A bill that seeks to eliminate current restrictions by permitting VA clinicians to treat veterans through telehealth treatment, regardless of location, is gaining momentum in Congress.
Under the present law, VA physicians can just waive state licensing requirements and give telehealth treatment across state lines if both the veteran and the doctor are situated in a federally owned facility. Although, the Veterans E-Health & Telemedicine Support (VETS) Act of 2017 removes these obstacles and would permit VA health professionals to practice telehealth across state lines, as long as they are qualified and practice within the significance of their authorized federal duties.
Additionally, under provisions of the VETS Act, veterans would no longer be needed to travel to a VA facility and rather could get telemedicine treatment from any location, involving their home or a community center.
The bill was launched this week in the House of Representatives by Reps. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) and Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.). A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
“The VA has seen huge growth and interest in telehealth treatment, and we should continue to seek new ways to link veterans with the providers that they need, no matter their physical location,” stated Brownley in a written statement. “The VETS Act will boost veterans with more options and greater access to the care that they have earned and deserve.”
The proposed legislation has got support from industry groups, involving the American Telemedicine Association and Health IT Now.
“The VETS Act takes commonsense steps to eliminating artificial barriers standing in the way of veterans’ access to healthcare,” stated Joel White, executive director of Health IT Now. “Reps. Thompson and Brownley and Senators Hirono and Ernst rightly identify how technology and telehealth can alleviate geographic burdens on both sufferers and providers.”
For its part, ATA sent a letter in late March to VETS Act co-sponsor Senator Ernst, expressing the strong support of group for the bill, which—among other provisions—would develop a state licensure exemption to permit VA-credentialed healthcare experts to work across state lines to perform telemedicine without having to gain a new license in that state.
“This will permit a VA health professional to serve a veteran with a single state license,” wrote Jonathan Linkous, the ATA’s chief executive officer. “In the year of 2011, Congress, without opposition, provided comparable statutory authority to the Department of Defense for health providers and sufferers. We supported that legislation and have supported comparable authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs and other federal healthcare since then.”
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Friday, April 28, 2017
Approximately 90% of agencies struck by a data breach
Hackers sustain to gain the upper hand in the war for data breach, with an astounding 87% of agencies saying they were the victims of cyberattacks in the past twelve months.
That is one of the findings in the new research “Threats Below the Surface Report,” which surveyed more than 3,000 Information Technology (IT) experts on the security risks, priorities and capabilities that are top-of-mind. The research also discovered that one in three agencies reported that they had been hacked more than 5 times in the last 12 months, double the rate of 2014.
One of the leading causes of the rise in data breach risks is the rapid adoption of cloud computing, the study demonstrates.
“Enterprise cloud apps lack critical controls for data security that could primarily decrease the threat of a breach,” stated Nat Kausik, chief executive officer at Bitglass, which co-produced the study along with the CyberEdge Group and Information Security Community. “While few agencies can recognize potential leaks after the fact, some organizations can remediate threats in real time.”
Kausik shared several dramatic statistics regarding data breaches and cyber preparedness:
The research also discovered that 62% of organizations that have adopted the cloud say improved threat detection is the most critical threat management capability. Other capabilities most in demand involve data encryption (cited by 72%), traffic encryption (cited by 60%) and access controls (cited by 56%).
As for cloud-specific concerns, the problems that organizations are struggling with the most include data leakage (cited by 57%), data privacy (cited by 49%), confidentiality (cited by 47%) and compliance (cited by 36%).
That is one of the findings in the new research “Threats Below the Surface Report,” which surveyed more than 3,000 Information Technology (IT) experts on the security risks, priorities and capabilities that are top-of-mind. The research also discovered that one in three agencies reported that they had been hacked more than 5 times in the last 12 months, double the rate of 2014.
One of the leading causes of the rise in data breach risks is the rapid adoption of cloud computing, the study demonstrates.
“Enterprise cloud apps lack critical controls for data security that could primarily decrease the threat of a breach,” stated Nat Kausik, chief executive officer at Bitglass, which co-produced the study along with the CyberEdge Group and Information Security Community. “While few agencies can recognize potential leaks after the fact, some organizations can remediate threats in real time.”
Kausik shared several dramatic statistics regarding data breaches and cyber preparedness:
- 54% of organizations hit with a ransonware attack were capable to recover without paying up.
- 52% of organizations hope to increase their overall information security budgets.
