Monday, April 11, 2011

Comments on Goal IV of the ONC HealthIT Strategic Plan

I'm  returning to an unfinished theme --  comments on the ONC Strategic plan, after the ACO rule and other Federal distractions in this past week.

John Moehrke covered Goal III quite well in his post at the end of March.  My thoughts on Goal II appeared the same day, just before the ACO rule was announced, just in case you missed them.  And my comments on Goal I appeared the day before that.

Goal IV: Empower Individuals with Health IT to Improve their Health and the Health Care System

Objective A. Engage individuals with health IT
Strategy IV.A.1: Listen to individuals and implement health IT policies and programs to meet their interests.
This one is pretty well written.  It's hard to see how they follow up on it, because I'm not usually involved in many of the conversations already taking place.
When including individuals in the health IT policymaking process, the government cannot expect them to come to Washington, D.C. or to seek out rulemaking processes. To truly be representative, ONC will seek to participate in on-going public conversations about health IT. These conversations are already taking place, whether it is in online forums serving specific demographics, community-based faith groups, or chronic disease advocacy groups. ONC will participate in these public dialogues with the aim of learning how health IT policy can support individual empowerment.
Strategy IV.A.2: Communicate with individuals openly and spread messages through existing communication networks and dialogue.
Existing communication networks need not be fancy.  How about TV?  Write something for a magazine that consumers read (maybe even "Consumer Reports").  Go for broad instead of focused...  CMS is mostly about Medicare and Medicaid, but many of us receiving healthcare aren't beneficiaries of either.  All of us are consumers of healthcare, but I receive the LEAST information about federal healthcare initiatives as a patient.

Objective B. Accelerate individual and caregiver access to their electronic health information in a format they can use and reuse
Strategy IV.B.1: Through Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, encourage providers to give patients access to their health information in an electronic format.
This is working, but is not happening as fast as I would like it.  Even so, I'll soon have access to my own records.  I don't know where my childrens' pediatrician stands, nor providers serving other family members.  I expect they are behind my own health provider.  One would hope that the recently announced Care Connectivity Consortium that includes Kaiser, Mayo, Intermountain, Geisinger, and the Group Health Cooperative would show the rest of the country how to succeed.  The recent ACO rule is a Medicare incentive program that would move ACOs further ahead, requiring them to develop a plan for exchange inside and outside their communities of care.

Strategy IV.B.2: Through federal agencies that deliver or pay for health care, act as a model for sharing information with individuals and make available tools to do so.
The focus here seems to be on things like blue button, which is little better than a computer FAX.  I'd like to see that expand to structured data like the C32.  Exchanges between organizations like Kaiser using the NwHIN are also demonstrating success.  I still hear a lot about what is going on with Social Security, which I find somewhat disappointing, as that is related to disability benefits, rather than being focused on healthcare.  A lot of talk today is about VHA and DoD collaborations on open source, but the jury is still out on whether that will be successful.  Certainly this is a model of information sharing that is both long overdue, and also long fraught with challenges.

Strategy IV.B.3: Establish public policies that foster individual and caregiver access to their health information while protecting privacy and security.
The strengthening of HIPAA under HITECH seems to be having an impact.  Recent prosecutions of HIPAA violations have resulted in quite a bit of attention that make me feel safer, but probably do little to make the average healthcare consumer feel any better.  The provisions in the ACO regulations which foster access to health information have recently come under some fire with regard to how they have ignored the Privacy and Security discussions in the ONC FACAs to date.  I'll leave this specific issue to my colleague John Moehrke for any detailed comments.

Objective C. Integrate patient-generated health information and consumer health IT with clinical applications to support patient-centered care
Strategy IV.C.1: Support the development of standards and tools that make EHR technology capable of interacting with consumer health IT and build these requirements for the use of standards and tools into EHR certification.
This is certainly happening in the ONC S and I Framework.  If I were grading it, I'd give ONC and A for effort, and a C for results right now. The S and I Framework projects, currently hosted here and previously hosted here have been going on for about 4 months.  Building from experiences in The Direct Project, these initiatives are effectively the "New HITSP".  
It is still somewhat outside of the framework of SDO governance (even when done with SDOs as in the CDA Consolidation project).   Deadlines and planning for these projects is certainly an issue.  The first of these projects: The CDA Consolidation project had little more than three months to consolidate guides from IHE, HL7 and HealthStory, focusing on the meaningful use components.  It takes many groups more time than that to go through the usual "Storming and Forming" processes, but the S and I framework and HL7 ballot deadlines didn't allow for that.  I'm still having trouble understanding what the other projects are doing, and trying to figure out what their goals and deadlines are -- there could be better communication.
There are cases where communication should have occurred using existing networks and technologies but didn't.  Wiki's are great for collaborative development, but not really for communication.  Mailing lists are much better for the latter, but still don't seem to be used much.

Strategy IV.C.2: Solicit and integrate patient-generated health information into EHRs and quality measurements.
The ACO rule includes a requirement to integrate patient generated survey results into quality measurements. The need for greater patient engagement continues.  The first step is to provide patient's access to their health information.  The second step is to get patient sourced information into their health records.  Given that we haven't yet achieved the first step, it's pretty clear that this one is not ready yet.  However, Meaningful Use has set the stage for getting the nation moving towards both of these steps.

Strategy IV.C.3: Encourage the use of consumer health IT to move toward patient-centered care.
Mostly this is being done by including patient generated data into quality measures (e.g., as in the ACO rule). I'd like for there to be more opportunity for patients to use consumer health IT.  Current solutions (e.g., Cloud-based PHRs) don't appeal to me.  I want my data on hardware I can control and secure, and I want to be able to access it simply.  I want the "Quicken" of consumer health IT applications and I want it to be about Health, not payment.

Friday, April 8, 2011

What to do about ONC meetings next week if the US Government Shuts down

Just got this via e-mail today (because Monday the mail might not go thru).  In summary, if the Gov't shuts down, FACAs will not meet -- read the entire message below the line for details.


I have not been able to confirm what would happen to ONC S & I activities. Because those are led by contractors rather than ONC employees, it isn't at all clear what will  happen, and few of them are answering Skype/e-mail/twitter right now (just before 5:00 EST).


If a shutdown does happen, I will use any extra time (note, I said extra, because it was never free) to make progress on other fronts that have been postponed by government activities ;-)

If I learn more, I'll update this post.

Update: According to one source: All is still on: Contractors work at risk, and from another: Purely federal folks will not be on calls, but contractors are allowed to work at their own discretion.


Oh well, so much for work put on hold ;-(


   -- Keith



Dear FACA members,


As you may know, we face a possible government shut down as of midnight tonight, April 8. In case we do shut down, there will be no federal government activity including any FACA meetings or calls. I, and others at ONC, will be prohibited from conducting any of our duties while the government is closed. Once funding is available, we will return to work. IF THERE IS NO SHUT DOWN, THE MEETINGS WILL CONTINUE AS PLANNED.

Assuming we are shut down:  If there is a FACA Workgroup conference call and we are shut down, that call will not take place. However, if we find out the day before the call is scheduled, please assume that the call will take place. For example, the Information Exchange Workgroup has a call scheduled for Friday, April 15; if we are back at work on Thursday, April 14, that call will take place.


The situation is a little different if there is an in-person meeting, such as the HIT Policy Committee on April 13 in Washington, DC.  If we know by noon the day before (in this case, noon on April 12), you may assume the meeting will take place.


Travel: if you travel on the morning of April 12 for the HITPC but find after noon that the meeting is cancelled, we will be able to cover your costs since the funds are from FY10 money.  Also, if you find that the notification of the meeting occurring is short, you may wish to call into the meeting and we can arrange that.


Since we will know more at midnight tonight (but I cannot come into work this weekend if we are furloughed), I will email you all on Monday morning, April 11, with final instructions. I hope any shutdown is not lengthy, but if it does stretch more than next week, please watch the news. I will send you an email as soon as I am able. Please call or email me if you have questions. I will be available until about 11:30 am/ET on Monday, April  11 (Not over weekend if we are shut down).  Thank you for your patience and understanding. Judy


FACA Schedule – April 11 through April 22

In-person Meetings in Washington (will be held if Government open by noon the day before):
April 13, HIT Policy Committee meeting

April 20, HIT Standards Meeting

April 21, Certification/Adopting Workgroup meeting (I am also sending this information to panelists)

Workgroup calls (will be held if Government is opened the day before):
April  12, Quality Measures WG

April 14, Vocabulary Task Force

April 15, Information Exchange WG

April 18, Privacy & Security Tiger Team and Clinical Quality WG

April 19, Business Rules Tiger Team/Enrollment WG

April 22, Clinical Operations WG



Judith Sparrow
Office of the National Coordinator for HIT
Dept of Health and Human Services
Washington, DC

UML/OCL or XML/XPath ... which is best

The HL7 / IHE / HealthStory CDA Consolidation project will be submitting the "Meaningful Use" sections for ballot today.  The ballot opens today and can be found on the ballot site under the title: HL7 Implementation Guides for CDA® Release 2: IHE Health Story Consolidation, Release 1 (US Realm), and is available for signup until May 2nd.  If you've signed up, you have until May 9th to submit your comments.

Over time, HL7 has developed a new pattern for conformance statements for CDA Implementation guides based on the following principles:

We use XPath expressions because they are easy for developers to read and understand.  XPath expression have their context (are rooted) at the XML element containing the templateId element.  The keywords SHALL, SHOULD, MAY, NEED NOT, SHOULD NOT and SHALL NOT are highlighted and indicate whether content must, is recommended or simply allowed to be present (or negated in these same forms).

The number of times that things are required or recommended to be present are given in both english text (only one, at least one, one or more, zero or one, zero to many) and in bracketed form [0..*] for commonly used cardinalities.

One of the challenges in developing this guide has been bridging the gap in MDHT between UML and OCL,  where the constraints are represented; and XML and XPath, the way we want to express them to developers.

Here is an example constraint with the associated OCL:

24. SHALL satisfy: At least one [1..*] patientRole element is present in recordTarget (CONF-CONSOL-21)
• [OCL]: self.recordTarget->size() > 0 and self.recordTarget->exists(target : cda::RecordTarget | not target.patientRole.oclIsUndefined())

The same constraint in XPath (assuming the ClincialDocument element as context) is:
count(cda:recordTarget/cda:patientRole) > 0.
That XPath expression will be true if there is at least  1 patientRole element.

I spent 4 hours yesterday writing (manually) conformance statements for the IHE Reconciliation profile following a similar pattern as the CDA Consolidation project.  The manual exercise allowed me to find common patterns which I'd like to share:

  1. A template applies only to certain classes represented in the CDA R-MIM (e.g., a section, act, substanceAdministration, et cetera).
    Template X applies to cda:section elements.
    XPath: self::cda:section
  2. A structural attribute (e.g., moodCode, classCode or typeCode) of the class is fixed to a single value.
    The @classCode attribute of the act element shall be set to the value ACT.
    XPath: @classCode="ACT"
  3. A specific identifier must be used for one of the class attributes.
    The @root attribute of the id element shall be X and
    The @extension attribute of the id element shall be Y
    XPath: @root="X" and @extension="Y"
  4. An identifier from a specific namespace must be used for one of the class attributes.
    The @root attribute of the id element shall be X.
    XPath: @root="X"
  5. An element may be null
    The effectiveTime/@value shall be precise to the day.
    The @nullFlavor attribute may be used on the effectiveTime if the information is unknown.
    XPath: string-length(cda:effectiveTime/@value)>8 or cda:effectiveTime/@nullFlavor
  6. An element shall/should not be null.
    The @nullFlavor attribute shall/should not be present be used on the effectiveTime.
    XPath: not(cda:effectiveTime/@nullFlavor)
  7. A coded class attribute shall/should/may be coded using a specific terminology.
    The @codeSystem attribute shall/should/may of the code element shall be set to the value X.
    XPath: cda:code/@codeSystem="X"
  8. A coded class attribute shall/should/may be used from a specific value set.
    The code element shall contain a value drawn from the X value set.
    XPath: document(ValueSetServiceURL + "?valueSetID=X&code=" + cda:code/@code + "&codeSystem=" + cda:code/@codeSystem)//isValid
    (Note: This is an example using the document() function to call on a RESTful URL that returns XML contain the element isValid if the code and codeSystem given are part of the value set.  The IHE Sharing Value Sets profile is one example of such a service that could be used, but this example doesn't use that syntax.  There's about 10 ways to skin this cat).
  9. A specific data type must be used for a class attribute.
    The value element shall be reported using the PQ datatype.
    XPath: contains(concat(":",cda:value/@xsi:type,":"),":PQ:")
    (Note: This is not quite a perfect.  If matches cases that are wrong because it assumes that if you use cda:PQ that cda:  is the correct namespace declaration.  Better tests can be written but this one would catch most failures to conform). 
  10. A time stamp must/should have a certain precision.
    The effectiveTime/@value attribute of the ClinicalDocument shall be precise to at least the day.
    XPath: substr(@value, 1, string-length(@value) - string-length(substring-after(concat(translate(@value,'+-','|'),'|') ) > 7
    (Note: This one removes any time-zone suffix found by translating the + or - delimiter to a |, adds a | to be sure that a | is ALWAYS present, computes the length of the time-zone suffix, removes it from the string and then checks the lenght of the date.
  11. A name or address component shall/should be present.
    At least one [1..*] family element must be present in the name element.
    XPath: count(cda:name/cda:family)>0
  12. The class shall/should/may contain some number of classes conforming to another template.
    The act shall contain at least one [1..*] observation conforming to Template Name (templateId: 2.16.840...)
    XPath: .//cda:observation[cda:templateId/@root = X]
  13. The class shall/should/may directly contain some number of classes conforming to another template.
    The act shall directly contain only one [1..1] observation conforming to Template Name (templateId: 2.16.840...)
    XPath: ./cda:observation[cda:templateId/@root = X] 
A single constraint addresses a class and attribute in the UML/OCL representation of the CDA content and the templated element  and one or more subordinate attributes or elements and their attributes in the XML/XPath representation.

There's also a couple of different ways to combine constraints:
  1. Disjunction of two or more constraints:  Constraint A OR constraint B or both must be followed.
    The act shall contain at least one of the following:
      only one observation conforming to Template Name (templateId: 2.16.840...)
      one or more observations conforming to Template Name (templateId: 2.16.840...)
  2. Exclusive disjunction of two or more constraints:  Constraint A OR constraint B but not both
    The act shall contain only one of the following:
      only one observation conforming to Template Name (templateId: 2.16.840...)
      one or more observations conforming to Template Name (templateId: 2.16.840...)
  3. A conditional constraint, where if one condition is met, another shall/should be (or not be) met.
    If the birthTime/@value is less than a day in the past, then birthTime/@value shall be precise to the hour.
As presently designed, MDHT represents all constraints as OCL.  I would change this in certain ways.  Rather than use OCL directly, I would rather have a mechanism to store the data needed for the few handfuls of constraints shown above, and a method to translate those into either an OCL or an XPath (or other expression).  If a constraint couldn't be represented in one of these common ways, then I would represent it as either an UML/OCL or XML/XPath constraint.

So, my answer to this question is NEITHER.  What is best is representation of constraints based on common patterns, and only afterwards, translation into the appropriate language.  After all, just because you have a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Medical Device Regulation: An Overview from the FDA

I don't usually cover medical device related topics in this blog, but the recent MDDS final rule (pdf) from the FDA has potential impacts on Health IT solutions using separate  interface engines.  As interface enginers are commonly used with Health IT, and they  could under this rule be considered a Medical Device Data System, I thought this webinar might be of interest to my readers.


  -- Keith


The FDA is presenting on the Medical Device Regulation on an upcoming HIMSS Webinar (April 13th). You will need to register for this event (free to HIMSS members).  Thanks!


Medical Device Regulation: An Overview from the Food and Drug Administration
Date: 4/13/2011
4:00-5:00PM EDT
Cost: $0.00 for HIMSS members $79.00 for non-HIMSS members
Description:
Abstract: 
The Food and Drug Administrations (FDA)'s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has the responsibility for assuring safety and effectiveness of medical devices in the United States.  The CDRH oversees medical devices by classifying them based on risk along with a number of oversight tools to promote health and reduce risk of harm to patients.  On February 15, 2011, the FDA published its final rule to reclassify Medical Device Data Systems (MDDS).  A Medical Device Data System is a new category of medical device that acts as a conduit for communication of electronic data obtained from other medical devices.  Learn more about the new rule and its implications for your organization from two key representatives of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
Learning Objectives: 
  • Explore the role of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health plays in the regulation of medical devices
  • Gain an understanding of risk-based oversight
  • Discuss the Final "Medical Device Data Systems" rule
Speakers:
  • Anthony D. Watson, BS, MS, MBA, Director, Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Infection Control, and Dental Devices, Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration 
  • Bakul Patel, MSEE, MBA, Policy Advisor, Officer of the Center Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration
Continuing Education:
This webinar has been approved for up to 1.0 continuing education (CE) hours for use in fulfilling the continuing education requirements of the Certified Professional in Healthcare Information & Management Systems (CPHIMS)


Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Using XPointer in CDA URI references

I've written previously of use cases where the HL7 CDA specification supports Natural Language Processing capabilities.  One of the challenges in natural language processing is that you can have conflicting parses of the same sentence structure, resulting in overlapping spans of text which have alternative representations.  There are also cases where non-contiguous spans of text provide evidence for information (especially in sentences using lists and conjunctions).  I ran into this problem previously in the XML world, but fortunately for me, I worked in the office next store to one of the guys writing a W3C standard that would help.  It is a problem that is quite adequately solved these days using the XPointer standard.  XPointer is essentially an extension of the W3C  XPath languages.  It allows a URI Fragment identifier -- you know, that part of the URI after the hash sign (#) to be written as an XPath expression and has some additional XPath extensions.

To link an observation element in the CDA document to the text which generated it using NLP (another use case for linking entries to content), you would create an XPointer expression which pointed to the text that provided the evidence for it.  An example appears below.

Patient denies alcohol or tobacco use.

In this example, only the first and last parts of the sentence provide evidence for the specific observation "Patient denies tobacco use".  The middle words are NOT part of the textual evidence supporting that observation.  A second observation on the denial alcohol use would different parts of the text:

Patient denies alcohol or tobacco use.

There is no way to mark up the spans of text simultaneously  to support both observations using spans enabled by the CDA content tag and simple URI fragment identifiers.  One possible markup that could work using XPointer is:


The XPointer expressions become #xpointer(#id1|#id3|#id4) and #xpointer(#id1|#id2|#id4).  A challenge that a developer recently reported to me with this example is that when the XPointer expression was included in the XML and his XML parser complained that it violated the rules for the anyURI data type.  Specifically it reported:

error: cvc-datatype-valid.1.2.1: '#xpointer(XPointer expression)' is not a valid value for 'anyURI'.
error: cvc-attribute.3: The value '#xpointer(XPointer expression)' of attribute 'value' on element 'reference' is not valid with respect to its type, 'url'.

So, what is wrong here?

The problem is fairly straight-forward and has to do with W3C Schema constraints on anyURI.  Most specifically, the production for anyURI requires certain special characters appearing in parts of a URI to be escaped according to RFC-2369.  The specific rules for escaping characters can be found in the W3C XLink specification in the section on link-locators.  Appropriately escaping the special characters in the XPath expression will remove the error.

In the examples above, the special characters are the hash-marks (#) inside the XPointer expression and the pipe-characters or vertical-bars (|).  The parenthesis are actually OK.   So # must be replaced with %23 and | must be replaced with %7c in order to make the fragment identifier legal as far as the production rules for anyURI.  The new (and now fragment identifiers instead of XPointer expressions) are:   #xpointer(%23id1%7c%23id3%7c%23id4) and #xpointer(%23id%7c%7c%23id2%7c%23id4).  These may ugly but should work.

Most programming languages provide a language specific function to escape text appearing in a URL (e.g., URLEncoder.encode(String) in Java or HttpUtility.UrlEncode in .NET) .  I recommend using those functions to escape anything after the #xpointer string in the URL fragment as they should return a correctly escaped string. If you let it escape the initial # as %23, you will have a different problem because that character is what identifies the following text as being part of the URL fragment identifier.

Cervicular Radiculopathy: An unscientific experiment in HCSM and EBM

If you want to know what it is (and it isn't a funny looking anything), this is actually a pretty useful query.  As an Health IT expert and social intermediary I thought I'd use my recent diagnosis as an opportunity to see what patients who suffer from more severe diseases encounter when they look into disease information using the web and social media.

First of all, I applaud Google's efforts on putting NIH material at the top of the list of returns on my query.  That was most helpful and decided to use that content as a baseline against which I could compare other reading material.  Also, Google's spelling correction of my original spelling (Cervical Radiculapthathy) was great. Any search tool that doesn't include spelling corrections on complex medical terminology is NOT consumer friendly.  My first attempt to type in this term I didn't initially know how to spell produced an excellent result in Google because it spell corrected my mistakes.  But that was not true in any of three other medically focused search engines that I tried.  The Google results were much better organized than the medical search engines.

I tried Bing with the same query and got nearly similar results with TWO important distinctions.  One:  Bing didn't include the NIH material.  Two:  Bing totally failed my ad-hoc spelling correction test.  Come on Microsoft, I know you have spelling correction software ... use it.

As soon as I put the words "Blog" after my search criteria, my experience changed.  The quality of the material went down greatly.  Several blogs included copious Google Ads.  I hate sites that abuse Google AdWords with a passion.  That was enough to drive me away from any site containing healthcare data.  The site creator seems more worried about funding the site than the patient/user experience.  The other things that I saw were sites that were "single-treatment" focused.  These tended to be mono-focused on how "their product" produced results.  I shied away from these as I would a snake-oil salesman but I can see how this stuff is very scary to physicians.

A couple of blogs turned up with the HONcode logo.  That means they've made some effort to be visibly authoritative and conform to a particular code of behavior.  I did not find any other similar effort expressed in more than one site (nor would I have been able to recognize it).  I find myself giving those sites higher marks and it became something I actively looked for.  I used the HONcode search engine and found a rather wide variety of opinions on diagnosis and treatment of my particular condition.  I was frankly surprised somewhat by the variety there, especially given the general consistency I found within other sites I found with pretty authoritative content.

Most notable in many sites was a complete lack of citations to evidence-based-medicine.  The only site that got good marks for that was the NIH site.

A couple of things that I found to be indicative of good content in this brief survey of the web:

  1. References to Evidence-based-medicine, especially NLM curated citations (e.g., PubMed).
  2. Content attested by a well known clinical organization.
  3. Content with a clearly identified last review date.
  4. Professionally produced graphics and/or video (especially animation).  Content like that isn't cheap, and anyone who puts some effort into producing it is at least investing in the content, unlike the sites which used tons of adwords and short bits of text clearly lifted from online references.
  5. Good indexing.  Often a medical term will have several significant variations (herniated disc was an alternate search term I used).  People who invest in making content accessible are paying attention.
  6. Clear signs that the site conformance to a code of ethics (e.g., a link to ethics page, or logo like HONcode).
  7. Good search technology.
And bad content:

  1. Single treatment focused -- this drug, that therapy, et cetera, especially if the site is clearly benefiting someone who has a drug or therapy they sell.
  2. AdWords... Especially at the top of the useful content ... nuf said.
  3. Clearly copied content.
I looked separately for patient created content (the other side of the social media conversation).   A good quick test query for that was "I have diagnosis".  That sent me to a number of different message boards that I didn't recognize. Thinking about it a little, it seems obvious that these are pretty much wide open web-sites/message boards that I really would rather avoid.  I want to have others have established at least some level of "membership" before I gave them a way to access  content I created about me and my disease (this post doesn't count -- if it was a more serious or embarrassing concern, I'd be much more circumspect).   So, how would I find a more personally but still social site.  

I went to one pretty well-known patient healthcare social site only to discover that it fails to work with my favorite web browser (Chrome) -NOR- with IE behind the corporate firewall.  So I had to switch back to the home computer to access using my least favorite browser (I will note that it also worked on my iPad just fine).  Using my own equipment is more appropriate, but also raises some interesting policy issues for corporate America. For patients living with chronic health conditions, using employer equipment to access HCSM websites that help them manage their health may be quite worthwhile.

The Chrome failure made me wonder about the tech-savvyness of ePatients.  I expect most (but not all) patients using HCSM would be more tech savvy that the prototypical e-mail-using facebook-posting grandmother (that would be my mother here).  Hmm, I just equated ePatients with users of HCSM.  Is that a fair equation?  Probably not.  There are surely differences here, which requires more in-depth exploration.  Just because all the ePatients I know are also users of social media does not make them the same group.  And my mother, while not a techy-genious practically invented the PHR [she just uses Microsoft Word and a lot of paper to carry it around].

My search from that one social site turned up little for my specific condition without joining.  It did turn up enough aggregate anonymous data to let me know that I was already much better off than others who had turned to it (simply by reading the treatments used).  I didn't fit the typical patient profile (not surprising, considering this was an experiment encouraged by a real life event rather than real life use).  I had similar issues with bad search indexes and lack of spelling correction there.  They didn't cover Cervicular Radiculopathy in their search index, so I fell back to "herniated disc", which did work.  I also tried "herneated disc" and "herniated disk" which failed to turn up anything.  The average patient wouldn't have been as persistent as I was, but then again, the average patient probably wouldn't be at that page to begin with.   

As a patient, did I find my very brief foray into HCSM valuable?  Yes, I did.  Several of the blogs referenced therapy options that neither my PCP nor my PT mentioned.  I'll be asking about one of those options later this week, since I have some indications based on my PT assessment that it may be helpful.   I also discovered some information that about some early symptoms of Carpal Tunnel that my doctor reported to me, but which don't line up with what I've read myself.  I'll be asking him about them on my follow up visit next week.  I'll report my results with my providers after I follow up.  Would I use a patient driven HCSM site?  I think it would depend on my condition and needs.  Certainly I already find a great deal of support in social media for other activities both professional and personal.  I would certainly look for and be happy to find an online community to support my health needs were they much greater than at present.  Even now my social network provides a good deal of support.

This was a fairly safe diagnosis to be testing these waters with.  There are certainly some easy lessons to be learned in this particular space.  I wonder about the convergence between #HCSM and #HealthIT and #CDS and #EBM.  Some folks are onto an idea that would readily bring these together, but that idea is just starting to emerge.

My own prognosis is good, and while my current pain makes it difficult to work, treatment seems to be helping.  Interestingly enough... typing doesn't aggravate the problem, but writing code or XML does.  It has to do with how I need to use my body for the latter task.  Writing this blog keeps my hands fairly well in the same place and mostly involves small hand and wrist motions.  Coding or writing XML involves mouse + keyboard activity which uses shoulder, arm and neck (to track the mouse across the screen).  That is much more difficult for long periods of time.

Already I've redesigned my workplace a bit, getting a larger monitor and raising it up on a swing arm to counteract bad posture brought on by my aging eyes (and I also made my long overdue appointment for an eye exam).  I've readjusted my chair to ensure a more upright posture while sitting and that also helps.

Today I even got close to writing some XML... tomorrow I'll work on it more and maybe even test out coding again...

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

ONC S and I Framework Newsletter

Another missive in my inbox regarding the ONC Standards and Interoperability Framework: