The issue of lab data communication has largely been addressed by to sets of messaging standards:
1) Instrument Interface with lab information systems (particulalry Point-of-Care instrumentation) is address by NCCLS (1 Nov to be: "Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institutue - CLSI) POCT1A
2) HL7 v2.x standards and CLSI LIS2A and LIS5A which define instrument-computer and computer-computer system data exchanges.


#1 uses message formats from #2 but defines low-lvel protocols similar to LIS1A (the CLSI stds were previously ASTM E-31). The EHR locations of these data (ASTM E-1384) have been mapped to the lab standards and are being related to the newer V3 HL7 standards. VistA has an HL7 messaging module that can deal with these messaging flow how ever the CLSI POCT1A use with respect to lab data flow is in a later state of evolution. Discussions are underway with World VistA about work with the clinical lab specialty societies to address these issues in concert with society educational forums and other meetings. The lab companies below usually have this capability but use of the LOINC vocabulary (present in VistA) within healthcare enterpise business processes is an additional dimension that both lab service and lab information system Suppliers have had difficulty with. Thus this probleme area will require collbaorative work with these healthcare disciplines.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Nancy E. Anthracite wrote:

I suspect by lab interface Kevin is referring to getting lab results back from
Lab Corp, Quest and the like and entering the results directly into the EMR.
Some years ago, the cost to do that was usually about $5000 collected by the
EMR company and another $5000 collected by the lab for an interface for ONE
lab.  I don't know it that is true any longer, but I strongly suspect it is.
Getting labs to make their output compliant with some standard would be a big
step forward and one that I think may have to be mandated by the government
sooner or later as there will be little incentive to change otherwise.  Now
if the VA did not do their own lab for the most part, they are big enough to
force a standardized interface.

On Tuesday 19 October 2004 02:22 pm, Cameron Schlehuber wrote:
I think those are excellent observations!

As for lab results, most lab instruments have electronic interfaces built
in.  (In my experience, even the oldest equipment had at least a
rudimentary electronic output.)

With regard to "upgrading", the VA has been extremely conservative with
regard to what kind of equipment the end user needs for access to VistA, as
well as the server side hardware and software.  Unless you're getting into
diagnostic imaging, hardware (and code set license) costs will be in line
with support costs (I would guess support costs over a 3 to 5 year upgrade
cycle would be nearly the same as the hardware and license fees for the
same time period).

Having standard health data interchange standards as ubiquitous as the
exchange standards banks use is critical to the VA's and the rest of the
world's success at providing a cost saving HER.  It's among the VHA's
highest priority if not THE highest.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin
Toppenberg
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Fwd: Text of Article from Modern Physician

Hello all,

In Tennessee, our medical malpractice company is
hosting an EMR conference this December (and why it is
them is interesting) .  My office manager and I will
be attending at the request of my medical group.  The
group had previously agreed (tenatively) to go with
VistA, but they still want me to look at other
alternatives.  I haven't seen the actual report, but I
have heard that AAFP is now "strongly recommending"
that physicians get an EMR system.  I think this will
push many into buying in--perhaps for fear of
liability if something happens after such a strong
directive is ignored.  This will be an business
expense, not an investment, because there will be
little (and I suspect no) financial return on this
expendature.

But frankly, I worry that this will be an expensive
wild goose chase.  I believe the power of an EMR will
not be realized unless there is interoperability.  For
example, if labs are not obtained in a standard format
that could be shared with others, then users will end
up scanning the report and storing it as a graphic.
This is no better than a paper chart.  And while many
labs probably have such an interface, I know that my
hospital doesn't.  And I suspect a majority of small
hospitals don't (and remember that MUCH of America's
health care is given by small practices working with
small hospitals).

So after AAFP and other organizations push doctors
into coughing up the $100-200k needed to get a new
system up and running, will patient care be better?
I'm not convinced it will.  I have heard that thought
leaders feel that a good EMR could achieve a 20%
reduction in health care expendatures.  But unless my
EMR will somehow let me instantly access a lab/study
ordered by another physician in another city, I don't
see how this could happen.  And now system I have seen
addresses this issue.  With HIPPA nervousness
abounding, no one will release records without a
written signature from a patient, and I not heard of
any quicker electronic solution to this problem.

I keep a relatively well organized paper chart with
tabs etc.  It is fast and complete.  It easily stores
the carbon copies of scripts that I write, letters
that patients write me, copies of their advance
directives etc etc.  All these things would have to be
scanned in an EMR, and then possibly lost in a shuffle
of filenames (i.e. "image1462").  My charts are
portable: they can travel in the car with me, or I can
take them to the hospital when admitting a patient.
They're flexible: I could have a visit in a patient's
home if required (i.e. I don't have to have a computer
station set up.)  They're "hi-res": Most computer
screens have to magnify the image so that a scanned
image is readable.  Thus a full scanned page often
won't fit on a screen and still be legible.  So you
have to scroll around.  Paper doesn't have this
problem.

As one who has put in a significant amount of time
working with VistA, I don't want to sound like a
Luddite anti-technologist.  But I am seriously
concerned that physicians are being pushed into making
a sudden technology change away from a system that has
withstood the test of time. I'm also concerned about a
"lock-in" issue.  I suspect that none of us use the
same word processor that we did 10 years ago, but
rather technology has progressed and we regularly
purchase the latest and greatest.  But will physicians
be willing to purchase system after system the way we
do computers now?  I doubt it. If our group buys a
non-VistA EMR, I imagine we will keep it at least 10
years. We'll be locked into 2004 technology until
2014. (Our current system is 1980's technology)

So what do I think the solution is to all this?  Well,
VistA goes a long way.  First, it is easily
conceivable that VistA could be established in an
office for ~$10-20k, one-tenth the cost of a
commercial system.  (And my goal is to make the cost
much less than this).  This will make it much less
painful for small practices, and still quite
attractive for vendors (multiply the "272,428
practices" below by $10,000 makes for a nice
retirement plan.)  And if we have a critical mass of
physicians on the same system, we have more chance of
interoperability.

So in summary, I support getting EMRs into physicians
offices, but I think we need to have realistic goals.
We need to provide inexpensive solutions, and plan for
gradual transitions. And VistA has a great potential
meeting some of these goals.

Hope to see you all at the WorldVistA conference.

Kevin

--- Joseph Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Re: market size

According to an AMA survey from 2001, 33% of what it
calls "patient care physicians" are in solo
practice, another 11% are in practice in
two-physician offices, 8.5% in three-physician
offices. These exclude government and military docs.
 That 52.5% is in practices so small most EMR
vendors I've spoken with don't want to bother with
them because the sales costs excede the returns.

The vendors' interests might change some if an
Oklahoma gold rush mentality develops to get an EMR,
and say a salesman's batting average rises to one
hit for every three times up to bat, as opposed to
one hit in 10, but while physicians are much more
receptive to the idea of buying an EMR today than
just four years ago, price is still the No. 1
barrier to EMR purchase, as cited by the recent MGMA
survey and the Modern Physician IT survey last year.


The AMA says there is no direct number of "patient care physicians" to multiply these percentages against, because they are for a sample, not a total count, but that said, there are about 514,016 docs in what the AMA calls "office-based physicians in patient care,"which is not exactly the same as patient care physicians, I'm told, but it is probably close enough for handgrenades and this estimate.

So, doing the math, that's  171,167 in solo
practice, 57,570 in dual-practice, 43,691 in
trio-practice, and 272,428 in those three combined.
That's the market that's being underserved right now
and where EMR penetration rates are lowest (10%)
according to the latest MGMA survey.







Joseph Conn
Online Editor
Modern Physician
ModernPhysician.com
Modern Physician STAT
Heatlh IT Strategist
312-649-5395
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Check out the NEW ModernPhysician.com, and register
now for MP Stat and MP Point of Care

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/15/04 01:07PM >>>

May I suggest shifting the frame of reference to the global context which is where open source really matters. In this context the numbers of potential adopters for VistA, whether for clinics or hospitals becomes staggering. Not one of any of the current vendors of any system has the capacity or business model to ramp up the way a well designed open source application with an effective community behind it can.

VistA is a classic example of a disruptive
technology...stay tuned we
are just at the beginning of the ride.

Joseph

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 17:03, Michael Ginsburg wrote:
Bill,

Let's not confuse ourselves. As far as I know,

there are no commercial

vendors planning to release their products as Open

Source or to put

them in the public domain. If I'm wrong, please

let us know! If I'm

right, than the VistA community, regardless of the

actual number, is

larger than a non-existent (fill in the blank)

community. So worrying

about something that doesn't exist isn't going to

help us.

Having said that, the size of the VistA community

will be important as

we move forward. It's the law of Small Numbers. 1%

market penetration

is 4000! That's a lot of potential customers for

any business. These

are customers that will need help implementing

their systems, training

their users and fixing problems when they arise.

They will also be

constantly demanding upgrades and improvements.

Figuring out how to

provide all that to the same standard set by the

best non-VistA

vendors is the challenge for the VistA community.

And I say community

because references and credibility are the keys to

product acceptance.

If a VistA site crashes and burns it will reflect

badly and impede the

efforts of everyone. You are right, the community

needs to get

serious.

As for documentation, I can assure you that

VistA-Office EHR will be a

high quality product in all respects, including

good documentation. As

for M, I see that as being a big plus since it's

the only technology

that I know of that is purpose-built to handle

medical information.

But that's just my opinion.

Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/15/2004 4:17:15 PM

Hi Michael, ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Ginsburg To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Fwd: Text

of Article from

        Modern Physician

In my opinion, (and, as always, I speak

only for myself) I

would agree that in a head to head

competition with "Open

Logician" that VistA-Office EHR would

lose. That is if all you

were comparing was functionality. As a

system for the

physician's office, Logician is a more

mature offering, no

question. VistA-Office EHR is only in the

embryonic stage.

However, if you were to compare them in

"open source"

market and all that implies and entails,

VistA-Office EHR

would be the clear winner. To the best of

my knowledge,

Logician does not have a rabid (and I mean

that only in the

nicest sense!), international community of

developers or an

organized community of cooperating vendors

who can supply

professional services, with all working in

concert to promote,

        support and enhance the application.

This community you speak of... how big is

it exactly?

Compared to the one the exists that could

and would sign up to

support Open Logician. See my comments

re: this topic in my

        response to Mark.

On the topic of 'rabid' ... I've never

seen that included in a

recommended list of selection criteria.

Reliable,

yes. References, yes. Responsive, yes.

Cost effective, yes.

Frankly, I'm not sure that VistA has all

that yet either and

therein lies the challenge and the

opportunity! Yes, the

serious discussions have to start, but,

the VistA community

doesn't need a survival strategy, it needs

a growth strategy.

We don't disagree on this. It's

perspective, I guess. Growth

vs. Survival. My background in business

has

=== message truncated ===




__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members

-- Nancy Anthracite




------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members

Reply via email to