Using Social Media To Educate Patients – A Tweet Chat

The definition of social media is dynamic and evolving. It generally refers to “Internet-based tools that allow individuals and communities to gather and communicate; to share information, ideas, personal messages, images, and other content; and, in some cases, to collaborate with other users in real time.

There are a variety of social media sites that serve different purposes. Among the most common ones are for: (1) Social networking – e.g. Facebook, Twitter; (2) Professional Networking – e.g. LinkedIn; (3) Media sharing – e.g. Youtube, Pinterest, Flickr; (4) Content production – e.g. blogs [Tumblr, WordPress], microblogs [Twitter]; (5) Knowledge information/aggregation – e.g. Wikipedia; and (6) Virtual reality and gaming environments.

Social media is a powerful tool of communication and it has the power to engage target markets that were traditionally hard to reach. The industries that benefit most from its use include entertainment, real estate, marketing, retail, education, food (particularly restaurants), and fashion. It can be assumed that it has potential in changing the way health in general is communicated, too. But are healthcare professionals ready to use social media for educating their patients?

According to Ventola, recent studies have shown that physicians have begun to develop an interest in interacting with patients online. At least in the US, around 60% of physicians favor the use of social media in engaging with patients. Their purposes were to educate and monitor health, as well as encourage behavioral change and drug adherence, hoping that it will lead to better education, increased compliance, and better outcomes. On the other hand, other studies have shown conflicting results. Of four hundred eighty (480) surveyed practicing and student physicians, around 68% considered interacting with patients via social media, whether for professional or personal reasons, is ethically wrong.

To provide guidance on the use of the digital environment for medical purposes, the American College of Physicians and Federation of State Medical Boards released a position paper in 2013 that provided recommendations about “the influence of social media on the patient-physician relationship, the role of these media in public perception of physician behaviors, and strategies for physician–physician communication that preserve confidentiality while best using these technologies.” The table below shows common online physician activities and their associated benefits and pitfalls, as well as recommendations on how to mitigate risks.

Capture

In the Philippine setting, the HCP-patient relationship, particularly the physician-patient relationship, is still largely traditional. While social media is already being used by organizations or institutions to promote health in general, there are few individual practitioners who utilize social media as a means to engage and educate patients. Examples are the core collaborators of HealthXPh – Dr. Iris Isip-Tan, Dr. Gia Sison, Dr. Remo-tito Aguilar, Dr. Narciso Tapia,  Dr. Helen Madamba, Dr. Jaifred Lopez, and Dr. Stephania Miaco; and popular Filipino physicians with huge followings on Facebook – Dr. Willie T. Ong and Dr. Philip Nino Tan-Gatue – among others.

On the other end of the spectrum, the potential Filipino patients are already very active on social media. Around 60 million – roughly 58% of the population – have access to the internet. Based on the Digital in 2017 report, the Filipinos spend the most time on the internet using social media, with use averaging 4 hours and 17 minutes per day, and this is despite the slow internet speed in the Philippines. The country has a social media penetration rate of 58%, which is higher than the regional average of 47%. Use of social networking site is considered as the top online activity of the average Filipino internet user.

Social media has proven to be a powerful tool in reaching out to a wider audience than traditional communication methods. Considering the Philippine data on social media use of Filipinos, social media can be considered as a resource that has much potential for significantly enhancing the delivery of health education to the general public.

This October 13, Friday, from 9:00-10:00 PM (GMT+8), join me (@littledoktora) and my colleagues (@rdahildahil_, @agmolina, @BSMantaring, @jappyRN) on Twitter as we discuss how social media may be used by healthcare professionals for engaging and educating patients, as well the benefits and risks of doing so. Tweet us using #SocMedForHealth and #UPMSHI.

  • Q1: What are your thoughts/concerns on the use of social media for educating patients?
  • Q2: Which social media platform/s would you consider using to educate your patients and why?
  • Q3: What are examples of best practice of online behavior for physicians and allied medical professionals when educating patients through social media?

Reading List:

  1. Digital in 2017: Southeast Asia Regional Overview – https://wearesocial.com/special-reports/digital-southeast-asia-2017
  2. Social Media Use in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Effects on Patients and On Their Relationship with Healthcare Professionals – https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-016-1691-0
  3. Online Medical Professionalism: Patient and Public Relationships: Policy Statement From the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards – http://annals.org/aim/article/1675927/online-medical-professionalism-patient-public-relationships-policy-statement-from-american
  4. A Profile of Internet Users in the Philippines – https://www.rappler.com/brandrap/profile-internet-users-ph
Advertisements

mHealth – How Can It Enhance Delivery of Care?

It’s the last blog (before the final paper)! *Does a happy dance.* For this final assignment, we will be talking about mobile applications. The question we were asked was…

“How can mobile applications be useful in primary care?”

We were tasked to propose an app idea for a primary health care scenario, and the app must not duplicate any application already available in the market.

Primary care, as defined by the American Academy of Family Physicians (n.d.), is “that care provided by physicians specifically trained for and skilled in comprehensive first contact and continuing care for persons with any undiagnosed sign, symptom, or health concern not limited by problem origin, organ system, or diagnosis. [It] includes health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings (e.g., office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, etc.).”

Mobile health or mHealth, on the other hand, is the use of mobile technology applications for healthcare (Qiang, et. al, 2012). It is a new and developing field with lots of untapped potential. The use of mobile phones has significantly skyrocketed starting the 2000s. Currently, there is an estimated 4.77 billion mobile phone users in the world (Statista, n.d.). Mobile phones have evolved from simply being a handy telephone to a more sophisticated device that can function similar to computers. It has allowed people easier access not only to their family, friends, or network of people but it has also afforded access to information that previously would have taken much effort to gather. It has shrunk the world (in a good way), and now information is at our fingertips.

How, then, can mobile phones improve the delivery of primary health care? For one, it has facilitated easier communication between healthcare professionals and patients. There are now more options on how to communicate, from email to call to messages. There are even applications on smartphones that allow free video calls, voice calls, or messages as long asscreen-shot-2016-12-11-at-3-10-46-pm a person has an internet connection. Many models of mobile phones are likewise equipped with cameras, which can be useful for documenting external conditions (e.g. skin problems). The messages can also be readily shared via several means. Aside from traditional uses, many applications have already been developed to aid in the collection and processing of health information. For example, iPhones have a built-in health app that could collect and monitor several health data. Data collection and analysis can be further enhanced by connecting it to other applications that supports the Apple Health App. These types of applications help in empowering patients to be more in charge of their health. On the other hand, healthcare professionals also benefit significantly from the use of mobile phones in healthcare. The same way patients gain increased access to information, so do the doctors. Knowledge from various sources like journals, clinical practice guidelines, etc. are now easier to get a hold of. Thousands of apps which enhance patient care are also present in the market. The CDC, for example, has applications on STDs, vaccination, and travel medicine which can help a healthcare professional make evidence-based decisions. Another advantage of mHealth is that it can reduce the cost of healthcare. By screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-8-11-06-pmimproving means of communication between HCP and patient, personal or face-to-face consultations can be reduced. A patient who needs monitoring may no longer need to be seen personally at frequent intervals if the monitoring can be done remotely. Continuity of care can also be enhanced by mHealth, because coordination of efforts among different providers can be done with mHealth. Better record-keeping is also made possible with mHealth, an advantage that is common with electronic processing systems. There are several other advantages of mHealth but the bottomline is better access and better delivery of health.


Like electronic medical records (EMRs) and electronic health records (EHRs), however, there are still many challenges when it comes to the use of mHealth. Since mHealth is a relatively young field, there are limited studies on their efficiency. Privacy issues are also present. Accountability and ownership of data is also an issue, especially since unlike EMRs and EHRs, mHealth is more accessible to patients. Standards and interoperability issues are also present, since mobile applications are not always interoperable and there are few standards on their creation and use. Nonetheless, there is much promise in this rapidly growing field. mHealth has much potential in terms of further improving the access and delivery to healthcare.

