HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing
description
Transcript of HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing
![Page 1: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
HIT Policy and Standards CommitteePatient Generated Data Hearing
Leslie Kelly Hall
June 20, 2012
![Page 2: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Panel 1: Uses of Patient Reported Information in Managing Health• Nikolai Kirienko, Patient • Kate Goodrich/Patrick Conway, CMS• David Lansky, Pacific Business Group on Health• Philip Marshall, Healthline Networks
Panel 2: Emerging Practices • Moderator: Leslie Kelly Hall• Judy Hibbard, University of Oregon• Barbara Howard, CHADIS• Elliot Fischer, Dartmouth • Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, National Cancer Institute• Neil Wagle, Brigham and Women's Hospital• John Amschler, Quantified Self
Testimony
2
![Page 3: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Panel 3: Policy Issues Related to Patient Reported Data• Deven McGraw, Health Privacy Project• Prashila Dullabh, NORC• Chad P. Brouillard, Foster & Eldridge, LLP
Panel 4: Challenges• Patti Brennan, Project Health Design• Steve Downs, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Testimony
3
![Page 4: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Overview
• CMS instruments HCAHPS and other patient reported outcome measures will grow
• Patient generated health data (PGHD) White paper presented– “PGHD complemented provider-directed capture
and flow of health-related data across the health care system.”
– Use cases and workflow technical descriptions• Foundation for S&I
4
![Page 5: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Overview
• PGHD are not equally helpful to every patient, provider, or situation in generating improvements in health
• Success shown where expectations set– Frequency of sharing– Data to share– Use by providers– Accuracy
• Patient reported outcomes can complement traditional clinical and administrative data
5
![Page 6: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Overview
• The physician is responsible only for the use of the PHR data that the physician has actively chosen….. and specifically incorporated into the patient’s active medical care.
• Patient access to education materials important to avoid unnecessary communication– Literacy, language discussed
• PGHD is an important safety check
6
![Page 7: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Overview
• Consider Stage 2 MU support– Patient messages– Questionnaire responses
• Previsit• Experience of care• Quality measures
• Consider Stage 3 MU support– Point of care– Patient initiated– Prior to visit– Collaborative care plans
7
![Page 8: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Overview
• Recommend a progression of measures– Volume of use– Types of use– Use itself
• White Board as a metaphor for collaborative care communication– Inpatient and beyond
• VA believes PGHD as a key component to improve care and health status
8
![Page 9: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Overview
• Emphasis • Experience and value
– Improving health status– Standardization– Sharing and Workflow– Synchronization– Security
• Registries as an important part of PGHD collection and dissemination
• Mobile will be a game changer
9
![Page 10: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Overview
• Standards and structure of PGHD important for adoption and integration into workflow
• Validated tools for patient reported outcomes needed
• Investigate new ways PGHD to interoperate S&I recommended– API– DIRECT– Consolidate CDA
10
![Page 11: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Overview
• Patient reported outcomes PROMS– Multimodal delivery and collection
• IVR • Patient facing system
– Concerns upfront• Workflow• Information overload• Liability
– Implementation gone better than expected• Patients positive• Workflow not adversely impacted
11
![Page 12: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Overview
• Patient Activation Measures (PAM) scores– PAM PGHD contribute to clinician understanding
of patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for managing health
• Pediatric/family/physician PGHD high area of satisfaction and collaborative care– Modular approach for EHR “bolt ons” and PFS
12
![Page 13: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Conclusions
• PGHD – Accepted into EHR– Standardized– Interoperable– Multiple respondents– Include patient facing systems– Shared decision making– Include expert systems outside EHR– Include Quality– Not limited by legacy systems
13
![Page 14: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Value of PGHD
14
Patient Provider
![Page 15: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Value of PGHD
15
Provider
PatientCare Team
![Page 16: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusions
• Standard of care is evolving and may include PGHD in the near future
• Where implemented PGHD has improved quality and patient confidence
• PGHD for values, intolerances, AD, and preferences may fit well within CPOE
• Workflow, structured data, and expectations should be well defined and understood
• New technologies like mobile health and new data sources may overwhelm providers who have not initiated structured PGHD efforts
16
![Page 17: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Conclusions
• Patients are the source of the majority of data in the record, PGHD is a logical next step
• PGHD matter because they allow clinicians to see a richer picture of the patient’s day-to-day health
• All PGHD does not need to go into EHR– Incl necessary to clinical decision making
• Value based reimbursement may make PGHD more pervasive
• Concerns exist, however pilots proved positive
17
![Page 18: HIT Policy and Standards Committee Patient Generated Data Hearing](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022083006/56813b72550346895da47b88/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Conclusions
• Patients are eager to participate and are more engaged in care and treatment
• Patients can provide accurate and useful information
• Processing PGHD will require computing and human intervention
• Attribution is an important part of acceptance• Process for PGHD by providers will vary• Data structure should standard and constant
18