Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

March 15 2012

Left and right and wrong

Sometimes I find a picture or a blog post that leaps off the screen at me and says "your readers must see this as it applies to health IT."

Normal Modes, a solid UX company based in Houston, sends me fairly good UX tips on a regular business. The last one featured this photo (used with permission):

Parking log picture from Normal Modes

Normal Modes points out, very clearly, that points of confusion like this are bad for users. They regard their job, as UX experts, to eliminate this kind of experience for users. Their analysis about how to do this is right on.

I have seen this kind of error in EHR systems and PHR systems on countless occasions. From an engineering perspective, it is really useful to take a moment and consider how something like this happens. First, you have two different "levels" of operation here. One is concerned with how traffic flows in the parking lot. The other is concerned with directions in the parking lot. For whatever reasons, these two "parking lot features" were implemented separately by people who had access to two different sets of resources. It stands to reason that the people who had access to white paint and stencils to make the sign on the right were the same people using stencils to mark the parking spots. It stands to reason that the people who had access to the professional sign-making system were somewhat removed from the people actually designing the parking lot.

In short, what you are seeing here is the artifact of a political and process disconnect. In health IT, there are constant political disconnects that cause similar issues. The EHR vendor is one political group, the insurance companies another, and the government is so large that it actually has multiple groups with different agendas. (HHS alone has so many sub groups that it's very difficult to completely follow what is happening.)

As enthusiastic as I am about the potential for meaningful use incentives, I think there will be lots of artifacts like this in EHRs that do not make much sense because the EHR vendor was pulled in a new direction by these incentives.

I have said in almost every talk about health IT I have ever given that the problems in health IT are political and not technical. I think it is my most tweeted quote. But sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

March 12 2012

Parts of healthcare are moving to the cloud

Healthcare providers are increasingly required to do more with less. Regulations, HIPAA, Meaningful Use, recovery audit contractor (RAC) audits and decreasing revenues are motivating providers to consider cloud computing as a solution to potentially help them cut costs, maintain quality, meet regulations, and increase productivity.

Some electronic health record (EHR) vendors are offering solutions as a cloud-based offering. This offers an approach intended to help providers better manage the IT investments that need to be made to support EHR implementations. And just as we've seen in other industries, there is an ongoing debate within healthcare as to the viability of cloud-based solutions given the care needed for patient privacy and sensitive personal information.

Providers' trust in the public cloud is still relatively weak, but increasing numbers are considering using private clouds. However, EHR applications hosted in the cloud do seem to be gaining traction.

One example of a cloud-based EHR offering is CareCloud. My fellow Radar blogger Andy Oram wrote about them two years ago at HIMSS, and they have made significant progress since then. CareCloud creates apps that help medical professionals run their businesses. Those apps include a community collaboration and communication platform to securely share patient information, a medical practice management system for billing and scheduling, and a revenue cycle management service. CareCloud also provides electronic health records. It's built with Ruby on Rails, a highly abstracted programming language quite well suited for rapid development of web applications. CareCloud was a co-winner of the IBM Global Entrepreneur Silicon Valley SmartCamp competition in 2010 (see video below).

I ran into the folks at CareCloud at the HIMSS 2012 conference and was impressed with both their use of open source and their strategy on leveraging the cloud in healthcare. Mike Cuesta, CareCloud's director of marketing and user experience, defined CareCloud's strategy as one of future survival.

"Being able to deliver the product across platforms is crucial," Cuesta said. "In healthcare there is a glaring lack of modern web apps. What we wanted to do was create an elegant and user-friendly application that is accessible anywhere. Companies have to be able to deliver a desktop-class experience that works across platforms."

CareCloud relies on open source. "I had my eyes opened to open source about eight years ago when I was looking for a project management system," said CareCloud CTO Tom Packert. "I discovered I could use something like dotproject, which is a GPL-licensed PHP-MySQL web-based project management application. It only took us a day to put it up on SUSE Linux and we didn't need SQL seat licenses. Open source allows you to scale horizontally. It's not as scary as a lot of people think it is."