If I were to create an application for primary healthcare, I would develop something for my company’s use. I think that one of the best things about my company is the value we put on the health and safety of our employees. Aside from the primary care I deliver (with the clinic consultations), various health and wellness programs are in place that are either global initiatives or local initiatives. From what I know, developing an app for the company was already considered previously. However, it hasn’t been realized due to several concerns, particularly privacy and security of data that crosses transnational borders. But if I were to design the app and it would focus on health, it would have the following features:

  • Contains all medical and wellness offerings
    • Clinic
      • Option to schedule a consultation with available doctors (there are currently 3 in the company)
      • Option to schedule laboratory testing (since this is a service we can offer where employees can have some laboratory tests done in our own clinic)
    • Periodic medical examination (separate for employees and expatriates)
      • Schedules
      • Partner clinics
      • Guidelines
      • Results – to be reflected in app once they are available
    • Employee assistance program
      • Description/details of this employee benefit
      • Information on how to get in touch with the counselors
    • Vaccination
      • Calendar of vaccine offerings for the year
      • Information about the vaccines (locally adapted version of the Vaccine Information Statement from the CDC)
      • Guidelines – on how to sign-up, price, etc.
    • Wellness offerings
      • A calendar of activities to give an overview of the offerings
      • Description of the offerings, including the vendor or service provider we partnered with for the wellness offering
      • Sign-up option for activities
  • Feedback
    • Employees should be able to give feedback on the offerings clinic services and wellness offerings, as well as have the option to suggest activities which they would want us to offer

The idea is that the application will integrate all the services of the health and medical team, from the clinic services to all other health and wellness offerings. The mobile app should make it easier for employees to avail of the services, and more importantly to participate in health and wellness offerings. Features like notifications for new activities, sign-up options,  or reminders for due vaccinations will be part of the app. Ideally, the app should also be integrated to the EMR that we are currently using so that there are programs we can tailor fit to employees. For example, patients who are overweight may be targeted for our weight-loss initiatives, from learning sessions to gym memberships to in-house weight management activities. We also have a corporate program that include reporting of stress, and employees who scored high on those could be target for the stress-related initiatives that we have. The application should be able to generate reports, which we can then use to help evaluate how effective our activities are and give us an idea of the overall health of our employees. 

That is it for the last blog and assignment! What do you think? If you are working in a company, is the type of application I’m proposing (of course it has to be catered with what your company offers) attractive to you? Is it something that you’d use? As always, let me know in the comments below!

XO,
Eve


References

Telehealth – How Can It Change the Landscape of Health Care Delivery in the Philippines?

It’s the second to the last blog before the end of the semester. This week’s topic is all about telehealth. The question we were asked was…

How can telehealth support healthcare delivery in the Philippines?

To help answer this question, we were tasked to read and evaluate the Telehealth Act of 2014, and to suggest revisions, if any.

Telehealth, according to the Center for Connected Health Policy (n.d.) is “a collection of means or methods for enhancing health care, public health, and health education delivery and support using telecommunications technologies.” It is not a specific service but a term that describes the variety of technology and tactics to deliver virtual medical, health, and education services.

The practice of the use of telehealth services is more common in developed countries such as the US. In the Philippines, however, it is not as popular. Quite frankly, I finished nursing school and medical school without encountering a lecture on what it is and how it can be applied to our setting.

The Philippines is an archipelago composed of more than 7,600 islands. Our geography, while it has blessed us with incredible sights and natural wonders, has also made it more difficult for healthcare to be accessed and delivered. It is the same geography that constitutes the physical factors that characterize geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas or GIDAs. GIDAs are communities with marginalized population that are physically and socio-economically separated from mainstream society. They physical factors are mainly to geography and also includes difficult access due to weather conditions. Socio-economic factors, on the other hand, include high poverty incidence, presence of vulnerable sector, communities in or recovering from situation of crisis or armed conflict (Department of Health, n.d.).

With telehealth, the population that could potentially most benefit are those residing in GIDAs. The idea is that since they have difficulty access to healthcare, healthcare will be brought to them. This is one of the objectives of the Telehealth Act of 2014.

House Bill No. 4199, also known as the Telehealth Act of 2014, declares that “the State shall protect and promote right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Henceforth, it is the intent of the Legislature to recognize the practice of telehealth as a legitimate means by which an individual may receive health care services from a health care provider without in-person contact with health provider. Telehealth or Telemedicine shall not be construed to alter the scope of practice of medicine or any health care provider or authorize delivery of health care services in a setting or in a manner not otherwise authorized by law.”

Aside from the objective I mentioned above, other objectives of this Bill are to reduce the costs, set standards and establish regulations regarding the field, and strengthen the health system and infrastructure.

There are 20 sections to this Act. I have chosen the following to evaluate.

Section 9. Database. – All telehealth center and originating sites shall coordinate with DOH for consolidation of pertinent databases. DOH shall maintain and manage a national database for consults on clinical cases as well as health and medical education exchanges. Considering how important documentation is especially for something like this, I feel as if this section is severely lacking.

Having read the comprehensive IRR of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 in the previous blog, this, to me, needs further details. At the very least, the basic contents of the database should be enumerated. I would like to know if there are other types of data that should be gathered/documented when a consultation is done via telehealth.

Section 16. Standard of care. – The standard of care is the same as regardless whether a health care provider provides health care services in person or by telemedicine. Telehealth or telemedicine shall not be construed to alter the scope of practice of medicine or any health care provider or authorize the delivery of health care services in a setting, or in a manner, not otherwise authorized by law. Telehealth shall not replace health care providers or relegate them less important role in the delivery of health care. The fundamental health care provider-patient can not only be preserved, but also augmented and enhanced. While I agree that the standard of care should be the same whether the consult is done in person or via telehealth, I think the Bill fails to capture the limitations on this type of service. Granted that the scope of medicine (or allied medical services) will not change in terms of what a doctor can do, it should also acknowledge that that the things a doctor cannot do. There  is a science to the practice of medicine (and other disciplines) that simply cannot be done via a video call or similar means. Section 5. Scope can be elaborated further to include limitations. Or limitations could be in a whole new section together, and in that section include what can and cannot be penalized. The way I see this Bill so far is that it is not healthcare provider-friendly. The providers are not protected the same way the patients are.

Overall, a good portion of the Bill, in my opinion, needs further refinement apart from the 2 sections I stated above. But the fact that it exists is promising, as this legitimizes the practice of telehealth (or telemedicine). This field will open up a lot of opportunities especially for patients and will help in positively changing the landscape of healthcare delivery to the Filipinos.

Have you read the Telehealth Act of 2014? What do you think? How open are you to the idea of using telehealth services? How do you think will that impact the way we practice medicine in the Philippines? Let me know in the comments below.

XO,
Eve


References

Data Privacy Act of 2012 – Is It Enough To Protect the Health Information of the Filipinos?

The countdown begins. Three more blogs to go before this semester closes. So for the 2nd to the last blog assignment (before the final paper/blog), we were asked this question…

Is the Data Privacy Act adequate to protect confidential health information?

There was supposed to be a debate about this. Due to lack of time, however, we were unable to conduct one. Nevertheless, let us discuss this latest law on data privacy.

In my previous blog, privacy was defined by Merriam-Webster (n.d) as “freedom from unauthorized intrusion.” As a constitutional right, it refers to “to make certain crucial decisions regarding their well-being without government coercion, intimidation, or interference (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008),” and is declared under Section 3 of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution (Official Gazette, n.d.), where it states that “the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.”

The latest law implemented relating to privacy is Republic Act (RA) 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Its implementing rules and regulations were promulgated last August 24, 2016. Under Section 2. Declaration of Policy, it states that “it is the policy of the State to protect the fundamental human right of privacy, of communication while ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and growth. The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology in nation-building and its inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in information and communications systems in the government and in the private sector are secured and protected (Official Gazette, 2012).”

Since we want to evaluate this law in terms of its adequacy in terms of protecting confidential health information, below are some definitions based on the RA.

  • Personal information refers to any information whether recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual.
  • Sensitive personal information refers to personal information:
    • (2) About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person, or to any proceeding for any offense committed or alleged to have been committed by such person, the disposal of such proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such proceedings
    • (3) Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual which includes, but is not limited to, social security numbers, previous or current health records, licenses or its denials, suspension or revocation, and tax returns

The Act encompasses to processing of all types of personal information; hence, it protects the processing of health information. However, I wanted to see if there were specific clauses related to health. They are as follows.

