Patient misidentification happens at a surprisingly high rate. Learn more about why that happens and what can be done to prevent it in this blog.
For years, healthcare’s financial incentive framework has been based on a fee-for-service model. This means that providers and hospitals are paid based on the number of healthcare services they provide. A higher volume of tests or procedures results in greater payments to the entities that provide them. The seemingly important element that is left out of this equation is whether the patient, who is being subjected to these tests and procedures, is experiencing improved health.
What is compliance and why it’s important in Healthcare?
It is a way for healthcare organizations to prove that their patients are their number one priority. By proving the quality of compliance, organizations can prove that year over year their quality in care is constantly improving. By being able to prove compliance is important within an organization, there is a direct correlation to better patient satisfaction, more patients, better opportunities for successful outreach, and staying in business.
It’s had to find good news in the report published by Protenus Breach Barometer. Their research says there were, on average, one significant protected health information breach per day during the month of January 2017. As a company that helps prevent criminal acquisition of data, I can say that I am not surprised. If you are sensitive to the issue, you’ll regularly see this kind of news.
The headline Medical Errors are the Third Leading Cause of Death is a popular title for a recent study that highlights the impact diagnostic errors can have on patients.
A web search turned up similar headlines every few years going back to the 1990’s. Clearly, not much has changed. There are still too many diagnostic errors and not enough has been done to reduce the carnage.
Critical results reporting or reporting lab results for priority patients from non-interfaced sources is no easy task. A delay in reporting can yield an unfortunate outcome for a patient whose condition is deteriorating. This is especially true for specialty departments that provide continued care for patients from far-flung locales, such as the transplant program. One transplant department receives thousands of these reports over a single patient's lifetime, and often hundreds of these documents for its patient population each day by fax.
A consultant who supports analytics for population health and quality of care recently told me that frequently, they can only access 80% or less of the total data needed for these initiatives.
If that data is truly random and characteristic of the whole body of data, than acquiring 80% of it is pretty good, perhaps even great. But what if that 80% comes largely from one population sub-group. What if it represents patients who are local - city-dwellers who live nearby and come directly to your facility for lab work and other tests - while the missing 20% is a completely different population. Perhaps this 20% is defined differently by lifestyle, geography or other variables because that population cannot easily come to your facility?
Health data challenges are a part of any healthcare organization. Frustration is a natural consequence. This is also a common topic in most healthcare press lately. It often feels like depending on which way the wind is blowing, the consensus is that EMR adoption by clinicians is either improving or getting worse. A recent KLAS report indicates adoption is improving across the globe. The decision to move to an enterprise EMR for most organizations often includes as a factor the goal of reducing the total number of applications supported. Initiatives to improve adoption then becomes a challenge if your department's prized application is removed for something "less than robust". Along with pain and frustration, keeping your clinicians happy is also a challenge
Healthcare Informatics recently published an article most of us can relate to—that if you want to remember something important, it helps to write it down. Information is only useful if available. According to the article, Research: Access to Docs’ Notes Increases Medication Aherence, researchers at Geisinger Health System found that patients who had access to their doctor’s notes demonstrated an improved adherence to a medication regimen. [medical record software and information accessibility