Another EHR in the cloud is athenahealth. Athenahealth's co-founders Todd Park, the new U.S. chief technology officer (CTO), and Jonathan Bush, purchased a birthing practice in 1997. Soon, like most medical practices, they were buried in paper and spent most of their resources trying to get paid. Searching for innovative solutions led them to create their own software. Enlisting the help of Todd's younger brother Ed, a software developer, they created an EHR and financial revenue cycle system with a rules engine of dynamic billing rules data. I met Ed Park at HIMSS when I remarked that he looked a lot like Todd Park, and Jonathan introduced him to me as Todd's "younger, smarter, and much better looking brother." Apparently his programming skills are paying off ...

This year, athenahealth was named to the TR50, Technology Review's third annual list of the world's most innovative technology companies. At this year's HIMSS conference, athenahealth showed the company's plans for an iPhone app that will gives its EHR users access to certain features of its athenaClinicals cloud-based platform. An iPad version of the web-based athenahealth EHR app is also currently under development and set to launch in 2013.

Being based on cloud technology makes athenahealth much more nimble in launching mobile products in services. In the video below, I discuss with Jonathan Bush how athenahealth is using the cloud in their EHR.

(Thanks to Nate DeNiro and Open Affairs Television for their assistance with this video.)

Related:

February 24 2012

The Direct Project in action

The Direct ProjectThe Direct Project is all over HIMSS12, and really all over the country now. But it still carries controversy. When I found out that one of the Houston Health Information Exchange efforts had successfully launched a Direct Pilot, I simply had to do an interview. After all, here was software that I had contributed to as an open source project that was being deployed in my own backyard.

Jim Langabeer is the CEO of the newly renamed Greater Houston Healthconnect. I caught up with Jim at Starbucks and peppered him with questions about where Health Information Exchange (HIE) is going and what HIE looks like in Houston.

What's your background?

Jim Langabeer: I have been in healthcare for a long time in the Texas Medical Center.  I started as a hospital administrator at UTMB, where my first project was to work on an IT project team developing a Human Resources Management System. It was a collaborative effort between three hospitals.

I recently led a software company in the business intelligence space, which was later acquired by Oracle. After that, I decided I wanted to come back to Houston and continue to work in healthcare, so I returned to work for MD Anderson leading project and performance management. I eventually worked with the CIO Lynn Vogel to assess the business value of information systems. I most recently taught healthcare administration at the UT School of Public Health.

Throughout my healthcare career, I have been using data to drive healthcare decisions. My PhD is in decision sciences — quantitative modeling of data for decision-making — and my research grants have all involved analyzing large datasets to make healthcare decisions better. I have also worked between organizations in a collaborative manner. Health Information Exchange was an obvious next step for me.

Where are you in the process of creating a health information exchange?

Jim Langabeer: We are in the middle stage of operations. We are finalizing our architectural vision and choosing vendors. Most importantly, we have strong community support: 41% of the doctors in the region have committed to the exchange with letters of support as well as 61 of the 117 local hospitals.

We are meeting with all of the doctors we can. We are calling them and faxing them and visiting them, with one simple message: Health IT is coming and we want you to participate.


You mentioned an "architectural vision." Can you expand on that?

Jim Langabeer: We really cannot have just one architecture, so our architectural vision really means choosing several protocols and architectures to support the various needs of our stakeholders in parallel. We need to accommodate the entire range of transactions that our physicians and hospitals perform. The numbers say that 50% of Houston docs work in small practices with only one or two doctors, and they typically do not have electronic health records (EHR). Hooking these doctors into a central hub model does not make sense, so a different model where they can use browser/view capabilities and direct connections between providers must be part of our architectural vision.

Houston also has several large hospitals using EPIC or other mature EHR systems. That means we need a range of solutions. Some docs just want to be able to share records. Some are more sophisticated and want to do full EHR linking. Some doctors just want to be able to view data on the exchange using a web portal.

