have been seen in the first place, if the statement is true.

“Many wards, our two minor injuries units and the Emergency Department, are successfully using the new system." The trust is one of the largest in the South of England, with more than 1,000 beds.

Just give them time.

EHI understands that as part of the Millennium implementation, dummy clinics were set up. Patients were then sent appointment letters for these clinics in error.

EHI also understands that some patients had also not turned up for scheduled operations because they had not been informed about the booking.

Bell apologised to patients who had been “inconvenienced during this transition period” and said staff had shown real dedication to continue to deliver patient care.

What if someone had been inconvenienced into their grave, or ends up there as a result of delays? On what wavelength will the apology be transmitted?

“We firmly believe that the new system, once fully implemented, will improve services for our patients and provide real value,” he said.

That seems to be the mantra, but delivery on such promises are rare. See "Pessimism, Computer Failure, and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector" as here, Public Administration Review 67;5:917-929, Sept/Oct. 2007, Shaun Goldfinch, University of Otago, New Zealand. The article is a cautionary article on IT that should be read by every healthcare executive documenting the widespread nature of IT difficulties and failure, the lack of attention to the issues responsible, and recommending much more critical attitudes towards IT.

A £69m contract for BT to deliver Cerner Millennium to three new, or ‘greenfield’ sites in the South of England was agreed in April 2010, under the auspices of the National Programme for IT in the NHS.

That would not be the failed National Programme for IT in the NHS, the NPfIT what went PfffT, would it?

North Bristol was the last of these three sites to go-live with the system in December last year.

It followed Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, which went live a week earlier, and Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust, which was the first to go-live in July.

Cerner said it was working closely with North Bristol and BT on the recent implementation of Millennium.

“In complex and large deployments, especially when migrating from two different systems, it is always anticipated that it would take time for the new system to bed-in,” it said in a statement.

The patients are given full informed consent on this issue, right? Right?

“Across much of the trust, the deployment has worked well. However, this is a major change management project and there have been some difficulties with outpatient appointments.

“Although this is not a problem with the software, Cerner is working in partnership with BT and trust staff to resolve any issue as quickly as possible.”

Link: BBC News

Right. Perhaps this software and claim needs testing - in a court of law.

The only thing missing is the word "glitch", though I am including that term in this posting's index, since I consider it another story in the ever-growing health IT "glitch" series.

-- SS

Addendum:

A reader sent me this comment:

How can anyone claim the problems at N. Bristol are unexpected. they are EXACTLY the same problems encountered in Taunton five years ago.

The Somerset Trust had sixteen cancelled go live dates and when Cerner 'Millennium" (note: they never defined which Millennium...) was switched on the whole hospital went into slow-motion.

Appointments could not be made at out-patient reception desks while patients waited and therefore had to be posted on. Twenty-four whole time equivalent clerks had to be employed to manage the back-up of appointment requests. So much for enhanced efficiency and cost savings.

The only possible response to this news is again to remind people of Einstein's famous definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing again and again and expecting a different result."

As for other Trusts, why no news of transformed performance by Cerner's systems at other Cerner implemented sites, Berkshire, Newcastle, Kingston, Oxford etc. The only 'good' news we get is that the system has been switched on.

If any of this expensive activity had really produced data, efficiency or cost gains, we would be drowning in Cerner press releases, the silence can only mean one thing, that their system is performing as poorly at other sites as it has in the South West.

Contrast this with the output and data produced openly by Birmingham University Hospital from its in-house created IT system.

Unfortunately one can only draw one serious conclusion about the whole Cerner/ NHS debacle - to paraphrase Mr. Clinton - "It's the (imho substandard) software, stupid!

This story needs serious investigation ... Recently US news items have started to discount the supposed efficiency gains for e-Health implementations and started to emphasize data capture and patient safety as the imperative for switch on. Unfortunately for Cerner supporters (and other vendors) the US Institute of Medicine's recent report stated unequivocally that there was (to everyone's apparent surprise) no quality evidence that e-Health improved patient safety.

I would contend no drug, therapeutic equipment or operation would or could be implemented in secondary care in the absence of critical and peer reviewed evidence of benefit [emphasis mine - ed.] that has characterized the rush to switch-on substandard IT solutions in English NHS hospitals.

I note that critical, peer-reviewed evidence, especially based on prospective randomized clinical trials as opposed to anecdotal, weak retrospective observational studies, have been deemed unnecessary in health IT.

Yet serious case reports of risk and injury from credible sources are deemed the true "anecdotes" and discounted. As I've written before, the science of medicine is nearly entirely lacking in the domain of health IT.

To put it in the words of James Le Fanu (channeling Sherlock Holmes) in his very apropos essay entitled "The Case of the Missing Data: The Dog That Didn't Bark", details on contrary strands of evidence that could reasonably have been expected to appear in evidential text are absent.

-- SS