- 39% of agencies in retail and 36% in technology are spending a larger portion of their budgets on information security than in other vertical markets.
- 37% said phishing is a top security concern, followed by insider threats (cited by 33%) and malware (32%)
- 36% of agencies monitor mobile devices
- 24% of organizations monitor SaaS and IaaS apps for security risks
The research also discovered that 62% of organizations that have adopted the cloud say improved threat detection is the most critical threat management capability. Other capabilities most in demand involve data encryption (cited by 72%), traffic encryption (cited by 60%) and access controls (cited by 56%).
As for cloud-specific concerns, the problems that organizations are struggling with the most include data leakage (cited by 57%), data privacy (cited by 49%), confidentiality (cited by 47%) and compliance (cited by 36%).
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Western Health Screening breach impacts the 15,326 sufferers
Western Health Screening, which gives onsite blood screening services at health fairs across the region of Colorado Western Slope, is providing 15,326 affected people protective services following a data breach.
Much of the at-risk patient information isn’t largely sensitive—data on the drive included names, addresses and phone numbers, but few Social Security numbers also might have been compromised, claimed the healthcare agency.
The breach happened when a car owned by Western Health Screening was stolen; a flash drive with the protected health information was in the car. The drive was password protected but not encrypted; it hasn’t been recovered.
Data on the flash drive can be accessed merely by using a unique password, and to date, there is no proof of data misuse, in accordance to Western Health Screening.
Still, the agency is offering 3 tiers of protective services from Kroll to affected people. The services being administered by Kroll involve credit monitoring, identity theft restoration and fraud consultation, a service that other healthcare agencies have rarely provided after a breach tragedy.
Western Health Screening didn’t respond to a request for data on the decision-making process they followed in making protective services to affected people.
Robert Belfort, a HIPAA attorney at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, points out that if Social Security numbers were potentially compromised, the offer of multiple protections doesn’t seem like overkill. “If SSNs weren’t involved, the offer would appear to be very generous, however in my experience, there is a broad variation in how healthcare agencies treat these matters,” he adds.
Much of the at-risk patient information isn’t largely sensitive—data on the drive included names, addresses and phone numbers, but few Social Security numbers also might have been compromised, claimed the healthcare agency.
The breach happened when a car owned by Western Health Screening was stolen; a flash drive with the protected health information was in the car. The drive was password protected but not encrypted; it hasn’t been recovered.
Data on the flash drive can be accessed merely by using a unique password, and to date, there is no proof of data misuse, in accordance to Western Health Screening.
Still, the agency is offering 3 tiers of protective services from Kroll to affected people. The services being administered by Kroll involve credit monitoring, identity theft restoration and fraud consultation, a service that other healthcare agencies have rarely provided after a breach tragedy.
Western Health Screening didn’t respond to a request for data on the decision-making process they followed in making protective services to affected people.
Robert Belfort, a HIPAA attorney at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, points out that if Social Security numbers were potentially compromised, the offer of multiple protections doesn’t seem like overkill. “If SSNs weren’t involved, the offer would appear to be very generous, however in my experience, there is a broad variation in how healthcare agencies treat these matters,” he adds.
ONC reviews the Healthcare interoperability standards measurement framework
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is seeking public comments on a proposed industry-wide measurement framework developed to assess the execution and utilization of healthcare interoperability standards measurement framework.
“The current capabilities of stakeholders to measure healthcare interoperability standards vary primarily across the health IT ecosystem,” claims the document. “This framework aims to assist health IT developers, health information exchange agencies and healthcare providers shift towards a set of uniform measures to assess interoperability progress.”
ONC asserts that this measurement is crucial to better understanding the variability in how standards are executed in the field, involving where this variability is occurring and possibly impeding interoperability. The aim is to reach consensus on industry-wide measures to assess the implementation and use of healthcare interoperability standards.
“Precise measurement will need powerful support and participation from several health IT stakeholders,” writes Steve Posnack, director of ONC’s Office of Standards and Technology, in an April 26 blog. “Feedback will assist us to engage and coordinate with stakeholders, specifically those who might be in the best position to contribute data toward industry-wide measures.”
Among the queries ONC is searching to answer: Is a voluntary, industry-based measure reporting system the best means to execute this framework? And what obstacles might exist to a voluntary, industry-based measure reporting system, and what mechanisms or approaches could be considered to increase this system’s value to stakeholders?