  • SEC. 12. Criteria for Lawful Processing of Personal Information. – The processing of personal information shall be permitted only if not otherwise prohibited by law, and when at least one of the following conditions exists:
    • (d) The processing is necessary to protect vitally important interests of the data subject, including life and health
    • (e) The processing is necessary in order to respond to national emergency, to comply with the requirements of public order and safety, or to fulfill functions of public authority which necessarily includes the processing of personal data for the fulfillment of its mandate
  • SEC. 13. Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged Information. – The processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information shall be prohibited, except in the following cases:
    • (c) The processing is necessary to protect the life and health of the data subject or another person, and the data subject is not legally or physically able to express his or her consent prior to the processing
    • (e) The processing is necessary for purposes of medical treatment, is carried out by a medical practitioner or a medical treatment institution, and an adequate level of protection of personal information is ensured

Since health information are classified under sensitive personal information, all clauses in this Act are applicable to a Filipino patient’s health information, even if there specific clauses related to health are only in Sections 12 and 13.

I have read the both the Act (read it’s entirety here) and the IRR (read its entirety here), and I think that it is sufficient to safeguard the health information of the Filipino people.

I’d like to emphasize the Rule VIII. Rights of Data Subjects. It enumerated several rights of the data subject under it, including: right to be informed, right to object, right to access, right to correct, and right to rectification, erasure or blocking. I believe that these in particular, especially when applied to health information, will highly empower the patients because it explicitly states their rights on what can and cannot be done for their health information.

Now that we are shifting towards the use of technology for the delivery of health, it appears as if there are more threats to the privacy and confidentiality of patients. With the use of electronic medical records, for example, health information is now more accessible not just to patients but to a whole new group of people (ex. developers of the software, administrators, other clinic staff) who would not have had the same access if we were still using paper charts. In the Act, Section 47. Registration of Personal Data Processing Systems states that “The personal information controller or personal information processor that employs fewer than two hundred fifty (250) persons shall not be required to register unless the processing it carries out is likely to pose a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing is not occasional, or the processing includes sensitive personal information of at least one thousand (1,000) individuals.” This is very important because as mentioned above, we are in the era where health technology is on the rise. With registration of systems (especially in major institutions), registration of data processing systems provides an additional layer of protection for the patients since institutions will now be liable to the Commission especially in the event of data breaches. Personal information controllers and processors will be identified and held liable, and the Commission will be able to monitor said institutions or organizations.

While I think that the Act is sufficient, I feel that more specific clauses on processing of health information should have been included and explicitly stated. Categorizing them all under sensitive personal information is not enough. For me, health information requires more special consideration. For example, the right of the data subject (i.e. patient) to correct, rectify, erase or block his/her health data will not be as easily done compared to changing demographic data. Several factors come into play like the professional opinion or assessment of the healthcare personnel who inputted and/or processed the data. Differing opinions from different professionals may also make it appear like the data is inconsistent or false in the eyes of a data subject who may not fully understand his/her health status. In conclusion, I believe this Act can be improved to better fit the rapidly changing health information needs of the Filipino people.

What do you think about this law? How to do think this impact the health landscape in the Philippines? Does it make you feel more secure about your personal information in general, knowing that this Act is now in place? Let me know what you think in the comments below.

XO,
Eve


References

Knowledge Management – What Is Its Role in Healthcare Research?

This week, we are diving into knowledge management, another new concept we can both learn together.

The driving question is…

How can knowledge management improve access to healthcare research?

To answer the question above, we were tasked to pick a local public health problem and answer the driving question in relation to the public health problem.

Let me break it down and introduce a few concepts first.

Knowledge management (KM) is a concept that was first introduced roughly around the 1990s (Koenig, 2012). According to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials or ASTHO (2005), is defined as “a process used by organizations and communities to improve how business is conducted by leveraging data and information that are gathered, organized, managed, and shared.” The Gartner Group (2016) defined it as “business process that formalizes the management and use of an enterprise’s intellectual assets. [Knowledge Management] promotes a collaborative and integrative approach to the creation, capture, organization, access and use of information assets, including the tacit, uncaptured knowledge of people.” Its goal is to move from “not knowing what you know” and using that knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency (ASTHO, 2005). The building blocks of KM are data, information and knowledge, which are represented by the figure below:

screen-shot-2016-11-28-at-12-12-25-am

Data is defined as “unprocessed representations of raw facts, concepts or instructions that can be communicated, interpreted, or processed by humans or automatic means (ASTHO, 2005).” An example of data is the number of dengue cases in a region. When meaning is assigned to data or when data is categorized, filtered or indexed, it now becomes information. In the dengue scenario, an example of information would be the number of dengue cases per district or barangay in the region. Finally, when processes like critical thinking, evaluation, structure or organization are applied to support decisions or understand concepts, information becomes knowledge. Knowledge is dynamic and evolving. It also has two types, namely: explicit and tacit. The former is also known as ‘book knowledge’ and refers to the “ordering of data and information according to well-defined, formalized procedures or rules.” On the other hand, the later refers to knowledge that is informal and that which is gained through experience and training. An example of knowledge in the dengue scenario is understanding the patterns of illness well enough to adjust preventative measures in a particular area.

When pieces of information are linked in meaningful ways, the information’s relevance to the problem at hand is established, and the information at hand is understood in larger context, there is translation of information to knowledge. This can then lead to knowledge translation which occurs when knowledge is put into action. (Straus et. al, 2011). The concept of knowledge translation is especially important because despite the abundance of evidence-based data, it has been found that there is still large gap between what is known and what is used in practice. In addition, there is a failure to use health research evidence in making informed decision related to healthcare.

For an organization to adapt the KM approach, the following components must be examined: culture, content, processes and technology (ASTHO, 2005). Culture is the organization’s shared set of beliefs, values, and understandings, and therefore varies from one organization to another. It is reflected by how and organization envisions, measures, and carries out its mission and responsibilities. Content refers to resources of the organization, which can range from data to information to skills to expertise. Meanwhile, processes are methods by which an organization manages data and information. They can be formal or informal. The processes are in place to ensure that content is created, assessed, management and disseminated effectively. Finally, technology has to be assessed in the context of why and how effectively it is used in an organization.

The role of knowledge management in public health is critical. To do their jobs, public health practitioners require accurate data and the ability to access data quickly from different sources and transform said data into useful information and knowledge. The officials, in particular, need up-to-date information for them to conduct analyses, report and generate vital information, and to collaborate with other agencies. In addition, the knowledge generated will guide decision-making in addressing public health concerns. Through KM, there can be an efficient way of developing and disseminating best practices and of continually assessing said practices for improvement.

In order to illustrate KM further, let us use dengue as a public health concern as an example. The dengue epidemic has plagued the Philippines since 1953 and continues to be a significant public health concern (Interhealth Worldwide, 2016) despite the many efforts of the Department of Health.

There was a recent article published, however, that featured the elimination of dengue cases through the combined efforts of a data analyst, professor, and local agency director. The story was a feature piece in Manila Bulletin and the subheadline mentioned that the answer to the dengue problem was not medicine but big data. It recounted how Wilson Chua, a big data analyst, was able to analyze the raw data on the dengue cases in Pangasinan provided to him by the Department of Health. He noted that the district of Bonuan had the highest number of cases in Pangasinan for 3 consecutive years, and that most of those infected were children aged 5-15. In doing his research, he found out that there were two public schools in the area (specifically Barangay Bonuan Boquig) with large pools of stagnant water in between, which were assumed as the source of the dengue vector.  Once he was able to identify the problem, he crowdsourced through social media (Facebook in particular) and got in touch with Professor Nicanor Melecio, the project director of the e-Smart Operation Center of Dagupan City Government, and Wesley Rosario, director at the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Their solution to the problem was two-pronged, which was release of mosquito dunks and mosquito fish. They were able to implement this through the help of the local government. Thirty days after intervention, there was still no report of dengue cases in the area (you can read the full story here).

