Welcome to our blog
-
The *Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association* issued the following news release:
Outpatient electronic prescribing systems don’t cut out common mistakes
Errors associated with outpatient computerized prescribing systems
Outpatient electronic prescribing systems don’t cut out the common mistakes made in manual systems, suggests research published online in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA).
And not all systems are the same: some perform worse than others, the study shows.
The rapid adoption of electronic prescribing systems has in part been fuelled by the belief that they would reduce the sorts of errors commonly made in manual prescribing systems, the authors say.
The authors base their findings on an analysis of just under 4,000 computer generated prescriptions received by a commercial pharmacy chain in three different US states over a period of four weeks in 2008.
They looked at the number of mistakes made and their potential to cause harm, as well as the frequency of particular mistakes and whether these were associated with one type of system.
Of the 3,850 prescriptions assessed, more than one in 10 (452; just under 12%) contained a total of 466 errors.
Of these, a third (163; 35%) were deemed to be potentially harmful.
Mistakes were classified as: “significant,” but posing little serious threat to life, such as rash, headache, or diarrhoea; serious but not life threatening, such as low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia), reduced heart rate (bradycardia), and fainting (syncope); and life threatening if not treated, such as heart attack and respiratory failure.
Among the 163 potentially harmful errors, over half (58%) were significant and the remainder (42%) were serious.
None was life threatening.
Four out of 10 medication errors involved anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics (anti-infectives), and the most common types of drugs associated with errors were nervous system drugs (27%), cardiovascular drugs (13.5%), and anti-inflammatories/antibiotics (12.3%).
The prevalence of prescribing errors varied considerably, depending on the system used, ranging from 5% to 37% among the 13 systems analysed. The frequency of certain types of errors was also associated with particular systems.
For example, in system A, omitting to specify length of treatment and dose were common, and “miscellaneous” errors accounted for more than one in four mistakes (27%).
And while system B’s error rate was less than that of system G, system B incurred substantially more potentially harmful errors.
Around 60% of errors related to missing information, which the authors suggest should be relatively easy to eliminate by some judicious tweaking or providing better training for the users.
Options might include “forcing functions” which would not allow a prescription to be completed if certain information were missing; decision support systems, such as maximum dose checks; and calculators, they say.
“Providers appear to be rapidly adopting electronic health records and computerized prescribing, and one of the major anticipated benefits is expected to be through medication-error reduction,” they write.
But they warn: “Implementing a computerized prescribing system without comprehensive functionality and processes in place to ensure meaningful use of the system does not decrease medication errors.”
-
Can a psychotherapists survive without an EHR?
The adoption rate of EHR in medical practices is expected to accelerate in this country as the government begins providing financial incentives for adoption. But psychologists and social workers are not eligible for these incentives, so can’t they just continue with paper documentation? For most psychologists and clinical social workers, the short answer is no. The answer is no because EHRs are becoming the way providers communicate with each other to coordinate care and refer. The government incentives come with standards for EHRs that facilitate the exchange of clinical information that will become the preferred way of making referrals.
Some background. The last few years has witnessed a dramatic increase in the adoption and implementation ofElectronic Health Records (EHRs) by America’s medical practitioners. It is believed that within the next five years EHRs will be as common in medicine as the stethoscope, the blood pressure monitor, the MRI and other core tools. This rapid adoption of EHRs is being spurred on by the Hitech Act of 2009 which incentivizes practitioners through bonus payments (and later penalties) to adopt federally certified EHRs. The federal certification is called ONC (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology) of the US Department of of Health and Human Services. ONC certification insures that EHRs are in compliance with the standards and certification criteria of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS.)
Eligible providers (MDs including psychiatrists, nurse practitioners in some states) can receive bonus money from medicaid and medicare by using a certified EHR. They can also avoid a penalty that for non-use which will kick in in 2015 for medicare reimbursement.
Psychologists and other non-medical mental health providers have not been designated by the Hitech act as eligible professionals and so are not eligible for bonus payments. Even so, psychologists, according to Maureen Testoni, JD of the American Psychological Association, “will be impacted by the shift in general record keeping practices across the healthcare industry,” … (and)… “at some point in the future… will be compelled to demonstrate similar progress in order to do business with physicians and hospitals.”