For 3 years, ONC has released its Interoperability Standards Advisory (ISA), giving the healthcare industry with a listing of healthcare interoperability standards and implementation specifications meant to increase the flow of electronic health information.
While the ISA seeks to offer some guidance on standards measurement by estimating a implementation of standards and use in the field, Posnack appreciates that quantifiable data regarding the implementation and use of standards today is mostly not readily available or regularly tracked.
“Finally, a finalized measurement framework would enable aggregate, industry-wide statistics that could be utilized as a resource by all stakeholders to inform business decisions, enrich policy deliberations and enhance the precision of the guidance given by the ISA,” summarizes Posnack.
ONC is accepting comments on the framework until 5 p.m. ET on July 31. The agency points out that comments and suggestions submitted as part of this procedure will be made public.
“The current capabilities of stakeholders to measure healthcare interoperability standards vary primarily across the health IT ecosystem,” claims the document. “This framework aims to assist health IT developers, health information exchange agencies and healthcare providers shift towards a set of uniform measures to assess interoperability progress.”
ONC asserts that this measurement is crucial to better understanding the variability in how standards are executed in the field, involving where this variability is occurring and possibly impeding interoperability. The aim is to reach consensus on industry-wide measures to assess the implementation and use of healthcare interoperability standards.
“Precise measurement will need powerful support and participation from several health IT stakeholders,” writes Steve Posnack, director of ONC’s Office of Standards and Technology, in an April 26 blog. “Feedback will assist us to engage and coordinate with stakeholders, specifically those who might be in the best position to contribute data toward industry-wide measures.”
Among the queries ONC is searching to answer: Is a voluntary, industry-based measure reporting system the best means to execute this framework? And what obstacles might exist to a voluntary, industry-based measure reporting system, and what mechanisms or approaches could be considered to increase this system’s value to stakeholders?
For 3 years, ONC has released its Interoperability Standards Advisory (ISA), giving the healthcare industry with a listing of healthcare interoperability standards and implementation specifications meant to increase the flow of electronic health information.
While the ISA seeks to offer some guidance on standards measurement by estimating a implementation of standards and use in the field, Posnack appreciates that quantifiable data regarding the implementation and use of standards today is mostly not readily available or regularly tracked.
“Finally, a finalized measurement framework would enable aggregate, industry-wide statistics that could be utilized as a resource by all stakeholders to inform business decisions, enrich policy deliberations and enhance the precision of the guidance given by the ISA,” summarizes Posnack.
ONC is accepting comments on the framework until 5 p.m. ET on July 31. The agency points out that comments and suggestions submitted as part of this procedure will be made public.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Ransomware epidemic will sustain to devastate healthcare industry
There is a ransomware epidemic prevailing across the industry of healthcare that indicates no signs of slowing down, in accordance to GreyCastle Security CEO Reg Harnish.
He asserts that healthcare is not any more susceptible to ransomware epidemic than other industries. But Harnish analyzes that—given the value of patient data and medical records—providers are the focus of cyber criminals who are aiming them with file-encrypting malware.
“You take their information away, and it usually threatens lives, patient safety and patient care, so they are much more likely to pay a ransom,” he adds.
Business is booming at GreyCastle, which is faing triple-digit growth year over year. The Troy, N.Y.-based consultancy has merely been in operation for 6 years, but Harnish asserts that his company is considered to be one of the largest cybersecurity risk assessment, advisory, and mitigation firms in the country.
“We’ve a very deep practice in healthcare, involving incident response where we have been addressing ransomware,” claims Harnish. “It is everywhere. This issue is not going away.”
When it comes to prevention, Harnish considers that healthcare agencies must conduct regular and systematic assessments to recognize, prioritize and measure cybersecurity risk. He points out that most ransomware epidemic cases appear “because an end user on the clinical staff or administration falls victim to a social engineering attack.”
To stop these kinds of breaches, Harnish suggests healthcare agencies adopt a heightened sense of awareness that comes from training end users on emerging cyber threats and what to do about them. “An effective awareness program that assists their employees and contractors to be capable to identify a social engineering attack and then report it is job No. 1,” he contends.
He says that Locky and Sage ransomware epidemic sustain to appear on the phishing threat landscape in the year of 2017. “The reality is that our adversaries are getting better faster,” in accordance to Harnish, who says ransomware is evolving in terms of ease-of-use, features, and functionality.
