DOCSLIB.ORG

BMJ Open Is Committed to Open Peer Review. As Part of This Commitment We Make the Peer Review History of Every Article We Publish Publicly Available

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BMJ Open Is Committed to Open Peer Review. As Part of This Commitment We Make the Peer Review History of Every Article We Publish Publicly Available BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from BMJ Open is committed to open peer review. As part of this commitment we make the peer review history of every article we publish publicly available. When an article is published we post the peer reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses online. We also post the versions of the paper that were used during peer review. These are the versions that the peer review comments apply to. The versions of the paper that follow are the versions that were submitted during the peer review process. They are not the versions of record or the final published versions. They should not be cited or distributed as the published version of this manuscript. BMJ Open is an open access journal and the full, final, typeset and author-corrected version of record of the manuscript is available on our site with no access controls, subscription charges or pay-per-view fees (http://bmjopen.bmj.com). If you have any questions on BMJ Open’s open peer review process please email [email protected] http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from From EHR to PHR: Let’s Get the Record Straight Journal: BMJ Open Manuscript ID bmjopen-2019-029582.R1 ArticleFor Type: peerCommunication review article only Date Submitted by the 20-Feb-2019 Author: Complete List of Authors: Symons, Joshua D; Imperial College London, Department of Surgery & Cancer Ashrafian, Hutan; Imperial College London, Department of Surgery & Cancer; Dunscombe, Rachel; Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Darzi, Ara; Imperial College London, Institute of Global Health Innovation <b>Primary Subject Patient-centred medicine Heading</b>: Secondary Subject Heading: Public health Patient Health Record, Electronic Health Record, Patient Empowerment, Keywords: Digital, Digital Health http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml Page 1 of 9 BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from 1 2 3 4 From EHR to PHR: Let’s Get the Record Straight 5 6 7 a b c d 8 Joshua Symons , Hutan Ashrafian , Rachel Dunscombe , Ara Darzi 9 a Director, Big Data & Analytical Unit (BDAU), Centre for Health Policy (CHP), Institute of Global Health 10 11 Innovation (IGHI), Imperial College London 12 b 13 Chief Scientific Adviser and Honorary Senior Clinical Fellow in Surgery, Institute of Global Health 14 Innovation (IGHI), Imperial College London 15 c 16 Group Director of ForDigital and peer Chief Information review Officer, Salford only Royal NHS Foundation Trust and 17 Northern Care Alliance 18 d 19 Director, Institute of Global Health Innovation (IGHI), Imperial College London 20 21 22 Corresponding author - Joshua Symons ([email protected]) 23 24 10th Floor QEQM (Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother) Building 25 26 Room 1069 27 28 St Mary’s Hospital Campus 29 30 Imperial Health Care NHS Trust 31 32 Praed Street, W2 1NY 33 34 London, UK http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml BMJ Open Page 2 of 9 BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from 1 2 3 Abstract 4 5 The importance of implementing integrated electronic health records as a route to enhance the quality 6 of health delivery has been increasingly understood. Electronic health records however carry several 7 8 limitations that include major fragmentation through multiple providers and protocols throughout the 9 NHS. Analysing the digital healthcare landscape, we identify that adopting a patient health record 10 system can empower patients and allow better harmonisation of clinical data at a national level. We 11 propose regional patient health record hubs to provide a universal interface that integrates digital heath 12 data at a regional level. This will reduce the complexity of connections, decrease governance challenges 13 14 and interoperability issues while also providing a safe platform for high-quality scalable and sustainable 15 digital solutions, including AI, across the NHS. 16 For peer review only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml Page 3 of 9 BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from 1 2 3 The importance of implementing integrated electronic health records (EHR) as a route to enhance the 4 quality of health delivery were outlined as early as 1998. The benefits of universal access for patients, 5 6 clinicians, policy makers and administrators include (i) increasing confidence and convenience through 7 streamlined access to information, (ii) improving clinical outcomes through enhanced care 8 communication, (iii) better decision making through access to real-time evidence and (iv) enabling 9 planning and productivity gains through increased efficiency.1 In 2014, it was proposed that by March of 10 2 11 2018, all individuals should have both viewing and editing capabilities for their own health record. This 12 proposal aligns with the recent definition of a personal health record (PHR) by the Royal College of 13 Physicians as “digital tools that allow a citizen to interact with health and social care services, have 14 access to the clinical content in their record, capture, record