Patients as lab rats for beta software: have sancrosanct patient's rights been trivialized, while poor software of non-trivial risk been sanctified?

I have noted a class action lawsuit vs. Allscripts and Eclipsys, EHR producers, regarding a merger:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION; BRISTOL COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., GLEN E. TULLMAN, WILLIAM J. DAVIS AND LEE SHAPIRO, Defendants.

The Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is available here in PDF:  http://securities.stanford.edu/1048/MDRX00_01/2013515_r02c_12CV03297.pdf.  It is worth reading, if just to understand the inner workings of an unregulated healthcare device industry on which your well-being and that of your family increasingly depends.

Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, available here in PDF:  http://securities.stanford.edu/1048/MDRX00_01/2013515_r02c_12CV03297.pdf

The lawsuit is primarily about alleged misrepresentations made to investors by Allscripts and Eclipsys in a merger regarding inability to integrate products, leadership chaos, and materially false and misleading statements and omissions made during the Class period by these companies about their progress.

I note that in a chaotic environment such as alleged, product safety is not likely a big concern.

However, even more ominous are the allegations of deliberate use of beta software on patients without informed consent or any knowledge by patients whatsoever of its use, which apparently did not work out well.  Not indicated is if patient harm occurred.  If the allegations are true, considering the ECRI Deep Dive health IT risk study results of nearly 200 health IT "incidents" in 36 hospitals over 9 weeks voluntarily reported, including 8 harm incidents and 3 possible deaths - see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/peering-underneath-icebergs-water-level.html it would not be surprising.

From the Complaint, allegations on software beta testing are as follows.  Emphases mine:

41. CW1 [coded person's name - ed.] explained the different interface integration systems as native integration, disparate integration, and High Level 7 “HL7” interface. The goal of native integration was to have the ability to update patient information throughout the Allscripts’ software offerings. This would allow Allscripts’ Sunrise products to seamlessly integrate with Allscripts’ Enterprise, Professional and MyWay products and allow the products to update patient health records without the use of industry standardized codes. Allscripts branded its native software as ADX. [see Complaint footnote 2.] CW1 described disparate integration as allowing Allscripts software to interface with non-Allscripts software which he described as a Health Information Exchange (“HIE”) software that allowed data to be read and
updated from different software vendors.

42. CW1 said ADX 1.0 was designed to pull and update patient electronic health records automatically and was Allscripts’ native integration software. In approximately July 2011, he learned that Allscripts began a complete reworking of ADX 1.0 because customers were complaining about the lack of functionality and integration, and that it did not allow the user to review and approve changes made in other healthcare settings before being accepted by the hospital or physician practice systems. [If the allegations are true, these problems would be creating on its face significant risk of oversights, confusion and medical errors  - ed.] The upgrade was going to be known as ADX 1.5, but the method and interface for data integration changed. In particular, the interface was changed to allow clinicians to approve changes before they were entered into the system. He also learned from other Allscripts employees that ADX 1.0 was being beta tested [see Complaint footnote 3] at Blessing Hospital in Quincy, Illinois and another place he could not recall, but it was suspended in approximately the middle of 2011 because it failed to perform to expectations. [see Complaint footnote 4] [Remarkable - if the allegations are true, experimental software was being beta tested on live patients and was stopped because it did not "perform to expectations" - and what of the unconsenting meatbags a.k.a. patients it was purportedly tested on? - ed.]

Complaint footnotes:

[2] CW1 described the HL7 interface as using industry standardized codes or language to allow users of disparate software systems to update patients electronic health records.

[3] In software development, “beta testing” generally refers to a testing phase in which a subset of the intended user population tries the product out, in order to see how the product works in real-world conditions.  [What sane patient would consent to such testing of medical IT involved in their care, to 'see how it works in real-world conditions'? - ed.]

[4] See also ¶158 (Defendant Davis’ May 8, 2012 statement “our initial release of our integrated capability...was launched in the middle of last year”); ¶189; cf. ¶76 (CW11’s statement that beta testing at Blessing occurred in late 2011 and was halted in Spring 2012);

Again, I find the allegations of great concern - that experimental software was being beta tested on live patients and was stopped because it did not "perform to expectations."  If true, what of the unconsenting meatbags a.k.a. patients?  They would not have counted for much.