We want to accommodate all of these requests. That means we want a portfolio of products and a flexible overall architectural vision. Practically, that means we will be supporting Direct, IHE and also older Hl7 v2.

Some people are saying Direct is all we want. We do not want a solution that is way over what small providers can handle and then it never gets used. We are architecture- and vendor-neutral, which can be difficult because EPIC is so prevalent in Houston.

We have practices that are still on paper on one hand and very sophisticated hospitals on the other, and that is just in the central Houston area. Immediately outside of Houston, lots of rural hospitals that we plan to support have older EHR systems or home-grown systems. That means we have to work with just about every potential health IT situation and still provide value.

Recently, a JAMIA perspectives article criticized Direct as a threat to non-profit HIE efforts like yours. Do you feel that Direct is a threat?

Jim Langabeer: I do not see Direct as a threat. I hear that from lots of sources, that Direct is a distraction for health information exchanges. I disagree.

I see it as another offering. The market is obviously responding to Direct. The price point on the software for Direct is definitely a benefit to smaller docs. We see it as a parallel path.

We do not see Surescripts (which is offering Direct email addresses to doctors with the AAFP) as a threat because we see them as a collaborator. We want them, and similar companies, to be part of our network. We are also having conversations with insurance companies and others who are not typically involved in health information exchanges because we are looking for partners.

The problem in healthcare is that it has always been very fragmented; no single solution gets much penetration. So, as we consider different protocols, we have to go with what people are asking for and what is already being adopted. We have to get to a point were these technologies have a very high penetration rate.

How are you narrowing your health IT vendors?

Jim Langabeer: What we want is a vendor that is going to be with us long term, sharing our risks and making sure we are successful. The sustainability of the vendor is connected to the sustainability of our exchange, so that is really important. Our 20-county region represents 6.4 million people, and that population is larger than most states that are pursing exchanges. Not many vendors have experience on that scale.

How important is the software licensing? Do open source vendors have an advantage?

Jim Langabeer: I am not sure they have an advantage. Of course, open source is ideal, but often proprietary vendors are ahead in terms of features. A mix in the long-term solution would be really cool.

How will you work with outside EHR vendors?


Jim Langabeer: We are trying to engage at the CIO level. We're trying to understand what solutions standards and data they want to share. There is a core set of things everyone needs to do. Beyond that core, some people want to go with SOA; other people really want IHE or Direct. There is not much data sharing between hospitals. That is why industry standards are so important to us. It helps us shorten those discussions and make a more narrow offering. So, we are focusing on protocols as a means to work with the various EHR vendors.

One CIO told us, "We do not want to exchange data at all; we just want our doctors to be able to open a browser and see your data." We may not like to hear that, but that is the reality for many organizations in Houston.

The other thing that is unique about Houston is that you are not going to see the state of Texas taking a dictatorial role. In other large exchanges, you often have a state-level government dictating HIE. In that environment, it is easier to insist on specific standards. That is not our situation in Houston, so we have to meet our constituents where they are.

I have been frustrated that the Direct Project reference implementations only come in Java and .NET at this point. I would like to see implementations in PHP, Python, Ruby, etc. — languages that are more popular with entrepreneurs. Are you concerned with issues like that?

Jim Langabeer: We're definitely thinking about things like that. We do not want to be merely business-to-business — we want to offer services to consumers. So, we care about the technology becoming accessible to consumers, which means getting to iPhones. We want to be able to offer consumers tools that will bring them value, so we certainly care about issues like implementation language because we see those issues as connected.

If I let you dictate which Houston clinic or hospital I go to, when can I go see a doctor and get my patient data sent to my HealthVault or other PHR Direct account?

Jim Langabeer: I would hope that the technology would be ready by the end of year. What I envision is a core group of early adopters. We already have several hospitals and some physician groups that are interested in taking that role.

This interview was edited and condensed.

Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

February 23 2012

Direct Project will be required in the next version of Meaningful Use

The Direct ProjectThe Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) announced that the Direct Project would be required in stage 2 of Meaningful Use.