“They are selling this stuff merely like Microsoft,” he adds. “They are in business to sell software or, in their case, malware. All of them today are undergoing a similar ype of evolution to (what we saw with) Microsoft Office. Cyber criminals aren’t a bunch of teenagers wearing hoodies. It is very organized and sophisticated.”
Harnish recommends that agencies have a response capability, which he analyzes as being critical for handling, coordinating and monitoring a cybersecurity tragedy from initial discovery through resolution. “They require having a response plan so if and when it happens, they can respond very rapidly,” he summarizes.
On the query of whether or not agencies should give in to the demands of cyber criminals using ransomware, Harnish claims that GreyCastle never suggests paying a ransom. “There is no guarantee that the ransom will work,” he cautions. “If you pay the ransom, you might not get decryption keys. And even if you do get decryption keys, they may not be the right ones.”
Moreover, Harnish warns that those agencies that pay a ransom then get put on a list of victims who’ve complied with ransomware demands. As an outcome, he says they are much more likely to be targeted again as a “paying” customer. “None of our customers have ever paid a ransom,” he adds.
He asserts that healthcare is not any more susceptible to ransomware epidemic than other industries. But Harnish analyzes that—given the value of patient data and medical records—providers are the focus of cyber criminals who are aiming them with file-encrypting malware.
“You take their information away, and it usually threatens lives, patient safety and patient care, so they are much more likely to pay a ransom,” he adds.
Business is booming at GreyCastle, which is faing triple-digit growth year over year. The Troy, N.Y.-based consultancy has merely been in operation for 6 years, but Harnish asserts that his company is considered to be one of the largest cybersecurity risk assessment, advisory, and mitigation firms in the country.
“We’ve a very deep practice in healthcare, involving incident response where we have been addressing ransomware,” claims Harnish. “It is everywhere. This issue is not going away.”
When it comes to prevention, Harnish considers that healthcare agencies must conduct regular and systematic assessments to recognize, prioritize and measure cybersecurity risk. He points out that most ransomware epidemic cases appear “because an end user on the clinical staff or administration falls victim to a social engineering attack.”
To stop these kinds of breaches, Harnish suggests healthcare agencies adopt a heightened sense of awareness that comes from training end users on emerging cyber threats and what to do about them. “An effective awareness program that assists their employees and contractors to be capable to identify a social engineering attack and then report it is job No. 1,” he contends.
He says that Locky and Sage ransomware epidemic sustain to appear on the phishing threat landscape in the year of 2017. “The reality is that our adversaries are getting better faster,” in accordance to Harnish, who says ransomware is evolving in terms of ease-of-use, features, and functionality.
“They are selling this stuff merely like Microsoft,” he adds. “They are in business to sell software or, in their case, malware. All of them today are undergoing a similar ype of evolution to (what we saw with) Microsoft Office. Cyber criminals aren’t a bunch of teenagers wearing hoodies. It is very organized and sophisticated.”
Harnish recommends that agencies have a response capability, which he analyzes as being critical for handling, coordinating and monitoring a cybersecurity tragedy from initial discovery through resolution. “They require having a response plan so if and when it happens, they can respond very rapidly,” he summarizes.
On the query of whether or not agencies should give in to the demands of cyber criminals using ransomware, Harnish claims that GreyCastle never suggests paying a ransom. “There is no guarantee that the ransom will work,” he cautions. “If you pay the ransom, you might not get decryption keys. And even if you do get decryption keys, they may not be the right ones.”
Moreover, Harnish warns that those agencies that pay a ransom then get put on a list of victims who’ve complied with ransomware demands. As an outcome, he says they are much more likely to be targeted again as a “paying” customer. “None of our customers have ever paid a ransom,” he adds.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Cardiology vendor pays $2.5M Fine for HIPAA violation
CardioNet, a cardiology vendor of ambulatory cardiac monitoring products, has paid a fine of $2.5 million and will execute a two-year corrective action plan under a settlement agreement with the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, which implements the HIPAA privacy and security rules.
The sanction follows the 2012 theft of a laptop from a worker’s car that compromised the security of electronic protected health information for 1,391 people.
OCR’s inquiry, in accordance to the agency, discovered that Cardiology vendor had poor risk analysis and risk management procedures in place at the time of the theft; policies and procedures to comply with the security rule still were in draft form and hadn’t been implemented, the enforcement agency asserts.
In its inquiry, OCR further learned that CardioNet, now a part of BioTelemetry, had no final policies or procedures to execute safeguards for protected information, involving those for mobile devices.