It should be pointed out that most psychologists and clinical social workers, even had the Hitech Act included them as EPs, would only benefit if their practices include a substantial number of medicaid and/or medicare patients.
ONC implementation specifications and certification criteria assure that “certified EHRs” have core features covering interoperability, functionality, utility, and security of health IT. The feature that is most critical to practitioners is interoperability– that is, the ability to share clinical information automatically and in real time. Initially, ONC calls for EHRs to share clinical summaries that include problem lists (diagnoses), medications, and lab test results. It is expected that the amount of information shared will increase over time.
EHRs, then, create the medical equivalent of a grid or network over which clinical information is shared with other users. Being on the grid puts the clinician on the virtual health care team. Any medical referral source–Primary Care Physician, Pediatrician, or Specialist is unlikely to refer to a clinician who can not receive clinical summaries and, who can not, in turn, transmit clinical findings to the referring physician in the standard format used by the rest of the industry.
Interoperability will improve mental health patient care by providing an electronic means for the coordination of care. Psychologists who use a certified EHR will have access to problems lists, as well as medication and lab information. This will enable psychologists with psychopharmacology expertise to make medication recommendations and monitor for side effects. The presence of a psychologist on the patient care team will improve the accuracy of diagnoses and the timeliness of care.
EHRs are the way that integrated care will be realized in the 21st century. However, if psychologists and other non-medical mental health professionals do not use them, not only will individual practitioners be hurt, but so too will the field of psychotherapy as a whole. Specifically, it is likely that the mental health field will become increasing driven by psychopharmacologic treatment. It is of interest, for instance, that ONC quality criterion for depression, measures the percent of patients with a new diagnosis of depression who receive psychopharmacologic treatment within 12 weeks of diagnosis. CMS quality initiatives in the past (see PSQR) used a different criterion: either the percent of newly depressed patients on medication or the percent in psychotherapy. Given the evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy as a first line treatment of depression, dropping psychotherapy from the quality menu could spell a further erosion of the range of treatments available to patients seeking mental health treatment. More ominously, referral patterns will likely be impacted by quality measure criteria: for example, PCPs who use the depression quality measure will be incented to refer to clinicians who prescribe because doing so will enable them to meet the quality standard for depression whereas a referral to a non-prescribing psychologist will not.
The case for EHRs in the age of the Internet is a strong one. Such features as online scheduling, account setup, self-help, bill pay, access to clinical records, etc will enhance the efficiency and convenience of practice. But what is most important for mental health clinicians is that they get on the clinical team. To do that they will need an ONC certified EHR.
-
The American Journal of Psychiatry, August 2010, published an article on National Trends in Outpatient Mental Health which documents the increasing prominence of psychopharmacology in mental health treatment. The authors conclude that:
“During the decade from 1998 to 2007, the percentage of the general population who used psychotherapy remained stable. Over the same period, however, psychotherapy assumed a less prominent role in outpatient mental health care as a large and increasing proportion of mental health outpatients received psychotropic medication without psychotherapy.”
Use of only psychotherapy declined from 15.9% 1998 to 10.5% in 2007. Use of only psychotropic medication increased from 44.1% to 57.4% in that same time frame. Declines occurred in annual psychotherapy visits per psychotherapy patient from a mean of 9.7 to a mean of 7.9.
-
The inspector general of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a report
Medicare Part B Services During Non-Part A Nursingon a medical audit of Part B mental health services in nursing homes. The results are devastating.
The audit conducted in 2006 found the following:
-39% of claims allowed for mental health services did not meet program requirements for coverage.
-71% of sampled claims had inaccurate diagnoses or lacked adequate documentation.
-Psychotherapy claims represented the vast majority of inappropriately paid claims.
The report was issued on July 8, 2010 and is available from Stuart Wright, Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
-
This news release from the AMA reports the dirty little secret of our current medical reimbursements system, namely it doesn’t work. Read on.
