The message below to a listserv for Chief Medical Informatics Officers and related positions was recently forwarded to me by a colleague. I cannot believe what I am reading, as it reflects attitudes I'd thought were extinct by the late 1990's ("I don't see the value of clinical informatics").

The last time I'd heard such nakedly Jurassic views, and other anti-physician informatics attitudes as in this 1999 essay I penned, was from the C-level officers of the hospital where I was CMIO in that time frame, Christiana Care Health System in Delaware.

From: (Withheld)
Date: Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Hi All,

I was recently told by one of our senior leaders that he saw no value to Clinical Informatics and followed that up by disbanding the Clinical Informatics Directorate at the BUMED (Headquarters of Navy Medicine) level.

I successfully countered that argument with a more senior leader, but I tried to find objective evidence of the value of Clinical Informatics without success. As an academic family physician who lives, eats and breathes evidence-based medicine, I try to make all my decisions and arguments for and against positions/programs based on the best available evidence. In this case, all I could use was potential value and logic.

My question is this: Does anyone out there (and I have already discussed this with [name redacted - ed.]) have any objective evidence that shows the value of clinical informatics to the Enterprise (which has multiple definitions, but suffice it to mean across an entire health care system.however large)? I have already talked with [name redacted - ed.] about including a survey of CEO's/COO's/CMO's/CIO's as to the value they see in clinical informatics, but that is some time in the future. I really need some data now. Anyone have anything? Any and all assistance is greatly appreciated.

In the face of the apparent spectacular failure of AHLTA ($4 Billion Military EMR "AHLTA" to be Put Out of Its Misery? Also, Does the VA Have $150 Million to Burn on IT That Was Never Used?), I certainly view such statements as extraordinary, and in a very negative sense.

It has become my opinion that Jurassic attitudes about medical informatics are virtually unremediable; they suggest an underlying technical and mental deficit in those who proffer such opinions that is not correctible by evidence and logic. (I can predict with a good degree of certainty that this "senior leader" had a role in AHLTA's demise.)

I suggest a different approach: surely patients received suboptimal care (and perhaps suffered injury) under AHLTA. The freebie newspapers serving the soldiers such as I have seen in my visits to Fort Dix, where my mother has commissary/PX privileges as a result of my father's service-connected injuries and disability, might find such a story "interesting."

In the meantime, I am doing a John Galt regarding persons espousing the "I don't see the value of informatics" view. I'm frankly tired that such people remain in the healthcare workforce. While I could provide a lot of material supporting the value of informatics (actually, its essential nature) that I and others have written over the years, I choose to no longer do so.

The military person proffering this view is apparently a "senior leader"; it's their responsibility and indeed obligation to make the Navy better. Let them lead.

And let the pieces fall where they may.

I have heard from numerous reliable sources that the military's $4 billion+ EMR known as "Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application" (AHLTA) is to be declared a failure, and replaced.

I'd written about AHLTA's considerable problems at the post "If The Military Can't Get Electronic Health Records Right, Why Would We Think Conflicted EHR Companies And IT-Backwater Hospitals Can?" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/06/if-military-cant-get-electronic-health.html .

From that post:

[AHLTA has been described as] difficult for physicians to use. Intolerable. Slow. Unreliable. Frequently crashes. Near mutiny. Morale. Affecting patient care, decreasing patient load. Can it get worse?

Yes ... When the Army's Surgeon General observes that clinicians "spend as much or more time working around the system as they do with the system", and that the superusers are not enthusiastic about the system, and a Congressional hearing is held entitled "where do we go from here?" (it's clear to this author that they have no clue), one should start to very critically question basic assumptions about health IT.

One wonders if anyone responsible for AHLTA ever read my now decade-old site on health IT dysfunction, now at this link at Drexel University, or its many hyperlinks to additional resources.

Meanwhile, the VA is having its own problems as noted on the HISTalk blog:

[HISTalk News 6/30/10] Back in March, I dug out a juicy nugget from an internal VA report: it was scrapping a $150 million patient scheduling system without ever bringing it live. The GAO weighs in with its official report (warning: PDF), pegging the cost at $127 million and saying “VA has not implemented any of the planned system’s capabilities and is essentially starting over.” The contractor that developed the system with “a large number of defects” walks away with $65 million. GAO finds much to criticize about the VA’s involvement: lack of competitive bidding, sloppy specs, unreliable status reports, and lack of action by project oversight groups when the project started tanking.

The linked PDF report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled "INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - Management Improvements Are Essential to VA’s Second Effort to Replace Its Outpatient Scheduling System", reveals errors that cause me to question whether the project leadership ever passed their introductory undergraduate IT courses (assuming they had any).