“CardioNet failed to enforce the specifications needed to develop a security management process to stop, detect, contain and correct security violations,” OCR pointed out in the resolution agreement.
The company, OCR added, didn’t have procedures governing receipt and removal of media containing electronic protected health information, encryption and movement of these items within its facilities until the year of March 2015. That means CardioNet didn’t take action until it was in trouble, a situation that is usually happening when OCR investigates breaches.
Representatives of CardioNet or BioTelemetry didn’t respond to a request for extra information. The corrective action plan is available here.
The sanction follows the 2012 theft of a laptop from a worker’s car that compromised the security of electronic protected health information for 1,391 people.
OCR’s inquiry, in accordance to the agency, discovered that Cardiology vendor had poor risk analysis and risk management procedures in place at the time of the theft; policies and procedures to comply with the security rule still were in draft form and hadn’t been implemented, the enforcement agency asserts.
In its inquiry, OCR further learned that CardioNet, now a part of BioTelemetry, had no final policies or procedures to execute safeguards for protected information, involving those for mobile devices.
“CardioNet failed to enforce the specifications needed to develop a security management process to stop, detect, contain and correct security violations,” OCR pointed out in the resolution agreement.
The company, OCR added, didn’t have procedures governing receipt and removal of media containing electronic protected health information, encryption and movement of these items within its facilities until the year of March 2015. That means CardioNet didn’t take action until it was in trouble, a situation that is usually happening when OCR investigates breaches.
Representatives of CardioNet or BioTelemetry didn’t respond to a request for extra information. The corrective action plan is available here.
Monday, April 24, 2017
EHR information indicates reduction in opioids prescription by doctors
As the opioid issues reaches epidemic proportions, latest electronic heath record data show that physicians are giving opioids prescription to fewer sufferers, and they are also being stingy when it comes to prescribing drugs to treat opioid dependence.
Athenahealth, a cloud-based electronic health record (EHR) vendor, observed data from more than 2 million sufferer visits from the first quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2017 year.
While the misuse of opioids prescription has emerged as an urgent public health crisis, what researchers discovered is that opioids prescription have been steadily reducing over that time period.
“We have seen doctor prescribing patterns decreasing,” claims Josh Gray, vice president of athenaResearch. “It is been specifically notable, for instance, that orthopedic surgeons and primary care physicians have seen decline.”
Based on the EHR data, both orthopedic surgeons and primary care physicians are prescribing opioids to fewer patients.
At the similar time, Gray points out that more sufferers have opioid addictions but there has only been a slight increase in providers prescribing drugs to treat opioid dependence, which he observes as a troubling development.
“If you are a doctor and you are reducing the frequency with which you give patients opioids prescription, some of those sufferers might be dependent,” observes Gray. “You would like to think that at least the healthcare system would be giving medication-assisted treatment to patients that are addressing with dependence or active addiction.”
He adds that the proportion of doctors in athenaResearch’s dataset that prescribe buprenorphine, a medication that decreases or eliminates withdrawal symptoms linked with opioid dependence, has “barely nudged up” which Gray explains as a “terrible” trend.
“Doctors are being much more parsimonious in terms of opioids perscription, but the accessibility to medication-assisted treatment—such as buprenorphine and similar pharmaceutical compounds—is not increasing,” in accordance to Gray. “I am not a physician, but that might be one of the reasons we are seeing continued immensely high levels, if not increases, in overdose deaths. It is not that difficult to procure opioids illegally. So, sufferers who are dependent that cannot get medication to treat their dependence then go to other sources that are not medically supervised, which is highly dangerous.”
Since the year of 2000, more than 300,000 Americans have lost their lives to an overdose from either prescription or illicit opioids, in accordance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC has been working to make better the opioid prescribing to reduce unessential exposure to opioids and stop addiction.
In the month of December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act which provides $1 billion in new funding to combat the opioid crisis. Previous week, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, MD, announced that HHS will soon give $485 million in grants to assist states and territories target opioid addiction—the first of two rounds provided for in the Cures Act.
HHS has prioritized 5 particular areas: strengthening public health surveillance, advancing the practice of pain management, making better access to treatment and recovery services, targeting availability and distribution of overdose-reversing drugs, and supporting cutting-edge research.
Athenahealth, a cloud-based electronic health record (EHR) vendor, observed data from more than 2 million sufferer visits from the first quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2017 year.