More from the Complaint in Count 50:

50. Consistent with CW2, CW3 said the Helios system was never taken to production while he worked at Allscripts. After he left to join Medicity he had heard that Allscripts delivered a Helios type product for beta testing in the fall of 2011 at the New York Presbyterian Hospitals and it did not go well and that the beta testing of the Helios product at the North Shore Long Island Jewish Community Hospital was scratched prior to implementation.

If the allegations are true, New York Presbyterian Hospitals in the fall of 2011 were performing beta testing of software so bad it was deemed unacceptable for LIJ Community Hospital.  Again, if true, what about the risks patients were subjected to, and ... were any harmed?

Still more in Count 76:

76. CW11 said that Blessing Hospital in Quincy, Illinois was beta testing ADX 1.0 sometime in late 2011, but could not recall specifically when it began. CW11 said he was told that the testing was stopped in early 2012 because the product was not working properly and Allscripts deployed a product development team to Blessing Hospital to develop a workflow which lead to ADX 1.5. As far as CW11 knew, no one went live on ADX 1.0. Blessing Hospital began testing ADX 1.5 in late Spring 2012, and was the first to go live using ADX 1.5 in July 2012 which allowed the integration of patient information seamlessly between Sunrise and Enterprise applications. Components of Helios went into ADX 1.5. ADX 1.5 allowed for integration of patient data relating to PAMI (problems, allergies, medications, and immunizations) but some competitor products allow for significantly more types of data to be seamlessly exchanged and Allscripts was working to increase the types of data that could be seamlessly exchanged between acute care and ambulatory applications.

In effect, if the allegations are true, sancrosanct patient's rights have been trivialized, while poor software of non-trivial risk has been sanctified.

This would be, needless to say, deranged.  Software can be debugged in test environments without putting patients at risk - if one is willing to invest the resources to do so.

The Class Action lawsuit Plaintiffs should perhaps seek to discover if there were patient harms or deaths as a result of the alleged software beta testing - assuming that information was not thoroughly "cleansed" by now.

I also note that even small NIH SBIR/STTR grant proposals involving use of new or modified IT on patients, on whose study sections I am an invited reviewer in the domain of Medical Informatics, are subject to human subjects protection evaluation:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/critiques/sbir-sttr.htm

... Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46 [see http://www.research.uci.edu/ora/forms/hrpp/categories_of_exempt_human_subjects_research.pdf - ed.], the [grant review] committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

In health IT tests in hospital settings, which is most certainly experimentation, there are simply no human subjects protections whatsoever.  Hospital IT deserves no special accommodation regarding Protections for Human Subjects.  There are no justifiable reasons I can think of. 

-- SS

Addendum:  Perhaps I'm wrong about people's generosity and altruism.  I would like to hear from people who would gladly submit, say, their newborns as test subjects for the beta testing of experimental health IT software.

Bad Science (and Perhaps Conflict of Interest) At ONC / HHS

This article recently appeared, quoting Jacob Reider, M.D., chief medical officer at ONC on an upcoming Health IT Safety Plan:

Health Data Management

http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/HIMSS13-ONC-HIT-safety-plan-45809-1.html 

ONC Sets Early Summer for Release of HIT Safety Plan

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology anticipates releasing a final health information technology safety plan by early summer, officials announced on March 5 at HIMSS13 in New Orleans.

ONC released a draft plan in December and accepted public comment until February 4. The draft followed an Institute of Medicine report that ONC commissioned that highlighted the need for better understanding of the HIT impacts on safety, as well as shared responsibilities among all stakeholders to improve safety, Jodi Daniel, director of the ONC office of policy and planning, said during an educational session.

There is little doubt that use of I.T. results in fewer medical errors, particularly medication-related because of electronic prescriptions and clinical decision support, noted Jacob Reider, M.D., chief medical officer at ONC. “It’s obvious that in many areas there will be fewer errors, but at the same time, in other areas there will be more errors.” Consequently, a priority of the plan will be implementing a framework to help the industry better understand what the trouble areas will be as I.T. use increases.

Less than 1 percent of patient safety events are related to HIT, Reider contended, but the industry needs more data to better understand the level of harm from such events and how to improve the technology. HIT-related errors, he reminded the audience, are not always the fault of vendors; providers can introduce risk when customizing their systems.

The upcoming safety plan release is fine and good, but I, for one, wonder if it can be trusted.