New AMA Health Insurer Report Card Finds Need for More Accuracy
Eliminating health insurer errors could amount to $15.5 billion in savingsThe American Medical Association (AMA) today announced that one in five
medical claims are processed inaccurately by health insurers, according
to the AMA’s third annual check-up of the nation’s commercial health
insurers and the systems they use to manage and pay claims.This was the key finding of the AMA’s 2010 National Health Insurer
Report Card, which for the first time, benchmarked the overall claims
processing accuracy of the nation’s largest health insurers.“The finding that one in five medical claims are processed by insurers
with errors emphasizes the huge potential for reducing administrative
costs for physicians and insurers,” said AMA Immediate Past President
Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.“Creating a single transparent set of processing and payment rules for
the health insurance industry would create system wide savings and allow
physicians to direct time and resources to patient care and away from
excessive paperwork.”According to the AMA’s findings, the health insurance industry as a
whole has about an 80 percent accuracy rate for processing and paying claims.Coventry Health Care Inc. came out on top of the seven commercial health
insurers measured by the AMA with a national accuracy rating of 88.41
percent.Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield rounded out the list with a national
accuracy rating of 73.98 percent.The AMA estimates that $777.6 million in unnecessary administrative
costs could be saved if the health insurance industry improves claims
processing accuracy by one percent. Increasing the health insurance
industry’s accuracy rating to 100 percent would save up to $15.5 billion
annually that could be better used to enhance patient care and help
reduce overall health care costs.“Each insurer uses different rules for processing and paying medical
claims, which cause complexity, confusion and waste,” said Dr. Nielsen.“Simplifying the administrative process with standardized requirements
will reduce unnecessary costs in the health system and eliminate the
variability that makes it necessary for physicians to maintain costly
claims management systems for each health insurer.”Currently, the health care system spends as much as $210 billion
annually on claims processing.One recent study estimated physicians spend the equivalent of five weeks
annually on health insurer red tape.To keep up with the administrative tasks required by health plans,
physicians divert as much as 14 percent of their revenue to ensure
accurate payments from insurers. -
This piece originally appeared in the Psychiatric Times
With billions of dollars for electronic health record (EHR) technology purchases hanging in the balance, psychiatrists need to be paying attention to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) deliberations on the definition of “meaningful use.” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is supposed to set an interim definition in a few months. This is important to all office-based physicians because it will set the requirements they will have to meet for proving they are making meaningful use of EHR software and hardware they previously purchased. If they can make the case, starting in 2011, they would qualify for federal grants to partially compensate them for those previous software and hardware purchases.
Those grants are available for 5 years, and if obtained starting in 2011, they could amount to as much as $64,000 per practice for psychiatrists whose patient mix is at least 30% Medicaid recipients. That figure falls to $44,000 for physicians who cannot meet the Medicaid percentage and who see Medicare patients, with no specific percentage of the latter being designated.
There is also a penalty for physicians who do not meet the meaningful use definition. It comes into play after 2016; the Medicare fee schedule for professional services is reduced by 1% in 2015, by 2% in 2016, by 3% for 2017, and by between 3% to 5% in subsequent years.
The grants were authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—which is the stimulus bill Congress passed last winter. Sebelius will set interim requirements based on recommendations from 2 new advisory committees that were established by the ARRA: a health information technology policy and a standards committee. The meaningful use requirements will be different, in part, for office-based physicians and hospitals, but they will have escalating requirements in 2011, 2013, and 2015.
The ARRA gave HHS some guidelines as to what the meaningful use definition should include. The overriding requirement is that a physician be able to exchange certain categories of patient data electronically with other providers and to report quality measures to the HHS and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Complying with a meaningful use definition may have some general and specific challenges for psychiatrists. To begin with, it looks likely that all physicians would have to use computer physician order entry (CPOE) for all patients. In 2011, CPOE would have to perform certain basic tasks. For example, it would need to be able to implement drug-drug, drug-allergy, drug-formulary checks; maintain an up-to-date problem list of current and active diagnoses; and generate and transmit permissible prescriptions electronically. In addition, certain quality measures would have to be reported to the CMS. Those would include, on the basis of the policy committee’s final recommendations, percentages of:
* Diabetic patients whose glycosylated hemoglobin levels are under control
* Hypertensive patients whose blood pressure is under control
* Patients with dyslipidemia whose LDL levels are under control
* Smokers to whom smoking cessation counseling and other measures are offered
At meetings with HHS officials this summer, and in comments, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) pointed out that the elements of the meaningful use definition were shaped for generalists—not specialists such as psychiatrists, for whom some of the requirements might pose serious adherence problems. For example, about the reporting of quality measures, none of those endorsed by the policy committee included mental illnesses. “Additionally, there are some quality measures which could be incorporated into primary care and some specialty settings which were not included on the committee’s proposal, such as those pertaining to major depressive disorder,” said James Scully Jr, MD, medical director and chief executive officer of the APA in a letter to HHS this summer.
It is not that quality measures for psychiatrists do not exist. They do. The New York State Office of Mental Health has developed a decision support and quality improvement system for what in that state are called “Article 31” hospitals, which are for psychiatric patients. The Psychiatric Services and Clinical Knowledge Enhancement System affects only psychiatrists at those hospitals.
According to Hao Wang, PhD, deputy commissioner, chief information officer, office of mental health, state of New York, the state weeds through Medicaid data for indications that psychiatrists at Article 31 hospitals may be outside the boundaries of good practice in 2 areas in which the state has developed quality indicators: polypharmacy and cardiometabolic syndrome indicators. Psychiatrists who appear to need some help in those 2 areas are required to report to the state office of mental health to ensure they are improving their stats. Wang suggests that those 2 quality indicators have utility beyond psychiatrists and could be used by HHS if it wanted to make its quality measures reporting definition more relevant to psychiatric practice.
Wang stated what everyone already knows: that psychiatrists—and physicians more broadly—have not exactly flocked to EHRs. But psychiatrists may have a particular disincentive, Wang explained, “because they can’t find a good behavioral health care product.” He added that hospitals are more concerned about patients with physical conditions, because they generate more revenue. And EHR vendors have responded to that by producing systems that have little utility for physicians who see high percentages of patients with mental health conditions.
-
17 states now require health plans to cover autism treatment. They are: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.
N.B. Services covered and the dollar value of the coverage varies by state, however, the extension of coverage will open up the market for autism services.
-
Technology:
Keeping Electronic Records with Carepaths
Colleen Byrne, Ph.D.
Since early 2005, the Psychology Clinic at the University of Maryland in College Park has been using the Carepaths for electronic record-keeping. In hopes of both simplifying our record-keeping and also cutting paper costs, we switched to electronic record-keeping with Carepaths. I originally learned about Carepaths from Eric Sauer. Although I had intended to use it only for the OQ45, I gave the electronic record-keeping function a trial run and ended up liking it a lot. CarePaths offers the eRecord, “a multi-modal, web-based Behavioral Health Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and Practice Management system.” It is a “secure, web-based and HIPPA-compliant record-keeping system”. It is also highly customizable. Our Clinic uses only 30-40% of Carepaths’s available services.
For our Clinic, the main benefits of using Carepaths are 1) low cost as compared to products like Titanium, 2) the convenience of access from any secure, internet-connected computer, and 3) the security provided by customizable access levels for supervisors, practicum students, and support staff. Additionally, electronic record-keeping has increased efficiency and accountability for practicum students and supervisors alike. The web-access is a good fit for students with hectic schedules; I find that students have been more likely to write progress notes on time now that the time and date are electronically stamped. This has been true for supervisors as well. Electronic record-keeping has made it easier for supervisors to monitor the progress of a multiple students’ work. Also, students in need of assistance are more easily identified and can be provided with feedback before the end of the semester.