While the misuse of opioids prescription has emerged as an urgent public health crisis, what researchers discovered is that opioids prescription have been steadily reducing over that time period.
“We have seen doctor prescribing patterns decreasing,” claims Josh Gray, vice president of athenaResearch. “It is been specifically notable, for instance, that orthopedic surgeons and primary care physicians have seen decline.”
Based on the EHR data, both orthopedic surgeons and primary care physicians are prescribing opioids to fewer patients.
At the similar time, Gray points out that more sufferers have opioid addictions but there has only been a slight increase in providers prescribing drugs to treat opioid dependence, which he observes as a troubling development.
“If you are a doctor and you are reducing the frequency with which you give patients opioids prescription, some of those sufferers might be dependent,” observes Gray. “You would like to think that at least the healthcare system would be giving medication-assisted treatment to patients that are addressing with dependence or active addiction.”
He adds that the proportion of doctors in athenaResearch’s dataset that prescribe buprenorphine, a medication that decreases or eliminates withdrawal symptoms linked with opioid dependence, has “barely nudged up” which Gray explains as a “terrible” trend.
“Doctors are being much more parsimonious in terms of opioids perscription, but the accessibility to medication-assisted treatment—such as buprenorphine and similar pharmaceutical compounds—is not increasing,” in accordance to Gray. “I am not a physician, but that might be one of the reasons we are seeing continued immensely high levels, if not increases, in overdose deaths. It is not that difficult to procure opioids illegally. So, sufferers who are dependent that cannot get medication to treat their dependence then go to other sources that are not medically supervised, which is highly dangerous.”
Since the year of 2000, more than 300,000 Americans have lost their lives to an overdose from either prescription or illicit opioids, in accordance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC has been working to make better the opioid prescribing to reduce unessential exposure to opioids and stop addiction.
In the month of December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act which provides $1 billion in new funding to combat the opioid crisis. Previous week, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, MD, announced that HHS will soon give $485 million in grants to assist states and territories target opioid addiction—the first of two rounds provided for in the Cures Act.
HHS has prioritized 5 particular areas: strengthening public health surveillance, advancing the practice of pain management, making better access to treatment and recovery services, targeting availability and distribution of overdose-reversing drugs, and supporting cutting-edge research.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Allscripts Professional EHR to deliver completely certified 2015 edition technology with Drummond Group LLC
Allscripts Professional EHR is the first solution of industry certified to enable clinicians to meet the needs of the EHR incentive program as well as the QPP (Quality Payment Program). The solution offers all eligible clinicians the relevant workflows and technology they require meeting Meaningful Use 3 (MU3) and Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) requirements.
Through its compliance with Drummond Group LLC, the latest version of Professional EHR is now certified for Modified Meaningful Use (MU) Stage 2, Meaningful Use Stage 3, Advancing Care Information (ACI) and ACI transition requirements. The certification is depicted on the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC-HIT) Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL).
Allscripts Professional EHR assists to make better clinical, operational and financial outcomes. The solution determines clinicians to streamline administrative and clinical workflows, simplify daily procedures, document care rapidly, improve patient engagement, education and communication and attain better insights from analytics.
“Drummond Group is pleased to serve as both the Accredited Test Lab (ATL) and the Authorized Certification Body (ACB) for Allscripts in gaining this substantial milestone. Our personal touch, responsiveness and years of experience with the ONC have firmly developed Drummond Group as the preferred ATL/ACB in the healthcare industry,” stated Dave Dolan, President of Drummond Group. “We’re delighted to release this certification to Allscripts and appreciate their foresight and leadership in recognizing the importance this certification represents to its customers and the industry. I am proud of the Drummond team’s devotion to give the continuous pre-test support that enabled Allscripts to become one of the first to be completely certified against the 2015 Edition criteria.”
Through its compliance with Drummond Group LLC, the latest version of Professional EHR is now certified for Modified Meaningful Use (MU) Stage 2, Meaningful Use Stage 3, Advancing Care Information (ACI) and ACI transition requirements. The certification is depicted on the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC-HIT) Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL).
Allscripts Professional EHR assists to make better clinical, operational and financial outcomes. The solution determines clinicians to streamline administrative and clinical workflows, simplify daily procedures, document care rapidly, improve patient engagement, education and communication and attain better insights from analytics.
