DOCSLIB.ORG

From EHR to PHR: Let’S Get the Record Straight

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Questions over ownership and to contribute to health awareness and could Received 31 January 2019 control of data further complicate the potential for fully be key in empowering patients to take direct Revised 12 August 2019 utilising records. Analysing the previous initiatives and control of their own healthcare.4 However, Accepted 14 August 2019 the current landscape, we identify that adopting a patient despite the widespread availability of multiple health record system can empower patients and allow PHR solutions in the UK, 2018 has now better harmonisation of clinical data at a national level. passed without substantial adoption of PHRs We propose regional PHR ‘hubs’ to provide a universal and empowerment of patients through mean- interface that integrates digital health data at a regional level with further integration at a national level. We ingful interaction with their own healthcare propose that these PHR hubs will reduce the complexity data. of connections, decrease governance challenges and Although there has been growth in the interoperability issues while also providing a safe platform number of PHR providers in almost all for high-quality scalable and sustainable digital solutions, regions of the UK, PHR uptake by patients including artificial intelligence across the UK NHS, serving 5 and organisations is still remarkably slow. In http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ as an exemplar for other countries which wish to realise response to a survey in 2016, less than 500 000 the full value of healthcare records. people were individually registered users of PHR while 1377 organisations, including 122 NHS Trusts, 16 Clinical Commissioning BACKGROUND Groups (CCGs), 1184 general practice The importance of implementing integrated surgeries (GPs), 33+ local authorities, 15+ electronic health record (EHR), increasingly social care providers and 7 health boards 6 referred to as electronic patient records were listed as organisational users of PHR. on September 29, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. (EPRs), as a route to enhance the quality of However, it is not clear if single organisa- health delivery in the UK National Health tions have integrated with multiple PHR Service (NHS) were outlined as early as 1998.1 providers thereby conflating the totals and The benefits of universal access for patients, making them appear larger than they are, for clinicians, researchers, policymakers and example, counts reflecting that nearly half of administrators include (1) increasing confi- all NHS Trusts are organisational users.6 Slow © Author(s) (or their dence and convenience through streamlined uptake has been attributed to barriers in (1) employer(s)) 2019. Re-use access to information, (2) improving clinical sharing of data at a local level, (2) clinical permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. outcomes through enhanced care commu- aversion and reluctance, (3) patient aware- 1 nication, (3) better science and decision ness and (4) technical integration with local Institute of Global Health 6 Innovation, Imperial College making through access to real-time evidence information systems. Despite improvements London, London, UK and (4) enabling planning and productivity in data sharing mandates, namely through 2Salford Royal NHS Foundation gains through increased efficiency.1 In 2014, the Caldicott principles, the first challenge Trust, Salford, UK it was proposed that by March of 2018, all indi- remains heavily influenced by the second and Correspondence to viduals should have both viewing and editing third challenges as sharing of data is inhibited 2 Mr Joshua D Symons; capabilities for their own health record. where there is a lack of clinician and patient j. symons@ imperial. ac. uk This proposal aligns with the definition of a endorsement.6 Furthermore, PHR solutions Symons JD, et al. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029582. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 1 Open access BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from Table 1 Examples of different care providers, PHR and for EHR integration with PHR, that is, PHR interop- EHR providers and exchange protocols used within the UK. erability. The prospect of universally connecting PHR systems is daunting considering the sheer number Type Count of individual CCGs, NHS Trusts, GPs, PHR and EHR Care organisations 1. (207) CCGs vendors and exchange protocols (table 1 and figure 1). 2. (152) Acute specialist and non- Established node connection formulae demonstrate specialists trusts that 8500 organisations could require over 36 million 3. (54) Mental health trusts individual connections to provide real-time connectivity 4. (35) Community providers of records for patients at any location.7 8 This does not 5. (10) Ambulance trusts 6. (853) For-profit and not-for-profit take into account additional organisations such as labo- independent sector organisations ratories, social and community care. Further addition (7148) GPs of PHR providers, personal devices and applications will PHR providers (29) Independent providers recorded exponentially increase this complexity. Solutions have by RCP been proposed to deal with some of this complexity as part of national programmes but these fall short of imple- GP EHR providers (4) EMIS, TPP, INPS and Microtest menting the benefits of PHR. Therefore, both technical Trust EHR providers (7) Allscripts, Cerner, Epic, and socio-technical barriers for information exchange Intersystems, Lorenzo, Meditech between health record systems continue to present the and OpenEHR biggest barrier for enabling these benefits. Exchange protocols (6) HL7, FHIR, IHE, CDA, XDS and DICOM The list is non-exhaustive. REDUCING BARRIERS FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE CCG, Clinical Commissioning Group; EHR, electronic health record; GP, general practice surgeries; PHR, personal health Local Health and Care Record Exemplars (LHCREs) have record. been created in the NHS with the same proposed benefits outlined in 1998 through integration of care records, such as primary care with secondary, mental health and social have the ability to address the first three challenges at a regional level.9 Although LHCREs aim to achieve through patient control of records and bringing value real-time data sharing of both identifiable and de-person- for clinicians and patients yet this ability is hampered alised data for direct care, the scope of these integrated by the formidable challenge of local integration. Given records does not universally include provision of linked that the majority of existing UK PHR solutions are reliant data for research or patient access to read and write to on direct integration with existing EHR solutions, local integrated records.9 Approaches to governance of data information exchange remains a key inhibitor to gaining in LHCRE are not universal, with some initiatives putting http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ value from PHRs.6 control of research and sharing permission with GPs and Despite a large amount of research in EHR interoper- Academic Health Science Networks while others form ability, there is a paucity of evidence regarding barriers independent research advisory groups. Some LHCREs on September 29, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. Figure 1 PHR hubs would transform the complex ecosystem (left) including high patient and provider burden to a simpler ecosystem (right) centred around the patient increasing choice and system flexibility. CCG, ClinicalCommissioning Group; EHR, electronichealth record; GP, generalpractice surgeries; PHR, personal health record. 2 Symons JD, et al. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029582. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 Open access BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029582 on 18 September 2019. Downloaded from are implementing PHR repositories at a regional level but any ability to edit or even view the entire patient record. this is not universal and different LHCREs are embracing Other features will allow patients to interact with portions different
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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]