From that report:

VA’s efforts to successfully complete the Scheduling Replacement Project were hindered by weaknesses in several key project management disciplines and a lack of effective oversight that, if not addressed, could undermine the department’s second effort to replace its scheduling system:

• VA did not adequately plan its acquisition of the scheduling application and did not obtain the benefits of competition.
• VA did not ensure requirements were complete and sufficiently detailed to guide development of the scheduling system.
• VA performed system tests concurrently, increasing the risk that the system would not perform as intended, and did not always follow its own guidance, leading to software passing through the testing process with unaddressed critical defects.
• VA’s project progress and status reports were not reliable, and included data that provided inconsistent views of project performance.
• VA did not effectively identify, mitigate, and communicate project risks due to, among other things, staff members’ reluctance to raise issues to the department’s leadership.
• VA’s various oversight boards had responsibility for overseeing the Scheduling Replacement Project; however, they did not take corrective actions despite the department becoming aware of significant issues.
  

The impact of the scheduling project on the HealtheVet initiative cannot yet be determined because VA has not developed a comprehensive plan for HealtheVet that, among other things, documents the dependencies among the projects that comprise the initiative.

My question is:

By what miracle of God will the military's AHLTA's and the VA's scheduling system "replacements" be any better than what now exists? Through reliance on commercial EMR vendors and management consultant "experts", perhaps?

If so, I wish the military and VA the best of luck. They will need it.

The problems with computing in complex settings such as medicine are pervasive, far beyond the military. It is increasingly clear that the leadership of the healthcare IT ecosystem (and probably even the broader IT ecosystem) consists of recycled incompetents, never held accountable for project failures, even massive ones, instead moving on to wreak mayhem elsewhere. This has certainly been my own experience in both the hospital and pharma sectors.

Competent experts who actually try to do meaningful work (a.k.a. "rock the boat" or "non-team players" in the parlance of the incompetent and/or the power seekers) have become hopelessly marginalized - or unemployed. See the post "Edwin Lee on the Tiger We Are Now Riding" by Roy Poses. Our economy and even society is falling apart as a result of these leadership problems; Lee's post "Lightweight oil executives produce worthless disaster plans" as linked above is pathognomonic of these failures. Writes Lee:

... This week the executives of the other major oil companies (besides BP) presented their oil spill contingency plans to Congress. Several things were immediately evident: the plans were all grossly inadequate and carelessly done, they were all developed by the same outside consulting firm and they were essentially carbon copies of BP’s nearly useless plans. In other words, they were empty “cover your ass” documents rather than serious contingency plans. Some people may find this surprising. From my experience, it’s what we can and should expect from the vast majority of large, public institutions because of a universal and deeply flawed process for selecting their leaders.

... Those who are chosen to lead fit a mold: mediocre, short term thinkers with similar work experiences, outlooks, temperaments and personal incentives. Disaster response, creative thinking and fundamental changes are outside their limited range of interests or competencies.

Here is the major problem in a nutshell: no real accountability where it matters.

What follows from this is a first principle:

Recycled incompetents will never produce good information systems.

Major health IT commercial vendor CEO's have been reported as making statements that health IT usability -- one of AHLTA's major deficiencies - "will be part of certification over her dead body" (as described in my post at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-epic-ceo-judy-faulkner-of-epic.html).

Why don't we recycle physicians with track records of killing patients? Better yet, make them Chairs of clinical departments?

The answer is obvious, but the IT culture seems immune to such considerations.

The UK's National Programme for IT in the NHS (NPfIT) is AHLTA on a national scale:

The UK Public Accounts Committee report on disastrous problems in their £12.7 billion national EMR program is here.

Gateway reviews of the UK National Programme for IT from the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) are here (released under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act), and a summary of 16 key points is here.

My prediction is this:

I do not believe health IT has advanced enough beyond the experimental stage for clinically efficacious, safe, cost effective mass dissemination.

Further, I do not believe that the human capital necessary to make such dissemination happen in a clinically efficacious, safe, cost effective manner exists in the IT industry.

Talent management in that industry -- based on cheap, just-in-time, "programming language/platform du jour", "smart people cannot or should not learn but should be declared obsolete", and Bart Simpson-style attitudes about ability and expertise -- does not allow the needed human capital to exist. A remarkable and revealing example comes from an article about health IT leadership a number of years ago in the journal “Healthcare Informatics”:

I don't think a degree gets you anything," says healthcare recruiter Lion Goodman, president of the Goodman Group in San Rafael, California about CIO's and other healthcare MIS staffers. Healthcare MIS recruiter Betsy Hersher of Hersher Associates, Northbrook, Illinois, agreed, stating "There's nothing like the school of hard knocks." In seeking out CIO talent, recruiter Lion Goodman "doesn't think clinical experience yields [hospital] IT people who have broad enough perspective. Physicians in particular make poor choices for CIOs. They don't think of the business issues at hand because they're consumed with patient care issues," according to Goodman.

The "management improvements" sought by the VA may simply not be possible, until the IT field undergoes something comparable to the "Flexner report" that the medical professions and their educational programs underwent a century ago.

And perhaps until health IT leadership personnel begin to lose their homes and fortunes in court to harmed patient plaintiffs, to the point where the leadership start begging competent, marginalized professionals who actually know what they're doing to save their sorry asses.

In the WSJ today, a letter to the editor was published extolling the major strides made by the U.S. military in voice recognition technology for electronic health records:

[Note: this is not to denigrate the military, and I am very thankful to all who serve and defend our country and freedoms. Health IT problems seem unfortunately universal - ed.]

Shared Information Can Give Better Medical Results
Wall Street Journal
JUly 26, 2010

There is no question that medical information, notes and all, belong to both the patient and the provider, helping each of them to manage a medical condition ("The Informed Patient: What the Doctor Is Really Thinking," Personal Journal, July 20).

In the U.S. Army in Europe, we are taking the concept a little further, from "what the doctor is really thinking" to "what the doctor is saying." For the last two years, we have been evaluating voice-recognition technology to improve the provider's experience with our electronic medical record. During the process, we came across a wonderful discovery: As doctors dictate medical notes into the record during patient visits, patients are paying much more attention to what doctors are saying, prompting them to ask important follow-up questions, add statements about something else that may be bothering them, or, most importantly, correcting the doctor when a dictation error is made. It's the type of patient-safety feedback loop that would otherwise be absent.

The more we allow our patients behind the curtain to see and hear how we work, the more we will see patients become true partners in their own health care.

Robert Walker, M.D.
Chief Medical
Information Officer
Europe Regional
Medical Command
Heidelberg, Germany

Here's the problem, as I outlined at my July 1, 2010 post "$4 Billion Military EMR "AHLTA" to be Put Out of Its Misery? Also, Does the VA Have $150 Million to Burn on IT That Was Never Used?":

I have heard from numerous reliable sources that the military's $4 billion+ EMR known as "Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application" (AHLTA) is to be declared a failure, and replaced.

I'd written about AHLTA's considerable problems at the post "If The Military Can't Get Electronic Health Records Right, Why Would We Think Conflicted EHR Companies And IT-Backwater Hospitals Can?" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/06/if-military-cant-get-electronic-health.html .

From that post:

[AHLTA has been described as] difficult for physicians to use. Intolerable. Slow. Unreliable. Frequently crashes. Near mutiny. Morale. Affecting patient care, decreasing patient load. Can it get worse?

Yes ... When the Army's Surgeon General observes that clinicians "spend as much or more time working around the system as they do with the system", and that the superusers are not enthusiastic about the system, and a Congressional hearing is held entitled "where do we go from here?" (it's clear to this author that they have no clue), one should start to very critically question basic assumptions about health IT.

Read my June 2009 post on the AHLTA failure at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/06/if-military-cant-get-electronic-health.html, and the May 2009 piece I referenced from "US Medicine - the Voice of Federal Medicine" entitled "Electronic Records System Unreliable, Difficult to Use, Service Officials Tell Congress" by Sandra Basu, in their entirety.

Extolling voice recognition advances in a failed $4+ billion EMR debacle due to severe unusability of most of the information system is akin to extolling the virtues of improving screen-door aesthetics on submarines being flooded by water entry. It could almost be considered funny, in a dark-humor sort of way - except the results are anything but humorous. "Dead serious" is a more apt term.

Finally, while "shared information can give better medical results", there seems to be little shared information about others' healthcare IT failures.

Organizations seem to be constantly re-learning that which others have learned years or decades in the past, repeating the same IT mistakes.

The cost of this self-education is not at all cheap.

(This failure to learn from others is one reason I write that health IT lacks the science and rigor of the field it ostensibly serves: medicine.)

The publication "The Machinery Behind Healthcare Reform: How an Industry Lobby Scored a Swift, Unexpected Victory by Channeling Billions to Electronic Records" on May 16 2009 in the Washington Post (my comments here) exposes a massive lobby that has grossly over-represented the benefits of healthcare IT, committed a cross-disciplinary invasion of medicine, and created a myth about HIT's supposed transformative powers in curing healthcare's ills.