and if they wish, share their own data with 15 clinicians and others”.3 PHRs therefore provide an integral part of health record integration that is not 16 For peer review only 17 currently provided by EHR systems alone. Furthermore, PHRs have been shown to contribute to health 18 awareness and could be key in empowering patients to take direct control of their own healthcare.4 19 However, despite widespread availability of multiple PHR solutions in the UK, 2018 is now passing 20 without substantial adoption and patients able to meaningfully interact with their own healthcare data. 21 22 Although there has been growth in the number of PHR providers in almost all regions of the UK, PHR 23 uptake by patients and organisations is still remarkably slow.5 In response to a survey in 2016, less than 24 500,000 people were individually registered users of PHR while 1,377 organisations, including 122 NHS 25 26 Trusts, 16 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), 1,184 General Practice Surgeries (GPs), 33+ local 27 authorities, 15+ social care providers and 7 health boards were listed as organisational users of PHR.6 28 However, it is not clear if single organisations have integrated with multiple PHR providers thereby 29 conflating the totals and making them appear larger than they are, such as indicating that nearly half of 30 all NHS Trusts are organisational users.6 Slow uptake has been attributed to barriers in (i) governance 31 6 32 approval, (ii) clinical engagement, (iii) patient awareness and (iv) integration with local sytems. 33 Challenges in governance are being overcome by legislation changes informed by recent Caldicott 34 reports.6 Some existing PHR systems give patients choice over sharing of their data addressing some of http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 35 the governance concerns. Clinician and patient experience has been investigated to determine personal 36 3 37 barriers to PHR adoption. However, PHR integration with local systems, or PHR interoperability, 38 remains an unexplored challenge. Despite a large amount of research in EHR interoperability, there is a 39 paucity of evidence regarding barriers for EHR integration with PHR. The prospect of universally 40 connecting PHR systems is daunting considering individual CCGs, NHS Trusts, GPs, PHR and EHR vendors 41 and exchange protocols (Table 1 and Figure 1). Established node connection formulae demonstrates 42 on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. 43 that just over 8,500 organisations could require over 36 million individual connections to provide real- 44 time connectivity of records for patients at any location.7 8 This doesn’t take into account additional 45 organisations such as laboratories, social and community care. Further addition of PHR providers, 46 personal devices and applications will exponentially increase this complexity. Solutions have been 47 proposed to deal with some of this complexity as part of national programmes but these fall short of 48 49 implementing the benefits of PHR. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml BMJ Open Page 4 of 9 BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from 1 2 3 Type Count 4 Care organisations (207) CCGs 5 6 (152) acute specialist and non-specialists trusts 7 (54) mental health trusts 8 (35) community providers 9 (10) ambulance trusts 10 (853) for-profit and not-for-profit independent sector organisations 11 (7,148) GPs 12 PHR providers (29) independent providers recorded by RCP 13 14 GP EHR providers (4) EMIS, TPP, INPS, Microtest 15 Trust EHR providers (7) Allscripts, Cerner, Epic, Intersystems, Lorenzo, Meditech, OpenEHR 16 Exchange protocols For(6) HL7, peerFHIR, IHE, CDA, review XDS, DICOM only 17 18 Table 1 Examples of different care providers, PHR and EHR providers and exchange protocols used within the UK.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons from The
    Ideas from the NHS Dr. Francis Wong, MBBS, MBA, MPH www.franciswong.com September 2018 Purpose Background: The NHS (National Health System) is the largest single-payer system in the world and was ranked #1 in the Commonwealth Fund’s Health Care System Performance Rankings in 20171 (US placed #11). It achieved particularly high scores in Care Process (prevention, safe care, coordination & patient engagement), Access (timeliness & affordability) and Equity. The NHS is also one of the world’s largest employers with around 1.5m staff nationwide. In 2014, the UK spent 9.8% of GDP on healthcare2. Of course, it is not without shortcomings, but I am immensely proud of the NHS and stand behind its founding principles. As a physician who has worked in both UK and US, I believe there is much that the countries can learn from each other. My goals for this document are: • Outline several examples of successful, promising and even controversial innovations in the UK’s National Health Service with an emphasis on primary care. • Briefly describe their impact on care delivery in the UK. • Hypothesize how these innovations might be applied to a US employer-based model. 1 Commonwealth Fund: Mirror, Mirror 2017 2 NHS spends about EU average as percentage of GDP on health Primary Care as Gatekeeper Overview Impact Relevance In England, there are approximately 340M GP Primary care as a gatekeeper to specialists is The gatekeeping role of primary care in the UK consultations a year with an average of 6 visits not a novel concept in the US and is a defining originated over 100 years ago, prior to the per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Practice Guidelines for GP Electronic Patient Records