This article caught my attention for several reasons. One, I found it amazing that they were able to find a solution that could help address the dengue problem in the country. While I am aware that their solution is not applicable to other areas (ex. urban poor areas where large pools of water are not present and mosquito fish release is not feasible), it still impresses me how they were able to collaborate and come up with a solution. Two, the initial efforts were not made by a public health professional but by an analyst who just happened to have a personal interest in the situation. Third, his collaborators were not from the Department of Health. Fourth, DOH gave him raw data. (It was mentioned in the article that he was given an file with 81,000 rows of data. Aren’t there data privacy concerns?) Lastly, it mentioned that ‘big data’ was the solution.

Let me take a quick detour and discuss that last point. Big data, according to Tech Target, is a term that refers to a voluminous amount of structured, semi-structured, or unstructured data that has potential to be mined for information. There is no consensus on what ‘voluminous’ equates to in terms of volume or size, although it often refers to terabytes, petabytes, or exabytes of data captured over time. It is often characterized by extreme volume of data, wide variety of data types, and the velocity with which the data must be processed.

Going back, it now makes me wonder about how DOH has handled the massive amount of data that they have. Have they thought of Mr. Chua and his team’s interventions before? Based on the article by Lomibao (2013) in the Philippine Inquirer, Mr. Rosario mentioned that mosquito fish has been in the country for decades. Mosquito dunks are also not a new concept. But is the two-pronged approach new? If it showed promising results in Pangasinan, are there efforts to disseminate the information and replicate it in regions with similar topography? Is further research being done to address the feasibility of this solution and its long-term effects?

Recalling the 4 components of KM, I’ll now discuss how each of those components would play a role in improving access to healthcare research given the scenario above. Organization in the following paragraph will refer to the Department of Health.

The ideal culture in an organization is one where leadership plays a strong role in establishing the cultural will to support and maintain practices such as data documentation and dissemination of results. Considering the nature of public health, leadership should also be able to effectively communicate and coordinate with other organizations. It will help in understanding how the practices of others might be leveraged. First, recognizing the efforts of Mr. Chua is imperative. Given his and his collaborators’ success, a more wide-scale feasibility study should be done on the intervention that they did. Long-term effects of said intervention should likewise be performed, since the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) has already expressed their concern over the potential negative and irreversible impact on our fragile biodiversity (Lomibao, 2013). At least for this particular aspect of dengue vector control and management, the DOH should work with BFAR, PAWB and the local government.

For content, one of the most significant challenges is capturing tacit knowledge, which means making it easy for individuals to share what they know through training, collaborative opportunities, networking, and other personal interactions. Mr. Chua can be considered as a potential content resource of the organization. I assume that there are already people employed by the DOH who do what Mr. Chua does, but he can help by sharing his knowledge on how he analyzed the data that was given to him.

As for processes, the ideal scenario is that the data and information management processes that exist in the organization are driven by the needs identified from the agency’s business activities. Given the nature of the public health sector, the data it collects is usually shared with external organizations aside for its intended personal use. Because of this, data and information management processes should make it possible for the DOH to share their data in a way that is understable and meaningful to other sectors, such as the local government or BFAR.

Lastly, for technology, it is already a reality that the public health sector has been increasingly using electronic technology to collect, store, access, analyze, visualize and communicate data. However, there remains a gap in the availability of personnel who both have an expertise in information technology and in public health, or the so-called hybrids. If the gap in hybrids cannot be addressed for now since it needs specialized training, the DOH could continue its efforts to collaborate with experts in different fields to address the problem.

If the above core components are present in an organization such as the Department of Health, knowledge on dengue and means for vector control would be more accessible. It will also encourage and allow for further research to be done. 

That is it for week number 12 of HI 201. I have a couple of questions for you.

First, do you agree that big data was indeed the answer to the dengue problem (at least for Pangasinan)? Second, do you think your organization (if you belong to one) is ready to adopt knowledge management approach?

Let me know in the comments below.

XO,
Eve

Clinical Decision Support Systems – How Can They Impact Healthcare?

Let’s skip the intro and dive right into this week’s assignment. The driving question that we needed to answer was…

“How can Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) improve the quality of healthcare?”

Aside from the question above, we were tasked to think of a clinical scenario and suggest a clinical decision support system embedded within CHITS to address this.

A clinical decision support system or CDSS, according to Jaspers et. al (2010) is a tool that provides “clinicians or patients with computer-generated clinical knowledge and patient-related information, intelligently filtered or presented at appropriate times, to enhance patient care.” Another definition was provided by Souza et. al (2011) which describes CDSS as “computerized matching of an individual patient’s characteristics with a knowledge base that then provides patient specific recommendations to healthcare providers.” Common examples of CDSS are those that check for drug-drug interactions among the medications of a patient or those that check for possible drug-disease precautions or contraindications, reminder and recall systems for immunizations, prompts for  clinicians to initiate smoking cessation interventions, blood pressure screening, or laboratory/radiology testing among others. CDSS can exist independent of electronic medical records (EMRs) or may be incorporated into them. The idea is that CDSS will provide decision support to users at the time they make decisions, which should result in improved quality of care. For example, it can alert a physician that his/her medication of choice has a drug-drug interaction with a patient’s existing medication. Or it could also alert the healthcare practitioner (HCP) that his/her choice of medication can potentially aggravate a patient’s condition. Other examples are reminders such as the need for mammographic screening in women older than 40 or 45 years old, or the recommended vaccinations for an infant who is 14 weeks old. In the paper by Bates et. al (2003), they identified 10 “commandments” for an effective CDSS. I will enumerate and briefly explain them below.

  1. Speed is everything. As mentioned above, the overall goal of CDSS is to provide decision support at the time the decision is being made. Bates et. al has found that the speed of an information system is the parameter that users value most.  A good IS, therefore, will less likely be seen as helpful if it takes time for decision support to be shown or accessed. I imagine this would be more applicable to settings wherein there is a long queue of patients who need attention.
  2. Anticipate needs and deliver in real time. This pertains to making the necessary information available to clinicians at the time they need it. An example of which is emphasizing high potassium levels in a patient receiving a potassium-sparing diuretic in a patient with hypertension or congestive heart failure.
  3. Fit into the user’s workflow. In one of my earlier blogs, I mentioned that one of involvement of the end users as early as the planning or design phase is one of the determinants for success of a health information system. Part of involving users is making sure that the proposed IS will work well with their current workflow. A new software (or CDSS in particular), even when equipped with excellent guidelines, will likely meet resistance when it significantly changes the workflow of the end users (unless the workflow is the actual problem and it NEEDS to be changed).
  4. Little things can make a big difference. This sounds cliché to me but its applicability, even to CDSS, cannot be ignored. Little things in the CDSS can spell the success or failure of the system. For example, requiring a physician to enter his/her diagnosis using ICD codes (with a drop-down button) as opposed to entering it in free text will better help in ensuring that diagnoses for the patients are entered in a standard way. If part of the CDSS, then, is checking for drug-disease interactions, the system will be more accurate in delivering such information because the diagnoses are standardized.
  5. Recognize that physicians will strongly resist stopping. For example, your CDSS tells the physician that no further tests are recommended for the patient. However, the physician has been used to ordering a chest x-ray for similar cases. Since the CDSS only mentioned to stop but did not offer an alternative, the physician will most likely override the said recommendation and continue to order the chest x-ray. The same is applicable for medications, such that giving no or an undesirable alternative to the physician prescribing the medication will most likely make him/her prescribe the medication he had intended to.  
  6. Changing direction is easier than stopping. This is in relation to the previous number. An example of change would be changing the default dose and frequency of a drug when a physician orders it. Unless the physician has specific reason to change the dose and/or frequency, he/she will be more likely to use the suggested/default dose/frequency.
  7. Simple interventions work best. An alternative to this statement would be less is more. The most important guidelines for a medication, for example, should fit in the HCP’s screen. It might be helpful to have it linked to a more comprehensive or complete list of guidelines, which should also be readily accessible to the clinician with a few clicks.
  8. Ask for additional information only when you really need it. In CDSS that are integrated into the EMR, there are patient data that are already available for use by the CDSS to be able to give decision support. If the data is insufficient, the HCP will be asked to enter additional data. In stand-alone CDSS, most data will have to be entered by the HCP. According to Bates, et. al, “the likelihood of success in implementing a computerized guideline is inversely proportional to the number of extra data elements needed.” Therefore, it would be best if the least amount of data is asked of the HCP to be able to provide meaningful decision support, as a system that requires an HCP to enter several data will be something that a clinician is less likely to use, especially considering the usually limited amount of time HCPs have in dealing with their patients.
  9. Monitor impact, get feedback, and respond. How likely are clinicians to accept the suggestions of the CDSS? How often do they overlook the suggestions? How do their actions impact process flow, or more importantly, patient care and patient outcomes? It is essential to know the answers to these, and make corrective actions even mid-course to improve the CDSS.
  10. Manage and maintain your knowledge-based systems. CDSS suggestions are most often based on local/international guidelines. Since medicine is dynamic (and so are the guidelines), CDSS should also be able to keep up with the changes. A decision support with outdated guidelines will defeat the purpose. It is also helpful to track the response of the users to the CDSS and evaluate the reports on a regular basis.

