It constains all the usual baloney (being kind here) about this technology:
It starts with this:
As Minnesota’s health commissioner, I work to improve the health of all Minnesotans. As a physician, I’m dedicated to providing the best care possible to patients. Secure electronic health records help achieve both goals by enhancing the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of our health care system. With that in mind, I have been concerned to see some recent pushback on Minnesota’s requirement that all health care providers use electronic health records (EHR) by 2015 ... All Minnesota patients, whether they visit a small clinic, need mental health treatment, or receive care from multiple providers, stand to benefit from EHRs and the improved care coordination they make possible.
"Pushback", he writes?
The implication seems clear - 'fear mongering' by Luddite clinicians is responsible. See my March 2012 post "Doctors and EHRs: Reframing the 'Modernists v. Luddites' Canard to The Accurate 'Ardent Technophiles vs. Pragmatists' Reality" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html on that antediluvian, tired old issue.
Note also the terminology "stand to benefit" - a typical weasel phrase just in case things don't work out as intended.
Not mentioned are the harms.
Rather than plow through yet another puff piece by someone either misinformed or just way behind the current medical literature on this experimental technology, I provide the letter I wrote to Dr. Ehlinger and several other Minnesota cabinet members, including Commissioner Kevin Lindsey of the Dept. of Human Rights, Commissioner Lucinda Jesson of the Dept. of Human Services, and Chair Adam Duininck, Chair of the Metropolitan Council:
Congratulations Dr. Ehlinger. With your puff piece "Electronic health records advance quality care for all Minnesotans" (http://www.minnpost.com/
community-voices/2015/04/ electronic-health-records- advance-quality-care-all- minnesotans) you just flunked my introductory course in Medical Informatics.
Kindly refrain from writing on subjects about which your knowledge clearly lags common knowledge in healthcare information technology (IT).
You must not know about the following, although you should have known, or should have made it your business to know, about these at the very least:
- ECRI Institute Deep Dive Study on Health IT risks (2012) http://www.healthit.gov/facas/
sites/faca/files/STF_Deep_ Dive_Health_Information_ Technology_2014-06-13.pdf
- Letter to ONC from 37 Medical Societies (January 2015) http://mb.cision.com/Public/
- Joint Commission Sentinel Events Alert on Health IT (March 2015) http://www.jointcommission.
- Accenture - Despite Increased Use of Electronic Medical Records, Fewer U.S. Doctors Believe It Improves Health Outcomes (April 2015) www.businesswire.com/news/
home/20150413005148/en/ Increased-Electronic-Medical- Records-U.S.-Doctors-Improves
I don't mean to sound insulting, but it is earned on your part. My mother is deceased in 2011 as a result of an EHR error.
When did you plan on informing the citizens of your state about the risks of bad health IT?
Not giving your citizens opportunity for informed consent regarding the use of these medical devices in their care seems a violation of human rights. The most impacted are the disadvantaged, who go to organizations with lesser budgets to make the IT work safely, I add.
Scot M. Silverstein, MD
Consultant/Independent Expert Witness in Healthcare Informatics (May 2010-present)Adjunct faculty in Healthcare Informatics and IT (Sept. 2007-present)
Assistant Professor of Healthcare Informatics and IT, and Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics (2005-7)
College of Computing and Informatics
(formerly College of Information Science and Technology)
3141 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875
I did not mention the horrible track record of breaches (e.g., as retrieved by query link http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/medical%20record%20privacy). Close calls, maiming and death is enough for one letter.
It is truly unnerving to see a physician responsible for the heath of the citizens of an entire state so seriously misinformed.