“Drummond Group is pleased to serve as both the Accredited Test Lab (ATL) and the Authorized Certification Body (ACB) for Allscripts in gaining this substantial milestone. Our personal touch, responsiveness and years of experience with the ONC have firmly developed Drummond Group as the preferred ATL/ACB in the healthcare industry,” stated Dave Dolan, President of Drummond Group. “We’re delighted to release this certification to Allscripts and appreciate their foresight and leadership in recognizing the importance this certification represents to its customers and the industry. I am proud of the Drummond team’s devotion to give the continuous pre-test support that enabled Allscripts to become one of the first to be completely certified against the 2015 Edition criteria.”
mHealth Apps for Cancer Survivors Are not Effective as they Sould be
Mobile health apps developed for cancer survivors are not the meeting the requirements, in accordance to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California.
A 2016 analysis of dozens of mHealth apps by researchers from CPIC and Stanford University discovered that some “executed empowerment elements, underwent rigorous design approaches or included assessment of use in the cancer survivor population.” The analysis was reflected in the March 24 issue of the Journal for Cancer Survivorship.
“This diminishes the worth for the cancer survivor population but could be conveniently dealt through standardized development and testing processes,” Sharon Watkins Davis of CPIC and Ingrid Oakley-Girvan, of the Stanford Cancer Institute and Canary Center at Stanford for Cancer Early Detection, summarized.
mHealth apps for cancer survivors are an increasing niche in the digital health space, giving online resources for physical and mental health problems, information on side effects, medication adherence and care management information and tools to trace activity, exercise, diet and nutrition, even moods.
With somewhere between 350,000 and 300,000 mHealth apps now available in key app stores, the issue for both healthcare providers and consumers lies in finding the app that works best for them. Clinicians have been historically reluctant to accept or suggest apps that they do not trust, and attempts to curate and evaluate apps are merely now gaining momentum.
Previous summer, a study out of the University of California at San Francisco discovered that few of the most famous mHealth apps are failing because they are too complex to use. Other studies have pointed to uncertainties about privacy and security.
Watkins Davis and Oakley-Girvan say the apps they’re studied were not planned out rightly.
In their research, Watkins Davis and Oakley-Girvan say companies developed apps for cancer survivors are skipping developmental and testing steps in case to rush their product to market – involving collaborating with cancer survivors. They end up missing or overlooking aspects of an app that could prove injurious to cancer survivors or make the app unattractive.
They suggest app developers follow these guidelines:
“There is huge potential for mobile health apps to make better the long-term health results among cancer survivors, but the field of mobile health research is in its infancy,” Lorene Nelson, an associate professor of health research and policy at the institute of Stanford University School of Medicine, claimed in a press release released by CPIC after the study was issued.
A 2016 analysis of dozens of mHealth apps by researchers from CPIC and Stanford University discovered that some “executed empowerment elements, underwent rigorous design approaches or included assessment of use in the cancer survivor population.” The analysis was reflected in the March 24 issue of the Journal for Cancer Survivorship.
“This diminishes the worth for the cancer survivor population but could be conveniently dealt through standardized development and testing processes,” Sharon Watkins Davis of CPIC and Ingrid Oakley-Girvan, of the Stanford Cancer Institute and Canary Center at Stanford for Cancer Early Detection, summarized.
mHealth apps for cancer survivors are an increasing niche in the digital health space, giving online resources for physical and mental health problems, information on side effects, medication adherence and care management information and tools to trace activity, exercise, diet and nutrition, even moods.
With somewhere between 350,000 and 300,000 mHealth apps now available in key app stores, the issue for both healthcare providers and consumers lies in finding the app that works best for them. Clinicians have been historically reluctant to accept or suggest apps that they do not trust, and attempts to curate and evaluate apps are merely now gaining momentum.
Previous summer, a study out of the University of California at San Francisco discovered that few of the most famous mHealth apps are failing because they are too complex to use. Other studies have pointed to uncertainties about privacy and security.
Watkins Davis and Oakley-Girvan say the apps they’re studied were not planned out rightly.
In their research, Watkins Davis and Oakley-Girvan say companies developed apps for cancer survivors are skipping developmental and testing steps in case to rush their product to market – involving collaborating with cancer survivors. They end up missing or overlooking aspects of an app that could prove injurious to cancer survivors or make the app unattractive.