Now that we know more about clinical decision support systems, let us discuss CHITS. CHITS stands for Community Health Information Tracking System. It was developed by the National Telehealth Center (NTHC) to improve health information management at the rural health unit level. It was described as an “EMR for the health workers, by the health workers” since it was developed alongside health workers and was designed in such a way that it features a workflow that is similar to what is currently being employed in local health centers. It uses an open source software making it more flexible to the needs of both the RHU and the DOH. It was built to improve data-gathering at the RHU level to be able to generate more accurate reports, which will be later used to plan programs and effect changes on both local and national public health levels.

I was a student nurse rotating in the local health centers (in Metro Manila and Batangas) from 2006-2009 and I was a medical intern doing community rotation from 2012-2014. I have never encountered CHITS in any of the health centers I rotated at. There is limited information on what CHITS is and what is available so far (based on my internet search), so I will assume that my suggestions below are still non-existent.

In this scenario, barangay health worker (BHW) Dela Cruz is on duty at a rural health center. It’s vaccination day and Mommy Anna comes in with her children Karen and Nina, who are 2 years old and 9 months old, respectively. BHW Dela Cruz  briefly interviews Mommy Anna and gets pertinent data regarding her children. During the interview, she found out that Mommy Anna had just moved into the barangay and that her daughters have never received any type of vaccination. She was then asked by the mother which vaccines her daughters should receive. In the brief period that Dela Cruz has been a BHW, she has never actually encountered an infant or toddler who is naive to any type of vaccination.

I think that a useful CDSS in this scenario would be something that guides a healthcare worker (HCW) on the vaccinations a patient, particularly a pediatric patient, should receive. The minimum data required would be the patient’s birthday (the age should be computed automatically). When the software determines that the patient is a pediatric patient, the recommended vaccinations for patient based on age should be displayed. The HCW can then enter the date the vaccines were received (if any and if they were received elsewhere). It is at this point that any previous reactions to vaccines should also be documented. If there are none, as in the scenario above, the CDSS should show the recommended vaccines arranged by priority. The basis for the recommendation would be the guidelines based on DOH’s expanded program on immunization (EPI). Contraindications for vaccines in general or for a specific vaccine could also be shown. A trained barangay health worker (BHW) should be able to do a simple assessment, enter the birthdate, and identify which vaccinations a patient should receive. Once the vaccine has been administered, it is documented in the software. Ideally, if the vaccine is part of a series, the date for the next dose should be shown so that the BHW could inform the patient (or his/her guardian) on when to come back. The same CDSS should also be able to generate reports such as the type and quantity of vaccinations given on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual basis or how many children are considered fully immunized. These types of reports could be married with statistics from the local government to determine the vaccine coverage in the area to assist in procurement of additional vaccines and to help plan for program that are related to vaccination.

Again, I have to admit that I am not aware if this is already being done in the RHUs. Considering the lack of healthcare professionals in the rural health units, particularly the geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas, this type of CDSS would be very helpful to the RHU healthcare workers and in helping attain the main goal of DOH’s EPI, which is to reduce the mortality and morbidity among children against the most common vaccine-preventable diseases.

I personally am using a vaccination application on my smart phone that was created by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It has recommendations based on age group or based on special populations (pregnant, person with HIV, etc.). As a standalone app, it has been very helpful to my in my practice and for my own personal use. Something similar could be incorporated to CHITS to help implement the immunization program of DOH.

That is it for week 11 of HI 201! Can you think of other clinical decision support systems that could benefit people especially in the remote areas where there is often limited access to healthcare? What do you think are pitfalls of CDSS?

As always, let me know in the comments below. I would love to hear and learn from you!

Love,
Eve


References:

Standards and Interoperability – How Can These Be Adopted?

This week, we are diving further into the basics of health informatics. Our focus would be on interoperability, with the driving question…

How can healthcare institutions adopt standards to ensure interoperability?

We were tasked to pick among messaging, terminology, and imaging – the three broad categories of standards – and to prepare a master plan for its adoption in a government setting.

As always, let me start by defining some terms.

Standardization is defined by Investopedia as “a framework of agreements to which all relevant parties in an industry or organization must adhere to ensure that all processes associated with the creation of a good or performance of service are performed within set guidelines.” Adebesin, et. al. (2013) stated that this is the key to interoperability. eHealth Interoperability, in particular, is defined as the “ability of two or more systems or components and the business processes they support to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged.”

While there remains no consensus on the levels of interoperability, the European Telecommunication Standards Institute has identified 4 levels, namely: technical, syntactic, semantic, and organizational. Technical interoperability enables heterogeneous systems to exchange data. Syntactic interoperability, on the other hand, guarantees the preservation of the clinical purpose of the data during transmission among healthcare systems. Meanwhile, semantic interoperability is that which enables multiple systems to interpret the information that has been exchanged in a similar way through predefined meaning of shared concepts. Finally, organizational interoperability, the highest level of interoperability, facilitates the integration of business processes and workflows beyond the boundaries of a single organization.

I would like to focus on semantic interoperability. To me, when simply put, this means that different systems understand each other. It’s like different people speaking and understanding each other using English, for example, despite the fact that they have different nationalities. Of the three broad categories of standards, semantic interoperability focuses on terminology.

One example of a terminology standard is SNOMED-CT. The International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation (IHTSDO) owns and distributes SNOMED-CT. The claim is that it is the world’s most comprehensive multilingual clinical healthcare terminology that enables consistent, processable representation of clinical content in electronic health records. Its goal is to facilitate the accurate recording and sharing of clinical and health-related information and the semantic interoperability of health records. The way it works is that the content is represented using three types of components – content, description, and relationship. First, the concepts in SNOMED-CT, which represent clinical thoughts, have a corresponding unique identifier. Each concept is also associated with a single unambiguous Fully Specified Name (FSN) that contains the semantic tag and identifies the hierarchy to which the concept belongs. A concept can have one or more descriptions, and descriptions also have a unique description identifier. Finally, relationships link concepts together and provide formal definitions and other properties of the concept. Below is an example of how the components are interrelated:

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-11-32-46-pmIn more plain and basic terms, SNOMED-CT is like a comprehensive dictionary where health data are defined, and at the same time functions as a thesaurus where synonyms of terminologies can be found (although SNOMED-CT is definitely more than this).

When incorporated into an electronic health record, for example, it allows uniform entry and interpretation of data. The encoded data can later be reused and presented for a variety of purposes. For example, clinical records represented using SNOMED-CT can be processed and presented in different ways to support direct patient care, clinical audit, research, epidemiology, management, and service planning.

IHTSDO has been working with other standards bodies like the ISO and HL, and they map from and to other code systems. As mentioned earlier, it is also multilingual. These ensure not only the applicability of SNOMED-CT to different disciplines but it also reinforces its global applicability. At the same time, it is also scalable and flexible and could adjust to local requirements, if necessary.

In the local setting, part of the Department of Health has already outlined the Philippine eHealth Strategic Framework and Plan (PeHSFP) 2014-2020. We are developing our own National Health Data Dictionary, which will function similar to SNOMED and will be integral to the implementation of the Philippine Health Information Exchange (PHIE).

hie-2The above image illustrates the PHIE. Note that on the upper right corner, under health data standards, is terminology. This is where the National Health Data Dictionary comes in. It will be used to ensure good data quality among the different systems that will be integrated in the PHIE.