The level of bias and lack of knowledge of the domain, evidence of incomplete research, and/or poor scientific judgement inherent in the statements I bolded above are disturbing.  They are also  reminiscent of the problems in the ONC-authored paper discussed at this link.

First:

• There is little doubt that use of I.T. results in fewer medical errors

On the contrary, there is significant well-researched doubt in that the evidence is quite contradictory.  Let's cite the IOM's 2012 report on health IT risk:

… “For example, the number of patients who receive the correct medication in hospitals increases when these hospitals implement well-planned, robust computerized prescribing mechanisms and use barcoding systems. But even in these instances, the ability to generalize the results across the health care system may be limited. For other products— including electronic health records, which are being employed with more and more frequency— some studies find improvements in patient safety, while other studies find no effect.   

IOM (Institute of Medicine) 2012. Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care (PDF). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Let's quote one of the IOM study panel members, an international authority on safety, Dr. Richard Cook:

... HIT's cornucopia has been promised repeatedly since the 1960's. Nothing like the promises has materialized.  Indeed, the IOM committee that was commissioned to evaluate the best evidence on this subject found no persuasive evidence that HIT improved patient safety. I know because I was there. 

The body of literature here also contains relevant studies contradicting Dr. Reider's quoted, dispositive statement.

Next:

• It’s obvious that in many areas there will be fewer errors

This statement requires no response, but I'll respond anyway.  

In science, stating something is "obvious" (i.e., what is referred to at the site "36 Humorous Methods of Proof" as "Proof by obviousness") is, on its face, bad science.

Next:

• Less than 1 percent of patient safety events are related to HIT

The aforementioned IOM report was quite clear on the following:

... Several reasons health IT–related safety data are lacking include the absence of measures and a central repository (or linkages among decentralized repositories) to collect, analyze, and act on information related to safety of this technology. Another impediment to gathering safety data is contractual barriers (e.g., nondisclosure, confidentiality clauses) that can prevent users from sharing information about health IT–related adverse events. These barriers limit users’ abilities to share knowledge of risk-prone user interfaces, for instance through screenshots and descriptions of potentially unsafe processes. In addition, some vendors include language in their sales contracts and escape responsibility for errors or defects in their software (i.e., “hold harmless clauses”). The committee believes these types of contractual restrictions limit transparency, which significantly contributes to the gaps in knowledge of health IT–related patient safety risks. These barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety.

... The magnitude of the risk associated with health IT is not known.

Likewise, FDA has concluded that what they know on HIT-related patient safety events is likely "the tip of the iceberg"  due to systematic impediments to knowing, as has the ECRI Institute who has only now begun to study the issue with any degree of rigor.  (The results are of great concern to anyone who should know, or should have made it their business to know, as at this link.)

Perhaps Dr. Reider needs a lesson on basic epistemology:  "We simply don't know what we don't know."

Finally:

• HIT-related errors, he reminded the audience, are not always the fault of vendors; providers can introduce risk when customizing their systems.

I find it remarkable that a government official uses a public/industry platform HIMSS to defend an industry, while at the same time stating more study is needed to understand the causative factors of harm from the industry's products.

This raises the question of conflict of interest, and the possibility this official is not impartial or trying to be "fair" but aiming towards protecting an industry he once worked for - and to where he's likely to return at some point.  (See Roy Poses' posts on "revolving doors" for examples of that.)

From his government biography here:

Dr. Jacob Reider
Director, Office of the Chief Medical Officer

Jacob Reider, MD is a family physician with 20 years of experience in health information technology and special interest in clinical innovation, user experience, and clinical decision support. His background includes leadership roles in nearly all facets of the health IT domain – from small start-up companies to academic facilities, primary care medical groups, and large health IT development organizations. Dr. Reider has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Students Association, the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, and has served in directorial positions on boards of several innovative health IT companies.

  
I note I do not find evidence of formal medical informatics education, which selfsame ONC recommends for leadership roles in health IT (see my Dec. 2009 post "ONC Defines a Taxonomy of Robust Healthcare IT Leadership"), but I do find roles such as:

Chief Medical Informatics Officer
Allscripts
June 2009 – January 2011 (1 year 8 months)

Medical Director
Allscripts
March 2007 – June 2009 (2 years 4 months)

Chief Medical Officer
MedRemote (Now Nuance)
November 1999 – December 2002 (3 years 2 months)

One might reasonably wonder what personal gains might accrue to Dr. Reider from the promotion of health IT - which includes downplaying its current risks - from an influential government perch.  (I for example held many Merck stock options after my late 2003 departure.  They remained underwater until expiration, but even a a $10 or $20 increase in stock price could have bought me, say, a new sports car or even house.)