They suggest app developers follow these guidelines:
- Conduct a needs assessment with cancer survivors and healthcare practitioners;
- Include healthcare practitioners and staff throughout the app development procedure;
- Give potential users with a chance to verify the user interface;
- Tailor apps to survivors’ treatment history, stage of readiness to change, exercise ability, age, cognitive capabilities and individual health aims;
- Plan for suitable infrastructure involving IT support, secure data transmission protocols, adequate bandwidth to decrease or eradicate downtime and adoption of legal and privacy requirements like HIPAA; and
- Measure impact over a longer period of time.
“There is huge potential for mobile health apps to make better the long-term health results among cancer survivors, but the field of mobile health research is in its infancy,” Lorene Nelson, an associate professor of health research and policy at the institute of Stanford University School of Medicine, claimed in a press release released by CPIC after the study was issued.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Modern technology could change how pathologists examine tissue samples
The days of pathologists viewing tissue samples on glass slides under a microscope might be drawing to an end. New technology granted marketing rights on the day of April 12 by the Food and Drug Administration enables the review and interpretation of digital surgical pathology slides prepared from biopsied tissue.
Philips Medical Systems got the FDA approval for its Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution, or PIPS.
“The system enables pathologists to view and read tissue samples digitally in case to make diagnoses, instead of looking directly at a tissue sample mounted on a glass slide under a conventional light microscope,” Albert Gutierrez, director of FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health stated.
The approach has the possibility to bring efficiencies to healthcare agencies by digitizing pathology procedures that have relied extensively on physical storage of specimens.
“Because the system digitizes slides that would otherwise be stored in physical files, it also gives a streamlined slide storage and retrieval system that may finally assist to make critical health information available to pathologists, other healthcare professionals and sufferers faster,” Gutierrez states.
Pathologists are scientists practicing the research of disease and making diagnoses by viewing tissues, organs, body fluids and autopsies. In contrast to the present practice of mounting tissue on a slide and applying stain to ease viewing and evaluation, PIPS scans and digitizes conventional slides with resolution of as much as 400 times magnification.
By utilizing PIPS, pathologists yet must put a tissue sample on a slide, but then a digital image is taken, enabling the corresponding increase in resolution.
When slides are digitized, they are available for query in a database, as opposed to current practices of slides placed in a physical filing system that the pathologist thumbs through to find the right slide.
Readings, the FDA warns, do not change because the tissue samples are on a digital platform.
In clearing PIPS to enter the market, FDA utilized a recently adopted accelerated review and decision procedure that quickens approval of new low or moderate risk innovations not substantially equivalent to already-marketed devices in an effort to speed medical innovation.
FDA approval came after the organization evaluated data from about 2,000 pathology cases using tissues from several parts of the body. Results discovered that diagnoses made using PIPS images were comparable to findings using glass slides. Risks of utilizing PIPS are similar to those of traditional microscope findings.
Philips Medical Systems got the FDA approval for its Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution, or PIPS.
“The system enables pathologists to view and read tissue samples digitally in case to make diagnoses, instead of looking directly at a tissue sample mounted on a glass slide under a conventional light microscope,” Albert Gutierrez, director of FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health stated.
The approach has the possibility to bring efficiencies to healthcare agencies by digitizing pathology procedures that have relied extensively on physical storage of specimens.
“Because the system digitizes slides that would otherwise be stored in physical files, it also gives a streamlined slide storage and retrieval system that may finally assist to make critical health information available to pathologists, other healthcare professionals and sufferers faster,” Gutierrez states.
Pathologists are scientists practicing the research of disease and making diagnoses by viewing tissues, organs, body fluids and autopsies. In contrast to the present practice of mounting tissue on a slide and applying stain to ease viewing and evaluation, PIPS scans and digitizes conventional slides with resolution of as much as 400 times magnification.
By utilizing PIPS, pathologists yet must put a tissue sample on a slide, but then a digital image is taken, enabling the corresponding increase in resolution.
When slides are digitized, they are available for query in a database, as opposed to current practices of slides placed in a physical filing system that the pathologist thumbs through to find the right slide.
Readings, the FDA warns, do not change because the tissue samples are on a digital platform.
In clearing PIPS to enter the market, FDA utilized a recently adopted accelerated review and decision procedure that quickens approval of new low or moderate risk innovations not substantially equivalent to already-marketed devices in an effort to speed medical innovation.
FDA approval came after the organization evaluated data from about 2,000 pathology cases using tissues from several parts of the body. Results discovered that diagnoses made using PIPS images were comparable to findings using glass slides. Risks of utilizing PIPS are similar to those of traditional microscope findings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
