Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Continuity of Care Record
Advertisements

2014 Edition Test Scenarios January Contents Purpose of Test Scenarios3 Completed Work4 Current Work5 Using a Narrative Test Case Scenario to Develop.
Newborn Screening Discharge Summary Brief Profile Proposal for 2009/10 presented to the IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Alan E Zuckerman MD FAAP September.
Proposed Meaningful Use Criteria for Stage 2 and 3 John D. Halamka.
July 3, 2015 New HIE Capabilities Enable Breakthroughs In Connected And Coordinated Care Delivery. January 8, 2015 Charissa Fotinos.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs HIT Policy Committee June 5, 2013.
New Opportunity for Network Value: Using Health IT to Improve Transitions of Care 600 East Superior Street, Suite 404 I Duluth, MN I Ph
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Jason McNamara Technical Director for Health IT.
Discharge Documentation Audit Jure Baloh, Julie Brandt, PhD, Douglas Wakefield, PhD, Becky Morton, RHIA, Kay Davis, PhD, RN, Robert Hodge, MD Center for.
© 2015 Health Level Seven ® International. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven International.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Robert Anthony HIT Policy Committee March 7, 2012.
HIT Standards Committee S&I and CDA – Update and Discussion November 16 th, 2011 Doug Fridsma, MD, PhD.
Larry Wolf, chair Marc Probst, co-chair Certification / Adoption Workgroup March 6, 2014.
MATT REID JULY 28, 2014 CCDA Usability and Interoperability.
School of Health Sciences Week 8! AHIMA Practice Briefs Healthcare Delivery & Information Management HI 125 Instructor: Alisa Hayes, MSA, RHIA, CCRC.
Maine Health Information Technology (HIT)Status Report for MaineCare and Office of the State Coordinator for HIT Project Team: Andy Coburn Cathy McGuire.
CONFERENCE EVALUATION REPORTING.  The written report is often the “main” output of your evaluation so it needs time and attention  Consider other alternatives.
Patient View Visit Summary profile proposal George Cole, Allscripts Emma Jones, Allscripts.
© 2015 Health Level Seven ® International. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven International.
© 2015 Health Level Seven ® International. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven International.
2014 Edition Test Scenarios Development Overview Presenter: Scott Purnell-Saunders, ONC November 12, 2013 DRAFT.
Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results (all responses) Final Analysis February 19, 2016 Robert Dieterle Holly Miller, MD Russel Leftwich, MD.
Stage 2 Beyond the First Year on MU in 2014 Presenters: Randy Marsden – Chief Client Officer Leo Vilenskiy – Senior Customer Support Representative Rebecca.
Team Members: Mark Shen, M.D. Don Williams, M.D.
Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use: Objective #8 – Patient Electronic Access Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment Program July 19, 2016 Today’s presenter:
The Value of Performance Benchmarking
Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results (all responses)
MedCentral Health System
Epocrates Online physician user survey
Documentation and Medical Records
DATA COLLECTION METHODS IN NURSING RESEARCH
1 Accredited Southern Group. 2 Accredited Southern Group Quality of Life Group 6: 5 years Strategic Objectives Internal Process Objectives:  Excellence.
Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results (all responses)
Tutorial DynaMed Plus support.ebsco.com.
Patient Centered Medical Home
Tutorial DynaMed Plus support.ebsco.com.
ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY REPORTING SYSTEM AviDocs™ - EP
Clinical Data Exchange – Report Card
Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use: Objective #2 – Clinical Decision Support Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment Program July 7, 2016 Today’s presenter:
Relevant and Pertinent Findings and Recommendations
An Oncology Patient’s Journey from Treatment to Survivorship By Way of a Customized EMR 1/29/16.
Does the Beer’s Criteria Influence Prescribing for Geriatric Patients?
Information Transfer – ROP Compliance
Improve the Safety of Using Medications
WVHIN Query Portal Training June 2017
David Huckleberry Roosevelt Room April 20th 1:30pm – 2:15pm
Explore Discovery Discovery Analysis
102015JLR.
Reducing Unnecessary Testing & Hospitalizations
Chapter 12: Surveys Introduction 12.1 The method 12.2 Random samples
Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results
Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results (all responses)
Special Topics in Vendor-Specific Systems
Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use: Objective #10 – Public Health Reporting Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment Program July 21, 2016 Today’s presenter:
To Admit…or not to Admit…that is the question!
Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results
CERNER MILLENNIUM Infrequent Provider Introduction
PowerNotes PowerNote is a method of entering clinical documents related to patient care for providers. PowerNote interacts with PowerChart, FirstNet,
Relevant and Pertinent Findings and Recommendations
After the Visit – A Summary for the Patient: Making it Meaningful
Explore Discovery Discovery Analysis
CERNER MILLENNIUM Abstracting Chart Data Into Unity: Immunizations Excerpt This presentation reviews strategies for moving immunization data from legacy.
How to Use i2b2 URL to i2b2: Questions?
C-CDA Relevant and Pertinent (RnP) Project/Survey: Introduction to Results May 5, 2016 David Tao, D.Sc. Robert Dieterle.
Explore Discovery Discovery Analysis
Risk Stratification for Care Management
Module 6: Case Report Form (Chart Abstraction)
Depart Process for Attendings and Residents
Presentation transcript:

Relevant and Pertinent Short Survey Results Summary May 5, 2016 Robert Dieterle Holly Miller, MD Russel Leftwich, MD

Summary of Participation Organization Total ToC1 American Academy of Family Physicians 103 62 American Hospital Association 34 28 American Medical Association 433 163 Other 43 23 613 275 Note 1: ToC – declared they have received ToC Documents Note: there are no significant differences in in answers between the full set of respondents and the 275 that have experience receiving ToC documents

Demographics Practice location distribution matches US population distribution General Practice and all relevant specialties represented All practice types (IDN/Hospital/Unaffiliated) represented Response by practice size represents solo to >20 provider practices All payer types well represented

EHR and ToC Experience 84% have used EHRs for more than 3 years 64% have or plan to send ToC documents 47% have received ToC documents hospital discharge and consults are the most common documents (80% receive at least one of each per month) 44% review the ToC as a document 33% incorporate discrete clinical data personally C i

General ToC Issues 56% declare too much information 46% declare needed information is missing 73% declare ToC organization and 57% declare lack of a clear summary are a problem >31% did not receive ToC in a timely fashion

Hospital Discharge 81% want same information as traditional discharge summary 68% want limited information rather than all hospitalization data 43% declare that important information is missing over 50% of the time

Ambulatory >81% want all information from the current ambulatory visit >87% want new or changed information from all ambulatory visits 49% declare they receive all information from the current ambulatory visit in the ToC at least 50% of the time 29% declare that important information is missing over 50% of the time

Value of Specific Information Hospital Discharge and CCD 18 of the 26 sections (includes optional sections) are considered valuable or necessary by over 50 % of those receiving ToCs Of the 26 sections listed only 4 are consider valuable or necessary by less than 30% of the respondents Ambulatory (consult/progress note/CCD) 20 of the 28 sections (includes optional sections) are considered valuable or necessary by over 50 % of those receiving ToCs Of the 28 sections listed only 1 is consider valuable or necessary by less than 30% of the respondents

Scope Preferred for Specific Information Hospital Discharge and CCD 65% want all procedures (from all hospitalizations) Roughly 50% want last available functional status (51%), plan of treatment (51%), review of systems (66%) and vital signs (48%) Hospital studies and results are equally distributed between last, first and last and all Ambulatory (consult/progress note/CCD) Majority want functional status (77%), plan of treatment (74%), problems (64%), procedures (52%) , results (65%) review of systems (87%) and vital signs (79%) from the current visit only (not from prior or all visits)

Medications Hospitalization Ambulatory Visit 89% declare active and prescribed meds at discharge necessary (60% declare they are always received) admission (88%) and administered (82%) medications necessary or useful (<25% declare they are always received) Ambulatory Visit new (89%) and discontinued (83%) medications are necessary (52% declare they always receive new meds and only 31% declare they receive discontinued meds) 68%% declare current meds at time of visit are necessary (43% declare they are always received)

Alternative Approaches 39% want to receive less information 61% want to receive more information if they have better display and incorporation capability A significant number of respondents want (4 or 5 out of 5) User defined summaries (48%) Table of contents with links (44%) Drag and drop for incorporation of discrete data (47%) Automated incorporation (44%) Detection of duplicate data (53%)

Comments and Follow-up Count Percentage Contact information 142 23 % Willing to participate 278 46 % Providing contact information 129 Provided exit comments 86 14 % Note: this from all respondents

Summary 47% of responding providers currently receive ToC documents Hospital visit – want same information as paper discharge document Ambulatory – want all information from current visit Ambulatory – want changed information from prior visits Over 50% want 18 of 26 and 20 of 28 sections Only 4 sections of discharge summary / CCD and 1 section of consult/progress note/CCD are wanted by <30% 56% want less information -- appears to be related to repeated sections (e.g. results / vitals from hospitalizations) and prior visits 61% want better tools to review and incorporate 46% declare important information is missing in ToCs