As usual the outside world knew almost instantly because of Twitter. Nearly simultaneous posts from @ahier (Brain Ahier) and @techydoc (Steven Waldren MD). More information followed shortly after from @amalec Arien Malec a former leader for the Direct Project.


There are some other important announcements ahead of the official release, such as the end of support for CCD, but this requirement element has the deepest implications. This is jaw-dropping news! Meaningful Use is the standard by which all doctors and hospitals receive money for Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems from the federal government. In fact, the term "Electronic Health Record" is really just a synonym for "meaningful use software" (at least in the U.S. market). Meaningful Use is at the heart of what health IT will look like in the United States over the coming decades.

The Direct Project has a simple but ambitious goal: to replace the fax machine as the point-to-point communications tool for healthcare. That goal depends on adoption and nothing spurs adoption like a mandate. Every Health Information Exchange (HIE) in the country is going to be retooling as the result of this news. Some of them will be totally changing directions.



This mandate will make the Direct Project into the first Health Internet platform. Every doctor in the country will eventually use this technology to communicate. Given the way that healthcare is financed in the U.S., it is reasonable to say that doctors will either have a Direct email address to communicate with other doctors and their patients in a few years, or they will probably retire from the practice of medicine.

It was this potential, to be the first reliable communications platform for healthcare information, that has caused me to invest so heavily in this project. This is why I contributed so much time to the Direct Project Security and Trust Working Group when the Direct Protocol was just forming. This is an Open Source project that can still use your help.



The Direct Project is extensively covered in "Meaningful Use and Beyond" (chapter 11 is on interoperability). I wrote about the advantages of the Direct Project architecture. I helped arrange talks about about Direct at OSCON in 2010, and in 2011, I gave an OSCON keynote about the Health Internet , which featured Direct. I wrote a commentary for the Journal of Participatory Medicine, about how accuracy is more important than privacy for healthcare records and how to use the Direct Project to achieve that accuracy. I pointed out that the last significant impact from Google Health would be to make Direct more important. I am certainly not the only person at O'Reilly who has recognized the significance of the Direct Project, but I am one of the most vocal and consistent advocates of the Direct Project technology approach. So you can see why I think this a big announcement.

Of course, we will not know for sure exactly what has been mandated by the new revisions of Meaningful Use, but it is apparent that this is a huge victory for those of us who have really invested in this effort. My hat is off to Sean Nolan and Umesh Madan from Microsoft, to Brian Behlendorf and Arien Malec, who were both at at ONC during the birth of Direct, to Dr. David Kibbe, Brett Peterson and to John Moehrke. There are countless others who have contributed to the Direct Project, but these few are the ones who had to tolerate contributing with me, which I can assure you, is above and beyond the call of duty.

Obviously, we will be updating "Meaningful Use and Beyond" to include this new requirement as well as the other changes to the next version of Meaningful Use (which apparently will no longer be called "stage 2"). Most of the book will not change however, since it focuses on covering what you need to know in order to understand the requirements at all. While the requirements will be more stringent as time goes on, the core health IT concepts that are needed to understand them will not change that much. However, I recommend that you get a digital copy of the book directly through O'Reilly, because doing so entitles you to future versions of the book for free. You can get today's version and know we will update your digital edition with the arrival of subsequent versions of the Meaningful Use standard.



I wonder what other changes will be in store in the new requirements? ONC keeps promising to release the new rule "tomorrow." Once the new rules emerge, they will be devoured instantly, and you can expect to read more about the new standards here. The new rule will be subject to a 60-day commentary period. It will be interesting to see if the most dramatic aspects of the rule will survive this commentary. Supporters of CCR will be deeply upset and there are many entrenched EHR players who would rather not support Direct. Time will tell if this is truly a mandate, or merely a strong suggestion.


Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

January 09 2012

Are EHRs safe?

Are electronic health records (EHR) safe?

No.

EHRs are not safe. They are fundamentally and irreparably dangerous even during normal use.

EHRs will kill people.

Lots of people.

EHRs have been killing people for years. They will kill even more people as they become more popular and available.

Take a deep breath and get comfortable with the notion that healthcare computer systems can and will kill people. If it's any consolation, none of the people that EHRs will kill would have gotten out alive. As it turns out, everyone gets to have a "cause of death" in the end.

As one of the new "health IT" writers at O'Reilly, I feel that I should be totally up front about this: I am promoting, installing, supporting and programming software that will kill people. Frequently.

Happily, the software that I promote, install, support, and program will also save lives. On balance, it will save thousands of people for each life it takes.

The healthcare system is already a dangerous place. The classic evidence for this was presented in the report "To Err is Human" in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). It showed results that the healthcare system was killing about as many people as the highway system each year. EHR systems could do a huge amount of good for the healthcare system as a whole while still being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year.

In fact, let's replace "EHRs" with "cars."

Are cars safe?

No.

Cars are not safe. They are fundamentally and irreparably dangerous even during normal use.

Cars will kill people.

Lots of people.

Cars have been killing people for years. They will kill even more people as they become more popular and available.

All of a sudden, the same kind of dramatic talk sounds pretty tame. We also know that cars, on balance, save more lives than they kill (just the ambulances alone ...).

EHRs are a fundamental technology, one that will become a pervasive part of our own healthcare, and therefore, our lives. Saying that they will "kill people" is both true and irrelevant. It's like saying "hospitals kill people" or "dogs kill people" or "doctors kill people." So what? On balance, we need hospitals, dogs, doctors, cars, and you guessed it ... EHRs.

Of course, we need to do everything we can to make EHRs safer. EHR safety will improve with time, just like cars. Safety in the auto industry is a pretty good analogy for the health IT industry. You can look forward to further posts that extend, explain and abuse the analogy.

But I hope that this post will give you a little insight into the recent results from the IOM about the safety of health it systems, (there's an excellent overview here) and why industry defenders like H. Stephen Lieber, the president of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), reacted with sputtering defenses of health IT. (Another excellent summary is here.)

Lieber's defense is laudable, but I think it's a little strained. I really wish the health IT industry would stop trying to put lipstick on this pig. The new IOM report aimed at health IT is just as pointed as "To Err is Human." Let's not imagine that we can dodge this bullet.

We will be killing people accidentally with healthcare software over the next few years. That really sucks, but it's worth it. So, let's all take a deep breath, and focus on the problem. Hysterics don't help. What helps is openness, honesty, transparency and a willingness to admit it when bad mistakes happen. Pointing fingers and getting hysterical will really not help here. Those same activities have already slowed down the privacy discussion.

Are EHRs safe? Not in the least. But they're safer than doing nothing. They are safer than paper. You can tweet me on that.

Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

October 21 2011

Why geeks should care about meaningful use and ACOs

Healthcare reform pairs two basic concepts:

  • Change incentives: lower costs by paying less for "better" care not "more" care
  • Use software to measure whether you are getting "better" care

These issues are deeply connected and mostly worthless independently. This is why all geeks should really care about meaningful use, which is the new regulatory framework from the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (or ONC for short) that determines just how doctors will get paid for using electronic health records (EHR).

The clinical people in this country tend to focus on meaningful use incentives as "how do I get paid to install an EHR" rather than seeing it as deeply connected to the whole process of healthcare reform. But any geek can quickly see the bottom line: all of the other healthcare reform efforts are pointless unless we can get the measurement issue right.

Health economists can and do go on and on about whether the "individual mandate" will be effective. Constitutional law experts fret about whether the U.S. federal government should be able to force people to purchase insurance. We are all concerned about issues like the coverage of pre-existing conditions. Hell, I am certainly in the 99%.

Make no mistake, the core problem with healthcare in the United States is that costs are out of control. Under the current system, absent better health information technology, any kind of major system change — like the individual mandate — will simply assure that you get lots more of what you already have. That would be a disaster.