If a government hospital, then, needs to adopt this standard, how will they do so? In a previous blog, I enumerated and briefly described the 7 components of eHealth projects according to the PeHSFP, namely: (1) governance; (2) legislation, policy, and compliance; (3) standards and interoperability; (4) strategy and investment; (5) infrastructure; (6) human resource, and; (7) eHealth solution.

Because we are talking about a government hospital, most of the components will be coming not just from the board or the hospital administrators but through mandates of the national and local government. For example, the creation of the National Governance Steering Committee and Technical Group on eHealth and the National eHealth Governance Implementing Policies, Procedures and Guidelines will be through creation of administrative orders. The same applies for other mandates that will come from the national government. Examples of which are the National Implementation of Health Data Standards for eHealth Standardization and Interoperability, the Implementation of Software Data Compliance to National Health Data Reporting, Implementation of Philippine Health Information Exchange and its Implementing Policies, Procedures and/or Guidelines, and creation and updating of the National Health Data Dictionary. To comply, a government hospital would then implement said administrative orders. The electronic health system they will use will most likely be a software that was developed for government hospitals in the Philippines. In that scenario, the said system would also have already been compliant with the parameters set forth by the Software Data Compliance Body. In addition, encoding of data would also make use terminologies of the National Health Data Dictionary.

Let’s say, however, that a government hospital, for whatever reason, was not required to be part of the PHIE but would like to become one. It still has to start with governance, who will decide on the kind of eHealth system that the hospital will use. They should create the necessary policies and implementing orders for the said project, which would be better handled by a specialized team dedicated to creating, implementing, and maintaining the system. Part of the planning and design for the project would already involve sourcing for funds for the project, hiring and training the right people, and ensuring that the system has adequate infrastructure to run the software. Specific to terminology and in effect, ensuring data quality, is integrating the coded terminologies under the National Health Data Dictionary into the software. This will make the software interoperable with the other systems that are likewise part of the PHIE.

In ensuring interoperability in general, there has been a lot of discussion on the use of open source software. As the name implies, open source in terms of software development and licensing means that the source code is accessible and modifiable by the end user. This is in contrast to proprietary software wherein the source code is confidential and the end user can access and execute only the machine code. The argument, according to Reynolds and Wyatt (2012), is that “open source software (OSS) licensed HIS provide a key opportunity for the promotion of effective systems by enhancing clinical engagement in software development, fostering innovation, improving system usability, and reducing costs, and should therefore be central to a rational HIS procurement strategy.” With OSS, there will be lower entry barriers and developers would have to compete with implementation of the same standards. The ultimate beneficiary of these would be the consumers, since use of OSS would encourage innovation and lowered cost from developers. There would also be no fear of lock-in, and the consumers can freely switch to another product without losing their data. A real-life example of this would be the use of the Android operating system. The Android operating system is based from the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). There are a variety of mobile phones operating using Android OS, and a user can switch from one brand of cellphone to another and bring their data along with them, since there are numerous applications that run using the said OS. In the healthcare setting in the Philippines, this would translate to developers using the same source code in the development of their eHealth systems. The health data would be structured in the same way, even if different softwares are used. With the use of a common health data dictionary to code for the data to be entered into the system, the terminology would be the same as well. This means that even if a healthcare institution discontinues the use of a particular software and later on switches to another one, as long as the said software used is running on a similar source code or is compliant with the standards set forth by the PHIE, migration would be possible.

And that is it for this week’s blog! I had a rather difficult time understanding the concepts but I hope I was able to make some sense. I feel that as the course progresses and as I make more blogs, things are starting to become more cohesive. It’s also the reason why I’ve been referring to the content of previous blogs more often (especially that of PHIE). Let me know your thoughts and I hope we can discuss!

Love,
Eve


References:

Enterprise Architecture – What Is It and How Can It Be Applied to HIS?

It’s week 7 for Health Informatics 201 and this week, the driving question we were asked was…

In a multistakeholder, multicomponent health information system, how can you ensure that all the players are doing their part?

The assignment is for us to also answer the question, “What enterprise architecture frameworks are available and which one is the best for the health sector?”

Before diving into the driving question, let’s tackle enterprise architecture first.

What is enterprise architecture? Enterprise architecture (EA), according to Sessions (2007), is a field that emerged to answer two major problems – system complexity and poor business alignment. The use of IT systems in businesses, while they contributed to success and competitiveness, also came with increasing cost and complexities. EA aims to reduce those problems while increasing business value and effectiveness.

There are 4 methodologies that are most commonly used in EA and they are: 1) Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures, 2) The Open Group Architectural Framework, 3) The Federal Enterprise Architecture, and 4) The Gartner Methodology. I will be briefly discussing each below.

The Zachman Framework, as described by its creator, is a “logical structure for classifying and organizing the descriptive representations of an Enterprise that are significant to the management of Enterprise, as well as to the development of the Enterprise’s system.” He proposed that there are 6 descriptive foci (data, function, network, people, time, and motivation), and six player perspectives (planner, owner, designer, builder, subcontractor, and enterprise). When all are plotted against a grid, each focus will have six perspectives; conversely, each perspective will have six foci. Through the use of this framework, it will be easier to show a stakeholder’s perspective from all angles; it will also be easier to see who is assigned to what, as the relationships are more clearly defined. The downside of this system, however, is that while it shows relationships or categories, it doesn’t show process for creating the enterprise architecture.

On the other hand, The Open Group Architectural Framework or TOGAF, gives us what Zachman doesn’t – methodology. It describes the process for creating the categories. It has what it calls an Enterprise Continuum – a continuum of architectures ranging from the highly generic to the highly specific. The most generic of the levels is Foundation Architectures. As you go along the continuum, from Common Systems Architectures to Industry Architectures and finally to Organizational Architectures, the architectural principles become more specific. The process that drives the movement from the most generic to the specific level is the Architecture Development Method (ADM). ADM consists of eight phases that are cycled after preliminary phase, and they are: 1) architecture vision, 2) business architecture, 3) information systems architecture, 4) technology architecture, 5) opportunities and solutions, 6) migration planning, 7) implementation governance, and 8) architecture management. I will not discuss the phases individually but what is important to point out is that there are tasks/deliverables for each phase. After implementation (phase 7) and modification of the architectural change-management process (phase 8), the cycle is repeated. One of the main goals of ADM is the transfer of information, so that as more iterations of the cycle are completed, there will less and less need to involve the TOGAF enterprise architect.

The third framework is the Federal Enterprise Architecture or FEA. This was created in an attempt to unify the different agencies and functions under the federal government. It is a combination of the two previous frameworks I discussed, Zachman and TOGAF, as this includes both categories and processes. It has five reference models for performance, namely – business, service, components, technical, and data. The purpose of the interrelated reference models is to establish common language to have standard terms and definitions; consequently, communication, cooperation, and collaboration across political boundaries will be facilitated. FEA is also composed of segments that are considered subsets for the overall enterprise (ie. a government agency is considered a segment under the enterprise that is the federal government). By using the FEA framework, architectures are created for each segment, which should contribute to the realizing the vision for the overall enterprise.

The last of the frameworks I am going to discuss is that of Gartner. Unlike the last three where it is more focused on either categorization or methodology or both, this framework focuses on practice and strategy. Gartner believes that enterprise architectures must start with a vision of where the organization is headed and not where it currently is. Consequently, it is imperative that the constituents – business owners, information specialists, and technology implementers – understand and share that same vision. Once everybody is on board, they can now begin to discuss the implications of their vision on the business, technical, information, and solutions architecture of the enterprise. Gartner, however, does not propose a methodology or step-by-step process with which to achieve this vision.

With all that being said, I feel that the framework that best applies to the health, at least for the public sector, is the FEA. Especially if we’re considering the Philippine Health Information Exchange (PHIE) which I talked about in this blog post, I feel like the FEA framework would work best. I see the FEA as a more complete and comprehensive framework, one that incorporates the advantages of both Zachman and TOGAF. In our setting, the PHIE would correspond to the overall enterprise, under the direction of the DOH. Under PHIE will be the various programs such as iHOMIS, CHITS, RxBox, etc. under the different government agencies that would serve as the segments. The FEA reference models would also serve as the basis for standards and interoperability, which was also emphasized as one of the keys factors for success of the PHIE.