I also note that the former CEO of Allscripts, Glen Tullman was, in fact, a close confidant of our current President and advisor on health IT during his first campaign:

A tireless advocate of technology in medicine, Tullman has been featured in virtually every major news outlet. An early supporter of fellow Chicagoan Barack Obama, Tullman introduced him to the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and served on his finance and healthcare committees during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Is it any wonder, then, that my expectation is that the forthcoming ONC HIT safety plan will be biased towards industry, reflect poor science and incomplete/selective research, and overall be a whitewash?

I'll be presenting on issues such as this to the Plaintiff's Bar.  They seem to be the last protectors of people's/patient's rights where clinical IT is concerned - a role they seem most familiar with in other sectors.

I emailed Dr. Reider a link to this post with a request that if he has robust evidence to support his assertions that is not publicly available, to please release it.

-- SS

Mar. 16, 2012 Addendum: 

A correspondent asked me the following that I thought deserved mention beyond the comments section:

"How would he know, exactly, when we know, that they never tallied the thousands of e-Rx errors from a national Siemens defect that was disclosed only at the Brown Medical Center Hospitals (Lifespan) but was a systemwide defect; nor from the Cerner convert to e-Rx defect that was evident at the Trinity Health System; and millions of other errors from when the e-Rx system was unavailable. Or, do they simply do not count those?"

My response?  No, they probably consider those "anecdotal." 

-- SS
 

Medscape re: Class Action suit: "Doctors Who Sued EHR Company Win First Round"

Interesting article about a Class-Action lawsuit against a health IT seller, Allscripts, see Medscape link below (the story is copyrighted so I cannot repost it here).

Relevant excerpts:

On Monday, March 4, a group of doctors who are suing their electronic health record (EHR) manufacturer for selling them a "buggy" product and then discontinuing it learned that the defendant's motion to block the lawsuit and compel them to accept binding arbitration was overruled by a judge in Miami, the first step in getting a court date in what is believed to be a first-of-its-kind case.

... In December 2012, 4 physician practices -- 2 pain clinics in Florida, 1 in Missouri, and a family medicine practice in Alabama -- became plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed against Allscripts, "an action arising from an expensive, but defective electronic health records software product," according to the complaint. The bottom line: The EHR was "buggy."

Says one of the doctors plaintiffs:

Anesthesiologist Robert J. Joseph, MD, of the Pain Clinic of Northwest Florida in Panama City, a plaintiff in the suit, makes no bones about it. "Our EHR is a piece of crap," he states.

-----

Link to full article:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779721

(It seems to come up fulltext without Medscape login, but I cannot guarantee this will persist.)

-- SS

Allscripts shares plunge on weak outlook, board changes, unhappy customers - but mostly unhappy customers, I surmise

Glen Tullman is CEO of the health IT seller Allscripts-Misys Healthcare.  He was an advisor to the Obama campaign on health information technology issues.

My organization had to sue his company for non-working products a few years ago (link to PDF of civil complaint) .

Apparently other customers were unhappy as well.  This from Reuters:

Allscripts shares plunge on weak outlook, board changes

Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:24am EDT

(Reuters) - Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc's shares plunged 42 percent in premarket trade on Friday, after the company forecast weak full-year earnings, hurt by software development costs and weaker bookings.

On Thursday, the healthcare information technology provider reported a lower-than-expected quarterly profit and also announced the resignation of its CFO, three directors and board Chairman Phil Pead.

Citigroup analyst George Hill said the results were strongly disappointing and downgraded the company's stock to "neutral" from "buy."

Hill said he was most troubled by the loss of long tenured CFO Bill Davis, who had been the public face of Allscripts to investors for many years.

"We suspect CEO Glen Tullman won a power struggle at the 11th hour leading to the board departures," Hill said.

"Too few customers are buying its products, due to lack of confidence or satisfaction," Barclays Capital analyst Lawrence Marsh wrote in a note.

Allscripts shares were trading at $9.27 in premarket trade. They had closed at $16.02 Thursday on the Nasdaq.

(Reporting by Shailesh Kuber in Bangalore; Editing by Joyjeet Das)

The statement 'too few customers are buying its products, due to lack of confidence or satisfaction', speaks volumes about the state of health IT in general in 2012.

That state includes eventual regulation after an IOM report on dubious safety, mission hostile user interfaces as identified by NIST and others that will require expensive remediation (due to the industry arrogantly ignoring this crucial issue for decades), 'glitches' due to poor or non-existent validation and quality control that will increasingly result in expensive litigation when patients are harmed, likely government investigations and clawbacks due to EHR-promoted upcoding, and an increasing awareness that many of the so-called miracle 'revolutionary' gains (as opposed to facilitation of medical practice) are largely illusory industry-promoted memes not based on robust, scientifically-generated evidence.

I'd pull out of this market - if I had any money invested in it.  I have none, and never have, because I have great lack of confidence in the industry that began when I was first exposed to it and its leaders - that being in 1992.

I note that the HITECH component of ARRA, containing incentives and penalties related to health care information technology designed to accelerate the adoption of EHR systems, was advanced largely via advice to the President on the wonders of health IT.  (I thought HITECH was a reckless, premature move destined to waste billions of dollars as did the erstwhile NPfIT in the NHS, and I still stand by that prediction.)

-- SS

4/27/12 Addendum:

EHR glitches like this and this never seem to affect patients...

-- SS

Shareholders Take Notice That Patients Used As Unconsented Guinea Pigs, Physicians as Bank by Health IT Vendors

At my Jan. 2009 post "Waste Feared in Digitizing Patient Records: Wall Street Journal" and others I have written about the illegitimacy of the abuse of patient rights, as well as abuse of clinician trust committed by health IT vendors using patient care settings as an unconsented software development laboratory and beta testing site. I wrote:

The IT industry uses hospitals, doctor offices and patients as alpha and beta test sites and subjects, unregulated by the FDA or other agency. When HIT fails, there is no central agency to report the failures to, only the vendor. Fixes go into a "queue" for remediation, with priority level decided by the vendor.

Clinicians are also used by HIT vendors as a form of bank and insurance company. HIT vendors depend on (free!) physician and nurse ingenuity in finding workarounds to the ill-conceived design and user experience (link to my eight part series on this issue) that their products usually present so that their products can even be salable. This, of course, taxes and tires clinicians at the expense of patients and hampers and complicates EHR diffusion. Clinicians become, in effect, unpaid development consultants to HIT companies (or, perhaps more accurately, since EHR's do become essential to medical practice, indentured servants to the HIT vendors).

Also, under the unethical, Joint Commission-violating and executive fiduciary responsibility-violating "Hold Harmless" and "Defects Nondisclosure" HIT contracting clauses, clinicians pay the price for bad patient outcomes, even if the causative factor was HIT errors. (See Health IT Hold Harmless and Defects Gag Clauses: Have Hospital Executives Violated Their Fiduciary Responsibilities By Signing Such Contracts?, and my July 22, 2009 JAMA letter to the editor on this issue.) Thus, clinicians become an insurance company, bank and risk safety net (a term that might not be inappropriate is "suckers") for the HIT vendors. This is not an optimal way to treat one's ultimate customers.

HIT is a mess, but that doesn't stop HIT vendors from simply lying about their financial status and future projected business to the investor community.

Now, HIT company shareholders are taking note of these industry (mal)practices. These (mal)practices are hitting shareholders where it really hurts - in the pocketbook. My comments in [red italics]:

Allscripts shareholders file class action suit
Healthcare IT News
August 05, 2009 | Bernie Monegain, Editor

CHICAGO – Allscripts shareholders have filed a lawsuit alleging the company broke federal securities laws when it went live with the newest version of its EHR clinical software, Touchworks [i.e., a "version" that had not been thoroughly tested and validated outside hospital walls, a practice HIT vendors get away with due to the near spinelessness of regulators such as the Joint Commission, FDA, and others - ed.] .

Allscripts officers say the suit is without merit.

[As I pointed out at "Do Healthcare Organizations Truly Want Electronic Health Records To Succeed?" regarding the lawsuit my own organization filed against this company and its partner Medicomp Systems (civil complaint PDF here), where incomplete, untested and non-functional software was sold by this company for use by our physicians, I'd say the allegations do deserve further investigation - ed.]

"We are aware of the lawsuit and have reviewed the complaint," Allscripts officials said Wednesday. "While it is our policy not to comment on the substance of pending litigation, we believe the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend the allegations."

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.) between May 8, 2007 and Feb. 13, 2008. It names Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, CEO Glen Tullman and Chief Financial Officer William J. Davis as defendants.

At a user conference in Orlando, Fla., July 30-31, Allscripts CEO Glen Tullman told some of the attendees that Allscripts might have rushed version 11 of Touchworks to market too quickly.

["Might have" rushed it out too quickly? It had, in fact, been delayed several months according to the lawsuit. "Perhaps" the delays needed to be lengthier. In other words, f*** the doctors and patients, we're getting this cr** out the door so as to not further injure our profits with further delays - ed.]

He said the company was caught off guard by providers who found new uses for the product.

["New uses?" (We all know that when companies sell broken HIT, it's always the doctors' fault) ... Likely translation: clinicians tried to practice medicine the way they saw best, not the way the Allscripts software designers saw best or "approved of." (Arrogance, anyone?) The clinician users tried to use the software in a real-world setting while applying the improvisations needed for proper patient care in a poorly bounded, uncertain environment (per Nemeth and Cook) and found the software's support of the uncertainties and realities of the clinical environment, and likely the software's stability itself, poor - ed.]

Tullman and Faisal Mushtaq, the company's senior vice president of product development, said Allscripts has invested roughly $14 million to improve stability and performance [after throwing the doctor and patient test subjects to the wolves after a "might have rushed it out" premature rollout - ed.], and they expect the next version, to be rolled out soon, to work more smoothly.

[I really despise the "version 1.1 will be much better" in healthcare settings, as it goes back to the issue of sick patients as unconsenting subjects in a software testing lab, and physicians as a bank and insurance company for the vendors when things go wrong -ed.]

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

* Allscripts lacked the necessary resources [i.e., smart, a.k.a expensive, people who actually know what they're doing thanks to the appropriate informatics education and expertise. Were the ones they did have tied up in patchwork remediation and crisis management? - ed.] to install V-11 software at customer sites; Allscripts had no historical basis to estimate the completion of V-11 or the impact V-11 sales might have on the company's 2007 revenues and earnings [if they made stuff up, that would not be too uncommon in today's financial environment. Also, the "lack of necessary resources", not unique to Allscripts, portends quite poorly for the planned, manic rush to national EHR by the cavalierly short deadline of 2014 - ed.]

* The complexity of V-11 had materially and adversely lengthened the sales cycle and revenue recognition cycle for the company's V-11 sales contracts [Another instantiation of my belief that business IT sales practices are inappropriate for clinical IT, where there are unconsenting "customers" with special rights - patients. One also wonders: did clinicians balk at a Rube Goldberg contraption but hospital executives purchase it anyway? - ed.];

* Allscripts was currently experiencing adverse and continuing delays in the installation of V-11 software systems [which were perhaps not revealed by clients, thanks to secrecy clauses regarding defects and problems as noted by Penn's Koppel and Kreda in JAMA? - ed];

* Based on the foregoing, defendants had no reasonable basis for their statements concerning Allscripts' current and future financial performance and projections.

The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, based in West Hartford, Conn. announced the class action lawsuit on Wednesday.

Click here to read the complaint: http://www.izardnobel.com/allscriptsmisyshealthcare/ .

The PDF of this class action complaint is here.

So, it seems entirely possible the defects nondisclosure clauses promulgated by these vendors, and accepted by meek hospital executives and CIO's, may have supported and/or led to a situation of shareholder fraud.

It would be ironic indeed if these cavalier HIT practices end, and the HIT vendors began to adhere to principles of responsibility and resilience engineering, not due to regulatory pressures but due to shareholder lawsuits.

Finally, Allscripts CEO Tullman was a campaign adviser to the President on healthcare. It's perhaps due to advisers like this that national plans for healthcare reform are sinking like the Titanic. As per my Feb. 18, 2009 Wall Street Journal letter:

... it is the government that has been deceived [rather than the public] by the HIT industry and its pundits. Stated directly, the administration is deluded about the true difficulty of making large-scale health IT work. The beneficiaries will largely be the IT industry and IT management consultants ... The government has bought the IT magic bullet exuberance hook, line and sinker.

-- SS

addendum:

Perhaps I should self-turn in this post as "fishy" to the healthcare reform snitch line at "flag@whitehouse.gov"?