On EHR's: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil: Part 2

Part 1 is here.

This is the second a series of posts I plan on the issue of "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" regarding EHR's.

Frequent reminders are needed by all stakeholders, I believe, to think critically about, and take with a big grain of salt, effusive praise by key opinion leaders, politicians, etc. about health IT, and accompanying attempts to deride those critical of the technology, to counterbalance ongoing HIT hyperenthusiasm.

The following quote comes from a May 2010 post "David Blumenthal on health IT safety: nothing to see here, move along":

Blumenthal, at the time Director of ONC at HHS had reportedly stated that:

http://www.massdevice.com/news/blumenthal-evidence-adverse-events-with-emrs-anecdotal-and-fragmented

... [Blumenthal's] department is confident that its mission remains unchanged in trying to push all healthcare establishments to adopt EMRs as a standard practice. "The [ONC] committee [investigating FDA reports of HIT endangement] said that nothing it had found would give them any pause that a policy of introducing EMR's [rapidly and on a national scale - ed.] could impede patient safety," he said.

The "nothing" includes 44 injuries voluntarily reported to FDA and 6 reported deaths in an enviroment where few know where to report such things and where no reporting requirements exist, and a statement from the head of CDRH at FDA that due to systematic impediments to accurate knowledge the known figures likely are a small fraction ("tip if the iceberg") of the actual occurrence.

The FDA internal memo on HIT risk brought to the forefront by investigative reporter Fred Schulte and downloadable here spells out the FDA impediments in some detail.  It is not reasonable to believe the head of ONC and an entire ONC committee would have been entirely unaware of the issues.  (Later studies are even more concerning, e.g., by IOM and ECRI, as at this blog.)

Yet an ONC committee under his leadership recommended "full steam ahead" anyway.

In the corporate world that is known as gross negligence:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

There is nothing to discuss, nothing to debate about that.

Claims about HIT beneficence this need to be taken with a big grain of this.

The ongoing "what? me worry?" attitude of the pundits needs to be counterbalanced.  This series is a small effort (the industry has a lot more control of the channel than I) to catalog the words and call out the pundits in a readily-found format.

More to come in this series.

-- SS