Lastly, to answer the driving question, I think that the best way to ensure that all players in a multistakeholder, multicomponent HIS are doing their parts is to first make sure that all players know their parts (which is what the Zachman framework specifically offers). Each stakeholder, whether they are the businessmen, the governance board or management team, the developers, and so forth, must know their roles and responsibilities in the enterprise. There should be no ambiguity about it, and it would be best if said roles and responsibilities are in black in white so that even when new leader, users or developers arrive, they would know what exactly is expected of them. Another important thing to ensure is that the different stakeholders are not only aware of the vision of the HIS, but also understand and agree with it (as in Gartner’s framework, which would then more likely lead to their commitment to the HIS). Third, the development process should also be dynamic and flexible (recall TOGAF’s  architecture development method) and have several iterations so that there is continuous engagement of the different stakeholders involved. Finally, a framework for measuring HIS (as an enterprise) success should also be in place. The FEA framework has a Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework, which is used to rate the different agencies or segments in three main categories – completion (maturity level of the architecture), use (how effectively the segment uses the architecture to drive decision-making), and results (benefits being realized by using the EA framework). The ratings would be a good way to assess and monitor how a segment is doing and in a way also assess if stakeholders are doing their parts right (although stakeholders may do things right and still not be successful), and also provide a means to objectively give feedback to a segment regarding their performance and how that particular segment is doing in terms of achieving the overall vision of the HIS.

That is it for week 7 of HI 201. To be honest, this has been the most challenging assignment so far. Enterprise architecture feels so Greek to me. I hope that I was able to at least shed a little light on the different frameworks (as I’m still struggling to understand them).

As always, questions, clarifications, comments are very much welcome. Let us discuss so that we could learn together.

XO,
Eve


References:

Philippine Health Information – How Can It Be Accessed and Exchanged?

Of the blogs I have had to publish in the last 5 weeks, I think this is the one I was most excited to do because the task relates to something I experience on a regular basis.

The question were were asked was…

How can patients access their data from different health care providers as they transfer care?

We were assigned to also draw a flowchart that details the information collected at every step for a patient with diabetes with a non-healing wound who consults at outpatient patient but subsequently admitted in the hospital.

Currently, there are only very few institutions in the country using electronic medical records. Most hospitals, clinics and centers, even the most advanced, still rely heavily on paper charts. While some components are through eHealth (laboratory results can be checked online, etc.), the actual patient encounters are still documented through paper and pen. No national program has been implemented that allows for transfer of and/or access to data among institutions, especially those between the private and public sectors.

For a patient, then, who will seek consultation in an outpatient clinic for the first time, the process can be tedious. Aside from providing general data, he/she will have to relay his/her entire medical history to the attending health care professional. Although the prudent thing to do, especially for physicians seeing patients for the first time, is to do a comprehensive history and physical examination, the process can be complicated as well. More often than not, patients – especially the elderly – are unable to give an accurate past medical history. Unfortunately, they also tend to be the ones with several comorbidities. They may not remember all the illnesses they were diagnosed with, the medications they are taking (especially the dose), the exact operations they underwent and in what year, etc., and some of those data can significantly impact their care. Afterwards, if they need to be admitted to a hospital where a different physician will have to attend to them, the whole process of eliciting the biographic data and entire medical history (from diagnosis to procedures to medications) has to be repeated. Generally speaking, manual systems like the one described above are inaccurate, cause delay, non-standardized, and use different terms for the same meaning or have different meanings for the same terms (Herbosa, 2015).

But if there was a standardized system data from different institutions (whether private or public) that can be accessed by health care providers attending to a singular patient, then the process would look something like the one shown below.

hi-201-w6-flowchart-1

Assuming the diabetic patient has not had any previous consults, or his previous consults were done when there was still no standardized interoperable system, upon initial consult at the the outpatient clinic, he/she will be asked to register. The biodata entered should be able to generate a unique identifier for the patient, which will be used for future reference. An alternative would be using the Unified Multipurpose ID, which is a government-issued card that can be used for different government agencies (SSS, PAG-IBIG, PhilHealth and GSIS). This will be associated with a singular electronic medical record (EMR) for the patient, where all information will be in a single view at the point of care. The physician’s evaluation and management will then be documented in the EMR, from his complete medical history, physical examination, assessment and management plan. Ideally, the EMR should also be equipped with decision support tools and knowledge based information to guide the health care provider in managing the patient. If the patient needs to be admitted, he will only have to indicate his unique identifier code or present his UMID, which should allow the health care team in the hospital to pull up his EMR. Instead of doing the entire process and trying to elicit the entire history, what the inhospital physician could do is verify what was already written in the EMR. Not only does this save time and effort on both ends, but more importantly it allows for more accurate “endorsement” of medical care, since the physician could review the notes of the previous physician. While in the hospital, the patient’s course will be documented in the same EMR. After discharge, it is common especially for patients who have chronic illnesses to follow-up. During this time, the use of a unique identifier or UMID will help facilitate pulling up of records and enable continuity of medical care.

As I mentioned earlier, there is still no national program that has been implemented that allows for transfer of and/or access to data among institutions. However, efforts towards this have been in the works for several years.

The Department of Health (DOH) and Department of Science and Technology (DOST) have signed a Joint National Governance on eHealth. These two departments are the leads in attaining the vision of the Philippine eHealth Strategic Framework and Plan (PeHSFP).

The main purpose of the PeHSFP is to describe how the eHealth vision will be achieved to guide national coordination and collaboration, as well as set a clear direction and guidance to the ongoing future eHealth activities in the country.  And that vision is that …

By 2020, eHealth will enable widespread access to health care services, health information, and secure share and exchange patients’ information in support to a safer, quality health care, more equitable and responsive health system for all Filipino people by transforming the way information is used to plan, manage, deliver, and monitor health services.

In particular, one of the tools to achieve the vision will be through the Philippine Health Information Exchange (PHIE), which I already briefly discussed in this blog post. The key words here are standards and interoperability because the PHIE is a platform that allows authorized users to gain access to health information and share it across geographical and health sector boundaries. It is also a means for implementation of innovative ways to deliver health services and information. As long as the data are entered via a standardized format, they can be integrated into the system and later accessed. Examples of information which could be exchanged through the PHIE are demographics, health profiles, care plans, prescriptions, test orders and results, referrals, etc. Basically, it integrates all the different sources of health data (from the different EMRs – whether from private or public institutions, from urban or local areas – and different databases, etc.) into a national platform that is accessible to health consumers, health care providers, health care managers, policy makers, and researchers.

hie-2

Health Information Exchange Diagram (DOH, 2014)

Specific to the health consumers, the idea is also for them (i.e. patients) to have controlled access to their individual health data, and for them to have the capacity to manage their health records. This step, I think, is crucial for empowering the Filipino people when it comes to taking charge of their health, since they will be more active players.

I sincerely hope that we achieve the eHealth vision by 2020. In particular, I’m very much interested in the full scale deployment of the PHIE because I think it would be a game changer in the way health care is delivered to the Filipino people.

That concludes this week’s blog post. It actually excites me to think that this is the direction we are headed. As a health consumer and a health care provider, I feel that the planned programs are promising.

As always, comments are welcome. Leave them down below and let’s discuss, yes?

XO,
Eve


References

Health Informatics in the Philippines – How Do We Move Forward?

It’s another week in our Health Informatics 201 class, ergo another blog post is due. For this week, we were tasked to answer the question…

How can we advance the field of health informatics in the Philippines?

Before we can move forward, a review of the current status of HI in the Philippines is imperative. Below is an infographic to help illustrate the rest of the contents of this blog.

HI 201 - W3 - Infographic

One of the earlier papers published that described the HI in the Philippines is by Dr. Marcelo in 2006. In his paper “Health Informatics in the Philippines”, he recounted the practice of biomedical informatics in the Philippines from the early 1980s and later on briefly told about how the Medical Informatics Unit of UP Manila was established. He then discussed infancy of health information system projects until the creation of this course. He considered the Masters of Science in Health Informatics as being at the center stage in HI in the Philippines. The paper was a decade old and gave the impression that while the field may be young, it held much promise in terms of healthcare in the years to come.