The only way to make healthcare in the U.S. both better and cheaper is to use health information technology. I recently was able to have a whiteboard session with Dr. Farzad Mostashari, and he drew out his view of the whole reform system. It was nice to be able to have such an intimate explanation, but I can think of nothing that he told me that he does not also say in his frequent public appearances (he was awesome at Health 2.0). He talked about this issue as one of "levers." His point was simple: pulling one lever alone does nothing.

One of the levers on his whiteboard was something called Accountable Care Organizations (ACO), which is term that any technologist who cares about government or healthcare needs to get familiar with. The ACO is a new twist on Capitation. The idea is simple: lets pay doctors for keeping people healthy rather than paying them to treat the sick. But capitation has a bad name in the U.S. because of its abuse by Health Management Organizations (HMOs).

The only differences between an HMO and an ACO are the quality of data systems they will be required to use and the level of detail they will be required to report as a result. You might think of an ACO as the organizational vehicle that healthcare reform will move forward in.

With all of that context, technologists can now intelligently read news regarding the changes in meaningful use requirements for ACOs. For those not wishing to delve further, the news is pretty basic: the rules for ACOs around meaningful use have been made a little easier in the final ACO rule.

The final rule gives more time for ACOs to achieve meaningful use in some cases, and that is generally a good thing. Meaningful use seems simple to technologists, but the real-world rural medical practices and small offices that will need to implement it have very inconsistent computer skills. One of the most important issues for meaningful use is to go at the right speed — and for the most part, that should be as fast as possible ... but no faster. Don Berwick (a legend in patient safety circles) explained that the final ACO rule relaxed the meaningful use requirements in response to a "mountain" of comments.

Generally, this is another example of consistently reasonable policy decisions coming from the meaningful use team at ONC. I grew up Republican/Libertarian/Texan and so it seems pretty strange to admit this, but the meaningful use regulations are good government. It is a core component (the geek component) of healthcare reform, and that healthcare reform will be painful. There is just no way around it.

As geeks, we can all call our local congressional representatives and say "this meaningful use thing seems to be going OK."

I'm pretty sure that's not a call they get a lot.

Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

October 20 2011

OSEHRA's first challenge: VistA version control

As I mentioned previously, the VA is making a formal open-source project and governing body for its VistA electronic health record (EHR) system. VistA was developed internally by the VA in a collaborative, open-source fashion, but it has essentially been open source within the VA, with no attention or collaboration with VistA users outside the VA.

There are several challenges that the Open Source Electronic Health Record Agent (OSEHRA) faces, and many of them sit squarely between technical and political issues.

The first question any open-source project must answer is: "Who can commit?" That's almost immediately followed by: "How do we decide who can commit?" But to manage VistA OSEHRA, we must first ask: "How do we commit?" There is no version control system that currently works with VA VistA.

VistA is famously resistant to being managed via version control systems. The reason? Over the course of development of VistA, which predates most modern version control systems, updating was handled by a tool developed specifically for VistA. That system is called KIDS.

The problem with KIDS, and managing version control generally in VistA, is that MUMPS, the language/database that VistA is programmed in, happily lends itself to "source code in the database." MUMPS is a merged database and programming language, and is an intellectual predecessor to modern NoSQL databases. MUMPS is a dominant force in healthcare, and despite comments to the contrary by its numerous critics, it has features that are ideal for healthcare. (This is another excellent place to shamelessly plug "Meaningful Use and Beyond," which discusses the comprehensive use of MUMPS in healthcare.)

To understand the issue with MUMPS and VistA you must:

  • Imagine developing an application using Node.js and MongoDB.
  • Imagine that Node.js and MongoDB are one project.
  • Imagine doing that for 30 years.

Given that in MUMPS the programming language is the database and the database is the programming language, certain problematic historical decisions were made. First, MUMPS' executable code is sometimes included inside the MUMPS database. That makes it pretty impossible to map out what the source code is doing separately from what the database is doing.