At the UMD Psychology Clinic, we primarily use the following the Carepaths modules: Progress Notes, Clinical Screenings; Assessment Center, Intake Assessments, Treatment Planning, Discharge Planning, Patient Management, and System Administration:
* In the Progress Notes module we use the Individual Progress Note, Miscellaneous Contact Note, and Miscellaneous Service Note;
* In the Clinical Screenings module we use the Clinical Screen template to record basic information about a client’s presenting problem and treatment history;
* In the Assessment Center module we use the OQ45.2, YOQ30, YOQ30-SR, and WAI;
* In the Patient Management module we enter demographic and contact information for waitlisted clients. (With a quick change of the medical record number, this becomes their electronic chart when they are assigned to a therapist); and
* In the System Administration module, which has restricted access, we use the Groups feature (to specify user levels) and Security Keys.Practically, it works like this. After logging on, a user can enter text for a progress note directly into the template or they can cut and paste from a MS Word document. The practicum students “sign” their work (by entering their password next to their name) as “pending”, which allows supervisors to review and/or make corrections before signing a document as “completed”. If a student wishes to have time to self-edit, they can sign their work as a “draft” so that only they have access until they are ready to submit the document as “pending.”
Carepaths has many features such as scheduling, internal email, accounting, and billing that we have chosen not to use. (Since collected funds are processed through our Psychology Department’s business office, we keep billing and scheduling on separate programs to maximize client confidentiality.) One drawback with Carepaths is that I still need to rely on the practicum students and supervisors to let me know when a case is closed. Further, unlike Titanium and some other products, Carepaths does not offer query-type searches of clients based on demographic or diagnostic variables. (So, if I wanted to know how many depressed males came to our Clinic in the last year, there is no quick way to find out). I can’t say that Carepaths will work for every Clinic, but it has been wonderful for us.
To contact Carepaths: Go to http://carepaths.com call 800.357.1200. Ask for Geoff Gray and identify yourself as a Clinic Director and member of ADPTC.
-
CarePaths is currently working to meet the anticipated standards for EMR certification. The standards will address interoperability of EMRs so that information can be passed back and forth between different systems. In behavioral health it is anticipated that a Continuity of Care document will be used. This document will pull essential information from the behavioral health chart (e.g. medications, diagnosis, etc) and allow for uploads and downloads to EMRs of other providers. Currently, CarePaths is working on the technical infrastructure for EMR interoperability.
What follows is a recap of the HITECH act. This act states that “eligible professionals” who demonstrate “meaningful use” of a “certified EHR” will qualify for stimulus funding and incentives.
Definitions:
Eligible professional are office-based physician.
Meaningful use includes use of ePrescribing and quality measures reporting as designated by the Health and Human Services Secretary.
Certified EHR HIT Standards have yet to be finalized nor have the organizations been selected who will conduct the certification.
Providers may receive reimbursement incentives from either Medicare or Medicaid but not both.
MEDICARE INCENTIVE
Providers may receive up to $44,000 over five years for proving meaningful use of a certified EHR.
First payment year: $18,000 if first payment year is 2011 or 2012
$15,000 if first payment year is 2013
$12,000 if first payment year is 2014Second payment year: $12,000
Third payment year: $8,000
Fourth payment year: $4,000
Fifth payment year: $2,000Eligible professionals working in health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) will receive a 10% increase in incentive payment amounts.
MEDICARE PENALTY
Providers who have not begun to demonstrate meaningful use of an EHR by 2015 will experience a reduction in Medicare fee schedules as follows:
2015: 99%
2016: 98%
2017 and on: 97%MEDICAID INCENTIVE
In order to qualify for the Medicaid incentive, providers must rely on Medicaid assistance for at least 30% of their patient volume. For eligible Medicaid providers, the State is authorized to provide reimbursement for 85% of net average allowable costs of EHR adoption and startup – up to $63,750 over 6 years. Medicaid incentives for EHR adoption will begin in 2011. There are no set Medicaid penalties for lack of EHR adoption.
-
The Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorders is now available in the eRecord’s Assessment Center. The Checklist is a new Diagnostic and screening instrument can be completed by parents or clinicians. It has very strong psychometrics, including high sensitivity and specificity to both ends of the spectrum. The feedback report provides a comprehensive profile of the aptient. For further information see J. Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:1682-1693.