I remember thinking that the paper was written at the time when the first Nokia phones were gaining popularity both locally and globally. The same way that mobile phones have significantly evolved since then, the field of HI has had many milestones as well. In the following paragraphs are brief descriptions of some of those advances.

UP Manila is currently on its 11th batch of students for the MSHI program. Even though it is still the only program of its kind in the country (i.e. a masters degree), a similar course which offers certifications is now being offered by De La Salle University – Manila, in partnership with Electronic Health Records Philippines – Inc. They offer an online health informatics course that has two tracks – one for health professionals and another for IT professionals.

CHITS, which is short for Community Health Information Tracking System. It is a free and open source software electronic health record for the local government health centers in the Philippines. It is being managed by the UP Manila – National Telehealth Center and has been present since 2004. This software was integrated into RxBox, which is an ICT innovation designed to support DOH’s call for universal health care. The RxBox is a described as a telemedicine device capable of capturing medical signals, storing data in an electronic medical record or EMR, and transmitting health information via internet. The target areas for the this device were the rural health units/local health centers in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. Currently, the devices are deployed in 143 sites scattered throughout the Philippines.

On the other hand, eHealth Philippines is a community resource catering to health enthusiasts, experts, and researchers. They provide resources such as articles for their members, and conduct discussions and/or fora on various health-related topics. Meanwhile, HealthXPh is collaborative effort by healthcare stakeholders to discuss and use emerging technologies and social media to positively impact the Philippine health landscape. Like eHealth Philippines, they regularly conduct discussions through Twitter and Google Hangout Air that aim to educate all healthcare stakeholders and encourage collaboration and application of emerging technologies to improve the delivery of healthcare. In 2015, they pioneered the Healthcare Social Media Summit in Cebu and brought together different stakeholders to discuss the role of social media in healthcare.

Speaking of summits, another one is the eHealth Summit organized by the DOST-through PCHRD and DOH, the first of which was conducted in 2014. Similar to the aforementioned summit by HealthXPh, this is a venue for the different stakeholders to come together and discusses the many aspects and developments in terms of eHealth in the country.

Another advancement is in the field of HI is the presence of Health Research and Development Information Network (HERDIN). Gone are the days of manually looking through books, publications and whatnots for health-related data since HERDIN’s database provides access to both published and unpublished Philippine journals, conference proceedings, international databases, thesis and dissertations to name a few.

Finally, there’s the nationwide emergency hotline number – 911. This, to me, is one of the more impressive achievements of the Duterte administration, considering he has only been president for less than 2 months. Prior to the launch of 911, emergency services in the Philippines were decentralized. So far, I’ve read some feedback that the 911 system actually works and has helped not only address medical emergency but safety concerns as well.

Although no longer included in the infographic, “eHealth” has also been more used in private institutions in several ways. For example, St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City and Bonifacio Global City offers a lot of online features for their clients. Patients can view their laboratory and diagnostic results online, as well as avail of other services like room booking and scheduling an appointment. They have also been electronically archiving their patient charts, and are moving towards the use of electronic medical records. Similar offerings can be found in other institutions such as Makati Medical Center (another private hospital), or Hi-Precision Diagnostics (a chain of private clinics). Even companies that are not healthcare facilities per se like Chevron Holdings, Inc., a private multinational company in the oil and energy industry, is employing the use electronic medical records as part of their clinic management system.

I’m sure that there were many other advances in the field of HI that I was not able to tackle, but I hope that what I’ve written above so far has given you more or less a better picture of how HI has progressed in the Philippines.

Going back to the driving question, how then can we advance the field of HI in the Philippines?

I have listed 9 different but interrelated aspects which I feel should be focused on.

First is the investment in the education of future stakeholders. We are currently in a digital age but the integration of healthcare seems to be lagging behind. The mere fact that there is only one masters program offering HI reflects a shortage in the opportunities for learning. As a physician in particular, I would love for health informatics to be incorporated in the doctor of medicine curriculum across all the medical schools, so that our future physicians will be more equipped not just with clinical knowledge or the digital savviness but also with at least an awareness of how they can contribute to the advancement of the field of HI. Nursing informatics is already being taught in nursing schools, and the medical schools definitely need to catch up. IT professionals should also be more given more opportunities to specialize in the field of or learn more about health informatics, as they will be key to the development of healthcare technologies.

Second is the training and enhancement of the knowledge and skills of the current workforce. Since health informatics is a relatively young field in the country, many healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not have a clear picture of what it is. In contrast to millennials and the younger generation who can easily navigate new technologies, the older population of HCPs (ex. doctors, nurses, barangay health workers in urban and rural areas) who are not as tech savvy may find it difficult to implement the new changes that are being introduced, such as the switch to electronic medical records from paper charts. This can lead to resistance to change or an impediment to the diffusion of an innovation, as discussed by Cain and Mittman in their iHealth Report entitled the Diffusion of Innovation in Health Care.

Third is the collaboration with key players. I’m using the term key players to loosely refer to anyone who has a say in the decision-making for any innovation that in the healthcare field. They can be the businessmen who will invest in the technology, researchers and developers, administrators of hospitals, legislators, etc. The field of healthcare in general has always been dynamic and technological advances are rapid. Communication channels should always be open so that there could be opportunities to collaborate and innovate.

Fourth, since a lot of the features of successful delivery of eHealth is done via the internet, our network infrastructure should also be improved. The Philippines is notorious for having one of the slowest and most expensive internet connectivities in the world. For HI to advance, our internet connection has to be significantly improved as well. Introduction of foreign telecommunication companies to increase local competition hopefully can drive our current providers to provide better and cheaper services.

As of 2016, 44.5M of the Philippine population uses the internet, translating to around 43.5% penetration rate. Globally, we account for 1.3% of the share of world internet users. In particular, Rappler reported that our mobile phone subscription has a 117% penetration rate. An average PH internet user spends 3.2 hours per day on his/her mobile phone and 5.2 hours on the desktop or tablet. The top online activity is engaging in social media (47%), followed by watching videos (19%) and playing online and mobile games (15%). HI should capitalize on these data. Mobile applications as means to deliver healthcare should further be explored. A strong social media presence would also be an advantage, because it has more potential to reach a wider audience. For example, health awareness initiatives may be best promoted via social media campaigns. Any type of information could easily be at the fingertips of the Filipinos as long as they own a mobile phone and have access to internet. We have to make sure that health-related information will be included in the list of those that they can easily have access to.

Next, creation and amendment of eHealth legislations should also be prioritized. Legislations play a significant role in the implementation of programs and in their funding. For example, if there was a law mandating all schools to incorporate health informatics in their curriculum, learning about HI will no longer be an elective or an option but something standard across all the schools offering that course. A law or bill mandating an initiative like RxBox would also affect the budget allocation of the government agency  responsible for said initiative.

Lastly is centralization. The proposed Philippine Health Information Exchange, for example, was planned to be rolled in late 2014 but has not been implemented until now. That would have allowed establishment of a centralized system for health registries and linkage systems. One of its planned features was the ability to store basic medical records of patient admitted in government health centers to ease the decision-making of professionals. Consequently, referral system would be improved as well as continuity of care. It is something that I feel would significantly benefit the public health sector in particular, but unfortunately it is still not being implemented. Meanwhile, at present, a number of private institutions already use electronic medical records or have in some way or form electronic databases. But since these were developed specifically for a particular company/institution, the systems they use are different from one another. It would be ideal if we can start with having a centralized healthcare system at least for the public sector first, and then we could explore linking it to the existing systems of private institutions. The idea seems grandiose and will probably be painstakingly hard, but ultimately the Filipinos will benefit from a more organized and efficient national healthcare system.

That is it for this week’s apple! To be honest, what I learned when I researched about the current health status of HI in the Philippines surprised me because I was so immersed in the private health sector that I did not know there were already a number of advances in the field led by the government agencies.

My questions for you this week are…

What are the some examples of health programs or campaigns that you were made aware of through social media?

Comments, suggestions and discussions are very much welcome on my blog. Leave a comment down below and let’s discuss and learn together.

XO,
Eve


References: