JAN 1, 2012

Related Links

Mostashari’s Journey Comes to the 'Next Big Step' of Health I.T.
February 23, 2012
Multimedia Madness - The Unresolved Challenge for Records Management
February 17, 2012
Survey: Patients Like EHRs, but Wish Security Was Better
February 16, 2012
eHealth Initiative Studies the I.T. of ACOs
February 10, 2012
CSC Report Looks Ahead to Stage 2 Meaningful Use
February 7, 2012
Survey: Shifts May be Coming in CMIO Demographics
February 6, 2012
Survey: Docs Love Mobile Devices, I.T. Departments Don’t
February 3, 2012

Riding the Revolution

Print
Reprints
Email

Intermountain Healthcare is equally renowned for cutting-edge information technology and health care quality improvement. Though it hasn't formally attested for meaningful use (mainly because its homegrown EHR system has to be certified first), health informatics pioneers were using computers for decision support at Intermountain's flagship LDS Hospital as early as the 1950s, and it has had electronic medical records in some form since the 1970s.

It's currently developing a new EHR system in collaboration with GE Healthcare; modules are expected to start reaching the market sometime later this year. Using its advanced I.T. capabilities, Intermountain conducted some of the first formal studies on health care quality, utilization and efficiency in the mid-1980s. The Intermountain Institute for Health Care Delivery Research, founded in 1990, routinely breaks new ground in finding ways to make care more efficient and effective.

It's Marc Probst's job to coordinate the intersection between I.T. and clinical care, leading a staff of 1,100. The CIO had originally set his sights on a Wall Street career in the mid-1980s, but fell into consulting to pay for his education and worked with several firms before coming to Intermountain in 2003. Health Data Management talked with him recently about self-development, standardized data models, and the future of health care software.

 

On self-development

The project is going well, but it's harder than any of us anticipated because we are building something truly revolutionary. The least interesting but most important difference is the clinical element model: the way we are storing and managing clinical data for decision support and reporting so that the system can use it to help the physician provide care. The secondary difference is the service-oriented architecture, based on easy-to-build apps. The things we're building didn't exist five years ago.

 

On data models

If we can get a clinical element model standardized [across the industry], we can really do things with information systems in health care. We are getting good traction from our efforts abroad, and we're working with the Defense Department, the VA, and HHS. One of the keys is to facilitate other vendors embracing the same model without completely rewriting their systems. It would be a sin if each of them pursued their own clinical model, but they're so busy with other things that this isn't a top priority.

 

On the future

We have to be planning now for the next 20 years. I was talking recently with a peer CIO, and I asked him how he was going to react to all the changes that accountable care is going to bring. He said, "I'll be retired by then." If we're going to transform health care, we can't be thinking that way.

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

There are well over 400 accountable care organizations in the nation now and about two dozen self-sustaining health information exchanges.

Login  |  My Account  |  White Papers  |  Web Seminars  |  Events |  Newsletters |  eBooks
FOLLOW US
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.