Building a framework
While correct technology selection and use is a key element to HIE success, no product by itself can guarantee success. What’s needed is a framework that brings all stakeholders together— which may include providers, payers, government agencies, employers, clinical research organizations, and pharmaceutical and technology vendors—to analyze and assess the softer considerations of business processes, governance, budgets and politics. “Most of the problems experienced by HIE initiatives arrive from the lack of a systematic and disciplined approach,” says Rizkin.
HP has leveraged experiences derived from other industries to develop an HIE Reference Model and Architecture Program. As HP Program Manager Yvonne Yoneshige describes, the Reference Model is the “what”—what should the components of an HIE look like—and the Architecture Program is the “how”—how to build the roadmap for putting those components in place.
“HIE sustainability depends on each situation; there’s no template answer,” says Yoneshige, adding the process of applying the HP model typically starts with a customer assessment. “We identify the gaps between where health information exchange participants are and where they’d like to be, and apply our methodology to close those gaps, laying out the implementation steps that will transform their vision into a robust solution.”
“HP has provided a comprehensive HIE Reference Model,” adds current health information exchange participant Timothy Pletcher, Director of Applied Research at Central Michigan University. “It allows a regional health information organization to get the right questions out on the table, ensures people are saying the same things to each other, and equips the organization to fully understand the magnitude of the short- and long-term impact of its implementation/vendor selection decisions.”
The HP Reference Model is:
- Targeted at four functional HIE domains—Clinical, Business, Administration and Management.
- Designed to facilitate discussion between stakeholder groups to identify and define solution components, including process, information, technology, organizational readiness and finance.
The intent is to turn decision-making from an ad-hoc process into one that is directed at the use of technology to meet business goals.
“In order to be viable, a health information exchange needs to emerge as a duly operationalized framework for clinical and administrative services, and act as a component of a broader sustainable, governable business model,” says Yoneshige.
Structured implementation
Once a HIE framework is established, the HP Architecture Program provides a structured process for technology implementation and overall management. Through a series of workshops, HP consultants walk HIE participants through their “use case”—the goal or benefit which they’ve decided to target first, such as electronic medical record implementation, syndromic surveillance, medication history and management, lab result reporting or claims management.
Through the HP Architecture Program, organizations benefit from:
- A systemized and managed way to address potential problems
- A comprehensive risk management methodology that helps foster community trust
- A series of scorecards that can be used by administrators and management to effectively align business drivers, goals and objectives
“We’ve risen above the battles being fought between vendors to create a framework into which participants can bring different solutions based on their value in the context of the health information exchange,” say Rizkin, noting the HP methodology is technology-agnostic. “Our methodology and partnerships help to ensure that customers are addressing their most critical issues, and are applying the appropriate tools, techniques and technologies.”
To learn more call 1-877-258-6162 and reference code 11.
* “eHealth Initiative Releases Results of 2007 Survey on Health Information Exchange,” December 2007.
|
Printable version
Almost every healthcare challenge—from inefficient processes and skyrocketing costs, to increases in medical errors and sub-optimal quality of care—ties directly back to the lack of a systematic way to move information electronically between disparate healthcare information systems.