    The Good Practice Guidelines for GP electronic patient records Version 4 (2011) 1 The Good Practice Guidelines for GP electronic patient records v4 (2011) DH INFORMATION READER BOX Policy Estates HR / Workforce Commissioning Management IM & T Planning / Finance Clinical Social Care / Partnership Working Document Purpose Best Practice Guidance Gateway Reference 15787 Title The Good Practice Guidelines for GP electronic patient records v4 (2011) Department of Health (DH)/Royal College of General Practitioners Author (RCGP)/British Medical Association (BMA) Publication Date 21 Mar 2011 Target Audience GPs Circulation List #VALUE! Description The Good Practice Guidelines for GP electronic patient records v4 will act as a reference source of information for all those involved in developing, deploying and using general practice IT systems. Cross Ref 0 Superseded Docs GPG v3.1 [Gateway 5098] GPG v3.1.003 [supplement to GPG v3.1] Action Required N/A Timing N/A Contact Details Lesley Cooke DH Informatics 1N24 Quarry House Leeds LS2 7UE 0113 397 4468 0 For Recipient's Use 2 The Good Practice Guidelines for GP electronic patient records v4 (2011) Contents Contents ....................................................................................................................................2 Foreward....................................................................................................................................6 Executive summary ...................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Quarter 2014 FINAL BOOK
    SCOTT-MACON HEALTHCARE REVIEW: THIRD QUARTER 2014 Third Quarter 2014 Healthcare Review 2 Healthcare Overview, Mean Revenue Multiples 5 Healthcare Overview, Mean EBITDA Multiples 6 Analysis of Selected Healthcare 7 Merger and Acquisition Transactions July 1—September 30, 2014 Analysis of Selected 30 Publicly-Traded Healthcare Companies CONTENTS SCOTT-MACON Healthcare Investment Banking 2 THIRD QUARTER 2014 HEALTHCARE REVIEW Dear Clients and Friends, Scott-Macon is pleased to present our quarterly mens’ healthcare IT business for $1.3 billion; and Bob Healthcare Review covering the third quarter of 2014. If Patricelli’s Evolution1 has been sold to payments con- you haven’t done so already, please email me at ncor- glomerate WEX for 6.0x revenues. Other interesting tech- [email protected] to automatically continue receiv- nology deals include giant Allscripts picking up Oasis in ing our publications in the future as we are transitioning to the EHR space; Google acquiring telehealth player Lynx digital publishing with email distribution. Design; Premier announcing two more deals for Aperek Pages five and six represent a visual snapshot of and TheraDoc; and Sunquest owner Roper closing on the average multiples for all of the healthcare, medical Strategic Healthcare Programs. Turning to the Outsourc- and pharmaceutical transactions that either closed or were ing segment, clinical services giant Sheridan Healthcare announced during the third quarter, along with the average was acquired by AmSurg for $2.4 billion, representing multiples for the major publicly-traded healthcare, medi- 2.5x revenues. Point-of-care diagnostics leader Alere an- cal and pharmaceutical companies. nounced it is in talks for a sale to an investor group for Beginning on page 7 we present the mergers and $7.8 billion, or 2.6x revenues.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Healthcare Research
    November 2015 Independent Technology Research Report DIGITAL HEALTHCARE Important disclosures appear at the back of this report GP Bullhound LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority Local Challenges, Global Opportunities Digital technology is coming of age in the healthcare sector Governments, insurers, employers and most importantly patients and their physicians recognise that digital technology is the key to meeting the challenges of healthcare provision in the 21st Century. The most relevant and exciting digital services and applications are being developed by fast growing SMEs. Healthcare systems worldwide are facing unprecedented challenges Global healthcare spend accounts for 10.6% of GDP. Spend is forecast to grow more than 5% annually to 2018 as the global proportion of those aged over 60 increases from 12% in 2013 to 21% in 2050. The nature of the challenges faced varies across national markets, but the impetus for new models of healthcare is clear globally. Digital enables transformational models of admin, funding and care Cloud software, smartphone applications, online marketplaces and data analytics are established technologies that the healthcare sector is only now embracing. They are key as healthcare seeks to become more efficient and patient centric, paying for outcomes delivered and with much care and treatment provided remotely. B2B models are best placed – but sales strategies must be multifaceted Digital healthcare companies selling to, or partnering with, enterprise level clients will be the winners in the medium term. SMEs must sell in at the board and departmental, national and local level to maximise their chances of success. SMEs must be healthcare experts as well as digital natives Healthcare is incredibly complex – from heavy regulation to labyrinthine decision making to multi-layered payment systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Overview of Health IT Collaboration and Interoperability in Five Countries in 2018