Overlay the fact that the KIDS update system (think YUM for VistA) would update both the source code "on disk" at the same time as updating the system "in memory." KIDS is like source code patches and system updates all rolled together.

OSEHRA must find a way to reconcile the KIDS process with a version control system. Without that, there is no way to reconcile a VistA development environment with a given production environment.

Without a modern distributed version control system (DVCS) powering VistA development, OSEHRA will be unable to run VistA development as a meritocracy. The technology enables multiple parties to participate as "core VistA developers."

Without a DVCS, the VA had to rely on a process for software based on "classes" of software. Class I software was released by the national VA office and was the core of the EHR installed at each VA hospital. Class II was software that was used regionally or at several hospitals. Class III software was software that was used locally at one VA hospital.

VistA programmers at each hospital were required to reconcile Class I patches from the national office (which came as KIDS patches) with local instances that included Class III software. Each KIDS patch had the potential for requiring a local hospital programming effort in order to reconcile with local software changes.

With a DVCS, multiple parties could develop "core" changes to VistA, freeing the VA from the top-down VistA development management that prevents outsiders from contributing back. Remember, one of the largest "outsiders" to the VA is the Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS), which is a VistA fork extensively developed and improved by another federal agency, the Indian Health Service (IHS).

The KIDS- and Class-based software deployment model essentially made interagency cooperation between IHS and the VA impossible. There was no way for another "master" copy of the EHR to exist in cooperation.

To solve this problem, OSEHRA is betting heavily on Git and creating a project called SKIDS. From that project's page:

This project will design and implement "Source KIDS" in order to represent VistA software in a source tree suitable for use with modern version control tools. Once deployed, SKIDS will make it possible to exchange source code and globals between VistA instances and Git repositories.

"Globals" in MUMPS means "the database," which is different than most programming languages. With that explained, you can see that this project is intended to address exactly the problem that I have just outlined.

There is no guarantee that OSEHRA will be successful. Not everyone in the VA bureaucracy is keen on the notion of truly open-source VistA. Those of us in the VistA community outside the VA are apprehensive. We want to believe that OSEHRA is for real and will actually become the true seat of VistA development that is friendly to outsiders like us and run as a transparent open-source project. The single most important thing that OSEHRA can do to ensure the success of a truly open-source VistA process is to tackle and handle these challenges well.

The fact that OSEHRA is addressing these problems head-on is a very good sign. The emphasis on Git has been obvious from early days. The new SKIDS project indicates that there is a distinct lack of pointy-haired bosses at OSEHRA. They might be biting off more than they can chew, but there is no confusion about identifying the problems that need solving.

There are other major challenges facing OSEHRA, but almost all of them are manageable if a collaborative development process is created that lets the best ideas about VistA bubble to the top. Most open-source projects simply take for granted the transparency afforded by a version control system, and almost all theory about how to manage a project well are based on the assumption of that transparency. So, this problem really lives "underneath" all of the other potential issues that OSHERA will face. If it can get this one right, or mostly right — or even "leastly" wrong — it will be a long way toward solving all of the other issues.

Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

October 19 2011

OSEHRA and the future of VA VistA

Apache Web Server, GNU/Linux Operating System, MySQL Database, Mozilla's Firefox Browser.

All pillars among the open-source community.

Each of these deserves its imminent position as a venerated project. Each has changed the world, and not a little. Moreover, they are the projects that spring to mind when we seek to justify the brilliance of the open-source licensing and development models.

But if this is intended to be a list of the highest-impact and most significant open-source projects, there is a project missing from this list.

VA VistA.

VA VistA is arguably the best electronic health record (EHR) in existence. It was developed over the course of several decades by federal employees in a collaborative, open-source fashion. Because it was developed by the U.S. government, it is available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the public domain. VistaA has served as the basis for several open-source and proprietary products.

Anyone with expertise in health IT knows about VistA, but few in the open-source community are aware of the project. This is tragic, because it really is one of the most important examples of an open-source system anywhere, for any reason. Why? Because Veterans Affairs (VA) has been able to use VistA to deliver a system of high-quality healthcare.

That word "system" is important. You will get excellent healthcare at Mayo, Harvard, Cleveland Clinic, etc., but it is difficult to make a "system" that consistently delivers excellent healthcare. The VA has done that, and VistA is basically the health IT "operating system" that has made it possible. (I wrote and maintain the WorldVistA "What is VistA Really?" page if you would like further context on the system.)

Sounds amazing right? And it is. But there's a problem: VistA has been rotting. Development has largely stagnated in the last two decades.

This stagnation is mostly due to VistA's institutionalization at the VA. VistA was not developed as an "approved" project. It was developed as a kind of rebellion against the backward software that was available at the time and a rebellion against the backward ideas held by VA bureaucracy. This rebellion was called the "underground railroad" among VistA insiders.

Once the VA approved the project and started managing the software development using top-down practices, everything slowed to a crawl. Imagine the bazaar being "blessed" and moved into the cathedral.

Several outsiders in open-source health IT have been advocating for the VA to return VistA to its open-source roots. I wrote a proposal to make VistA truly open source, and Rick Marshal blogs about this almost exclusively.

Recently, a new, enlightened leadership at the VA has decided that taking the open-source route is precisely what VA VistA needs. The result is the Open Source Electronic Health Record Agent, or OSEHRA.

OSEHRA faces tremendous challenges. VistA uses a technical stack that makes typical project management very difficult, and there are several thorny political issues involved. But if this transition is successful, it could truly be a revolution for health IT.

If you care about healthcare software and open source, participating in OSEHRA is worth your while.

Meaningful Use and Beyond: A Guide for IT Staff in Health Care — Meaningful Use underlies a major federal incentives program for medical offices and hospitals that pays doctors and clinicians to move to electronic health records (EHR). This book is a rosetta stone for the IT implementer who wants to help organizations harness EHR systems.

Related:

July 29 2011

Open source alchemy: Health care and Alembic at OSCON

At last year's OSCON I spoke with David Riley, Brian Behlendorf and Arien Malec about how open source solutions can help improve our health care system. A lot has happened in the past year, both with the Direct Project and the efforts to build a Nationwide Health Information Network.

This year David Riley gave an update on Aurion (developed from the CONNECT codebase), which is a major project of the Alembic Foundation. Alembic was founded by David, formerly the CONNECT initiative lead for the Federal Health Architecture (FHA), and Brian Behlendorf, the chief technology officer for theWorld Economic Forum. David's presentation focused on the Aurion Project's relationship to CONNECT, and it gave us a sense of where the Project is heading in the future. I spoke with Brian and David during OSCON, and in this first clip they discuss the mission and goals of the Alembic Foundation:

In this next clip they speak about how their efforts are related to the broader work on health information exchange, and specifically how Aurion will support the Direct Project:

In this final clip, brought on by an earlier question from Fred Trotter, they explore possibilities for Alembic to work on open source electronic health records like the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA):

Strata Conference New York 2011, being held Sept. 22-23, covers the latest and best tools and technologies for data science -- from gathering, cleaning, analyzing, and storing data to communicating data intelligence effectively.

Save 20% on registration with the code STN11RAD



Related:



July 06 2011

OSCon preview: Shahid N. Shah on medical devices and open source

I talked recently with Shahid N. Shah, who is speaking in the health care track at the O'Reilly Open Source convention later this month about The Implications of Open Source Technologies in Safety-critical Medical Device Platforms. Shahid and I discussed:

Podcast (MP3)

  • Why the data generated from medical devices is particularly reliable patient-related information, and its value for improving treatment

  • The value of connecting these devices to electronic health records, and the kinds of research this enables

  • The role of open source software in making it easier for device manufacturers to add connectivity--and to get it approved by the FDA

  • How it's time for regulators such as the Department of Health and Human Services to take a look at how devices can contribute to better health care

Another OSCon health-care-related posting is my video interview about the Indivo X personal health record with Daniel Haas.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.