    A brief overview of health IT collaboration and interoperability in five countries in 2018 IE-1050 A brief overview of health IT collaboration and interoperability in five countries in 2018 Title: A brief overview of health IT collaboration and interoperability in five countries in 2018 Report number: IE-1050 Published: 11/2019 Published by: The Norwegian Directorate of eHealth Contact: [email protected] The report can be downloaded from: www.ehelse.no 2 A brief overview of health IT collaboration and interoperability in five countries in 2018 Preface To understand dominant trends within collaboration, interoperability and health information exchange (HIE), the Norwegian Directorate of eHealth (NDE) conducted a desktop study on five different countries in 2018. The Nordic countries Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were chosen due to the similarities in political tradition, socioeconomic conditions, organisation of healthcare, and a strong tradition for collaboration, also within eHealth. The study also includes the USA and the UK, as they represent different models for collaboration than the Nordic countries. The study is summarized in this report. The report is a snapshot of the situation in 2018. A few changes have been done to reflect 2019, but no full revision of the report has been done. In some cases, the description may therefore not reflect the status in 2019. The report does not provide a complete description of current collaboration models or interoperability solutions but can serve as a starting point for further work on this
    [Show full text]
  • From EHR to PHR: Let’S Get the Record Straight
    Open access Communication BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from From EHR to PHR: let’s get the record straight Joshua D Symons,1 Hutan Ashrafian, 1 Rachel Dunscombe,2 Ara Darzi1 To cite: Symons JD, ABSTRACT personal health record (PHR) by the Royal Ashrafian H, Dunscombe R, This article reflects on the changing nature of health College of Physicians as ‘digital tools that . From EHR to PHR: let’s get et al information access and the transition of focus from allow a citizen to interact with health and the record straight. BMJ Open electronic health records (EHRs) to personal health records 2019;9:e029582. doi:10.1136/ social care services, have access to the clinical (PHRs) along with the challenges and need for alignment of bmjopen-2019-029582 content in their record, capture, record and national initiatives for EHR and PHR in the National Health if they wish, share their own data with clini- ► Prepublication history for Service (NHS) of the UK. The importance of implementing 3 this paper is available online. integrated EHRs as a route to enhance the quality of cians and others’. PHRs therefore provide To view these files, please visit health delivery has been increasingly understood. EHRs, an integral part of health record integration the journal online (http:// dx. doi. however, carry several limitations that include major that is not currently provided by EHR systems org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2019- fragmentation through multiple providers and protocols alone. Furthermore, PHRs have been shown 029582). throughout the NHS.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Data in Practice Lecture Series
    Health Data in Practice lecture series Electronic health records: sources of primary care data Carol Dezateux 20th October 2020 Learning Objectives At the end of this lecture you will be able to • Describe the main electronic patient record suppliers of general practice data in the UK • Describe the following key general practice research databases available, their geographical coverage and linkages • GPES • QResearch • CPRD Gold and Aurum • RCGP Sentinel network qmul.ac.uk/healthdatadtp @hdip_dtp [email protected] GP Systems of Choice • Enables general practices to choose the electronic patient record (EPR) system they prefer: • Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) Health: includes Enterprise and EMIS-X cloud-based systems • SystmOne developed by The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) • Vision 3 operated by In Practice Systems Limited (INPS) • Microtest Health • The NHS pays for the basic system with enhancements paid for by the local commissioners of services • The general practice EPR provides the following functionality • Appointment management • Mobile messaging to patients using SMS and video consultations • Structured clinical templates • Clinical decision support tools eg Qrisk • Prescribing • Messaging eg of pathology test requests and results • Document management • Population health management tools • Patient facing services eg book an appointment, order a repeat prescription, view part of own record on- line qmul.ac.uk/healthdatadtp @hdip_dtp [email protected] 2016 comparison Kontopantelis E,Stevens RJ, Helms PJ, et al. Spatial distribution of clinical computer systems in primary care in England in 2016 and implications for primary care electronic medical record databases: a cross-sectional population study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020738. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020738 qmul.ac.uk/healthdatadtp @hdip_dtp [email protected] EMIS Health Kontopantelis E,Stevens RJ, Helms PJ, et al.
    [Show full text]