Since its publication in the Post I have become concerned that the research literature that exists extolling healthcare IT may be tainted by corporate influence. The phenomenon of tainted biomedical literature is certainly familiar to readers of Healthcare Renewal and other medical blogs regarding pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Electronic health records systems can facilitate, not revolutionize, medicine when led by competent experts cross-trained to a meaningful extent (i.e., graduate level or beyond) in both clinical medicine and information science and technology, e.g., biomedical informatics professionals. Even these professionals must often expend much effort in "managing the mismanagement" by incompetent and/or conflicted IT and hospital leadership. (An example of a tightly run and highly specialized project in a high risk medical subspecialty that did have tangible clinical and some financial returns, via identification of poorly performing medical devices -- not something the medical device industry cares for -- is here. This type of project is not easily portable.)

Making yet another case for how the concept of national electronic health records is probably a bad idea at this point in time with respect to our understanding of health IT and its social-technical interactions and challenges, it appears the military's EHR system AHLTA is simply a disaster. [Note: this is not to denigrate the military, and I am very thankful to all who serve and defend our country and freedoms. HIT problems seem unfortunately universal - ed.] All of the preventable elements I've written about are present: unreliability to due inadequate attention to resilience engineering, a mission hostile user experience, time-wasting, demoralization of clinicians, and a cornucopia of other predictable (to informatics experts) consequences when health IT is managed by anyone other than experts.

Just as our economy and culture are now falling apart at the seams as a result of decades of mismanagement and corruption, from micro to macro levels, in most domains (borrowing a phrase from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "the chickens are coming home to roost"), so the wages of incompetence and corruption in healthcare and healthcare IT are rearing their ugly head. This is the situation in the setting of a relatively constrained patient population (primarily active military personnel and families):

U.S. Medicine - the Voice of Federal Medicine

May 2009

Electronic Records System Unreliable, Difficult to Use, Service Officials Tell Congress - By Sandra Basu

WASHINGTON—AHLTA, the Department of Defense’s $4 million [sic - that should be $4 billion - ed.] electronic medical record system, continues to be difficult for military physicians to use, according to top military health leaders who spoke at a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing at the end of March.

At a Congressional hearing titled “AHLTA is ‘Intolerable,’ Where do we go from here?” top Department of Defense and service leaders told members that medical personnel are hampered by an electronic medical record system that, among other issues, is slow, difficult to use, unreliable and frequently crashes.“Being the first service to vigorously support the fielding of AHLTA five years ago, we faced a near mutiny of our healthcare providers, our doctors, our nurse practitioners, physician assistants and others last summer,” Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, MC, USA, told committee members at a joint hearing held by the Military Personnel Subcommittee and the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

Committee members also voiced concern about how the system was impacting provider morale and patient care. “The committee has heard from military doctors and nurses who use AHLTA that it is unreliable, difficult to use and has decreased the number of patients they can see each day. We have also heard that medical professionals leave the military because of their frustration with AHLTA,” said Rep. Joe Wilson, R.-S.C., ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Difficult for physicians to use. Intolerable. Slow. Unreliable. Frequently crashes. Near mutiny. Morale. Affecting patient care, decreasing patient load. Can it get worse?

Yes:

A Troubled System

AHLTA is currently deployed worldwide to 70 hospitals, 410 clinics and 6 dental clinics. In addition, the system is used in 14 theater hospitals and 208 forward resuscitative sites.

While Army, Navy and Air Forcer medical leaders who testified all stressed the importance of an electronic medical record [perhaps due to lobby influence and myth-making? - ed.], they all expressed frustrations with AHLTA. Dr. Schoomaker told committee members that medical personnel, particularly specialists, often “spend as much or more time working around the system as they do with the system.” He said that the services are still not effectively able to seamlessly access complete data of patients from the battlefield between the military treatment facilities and the Department of Defense and the Veteran’s Administration.

Last year he said he knew he had a problem when he asked a physician who is a self-described “super user” of the system whether she was a “super fan” of the system and she responded that she was not. “When our best and most faithful users of AHLTA could not admit to being fans of the system, I knew we were really having serious problems,” Dr. Schoomaker said.

When the Army's Surgeon General observes that clinicians "spend as much or more time working around the system as they do with the system", and that the superusers are not enthusiastic about the system, and a Congressional hearing is held entitled "where do we go from here?" (it's clear to this author that they have no clue), one should start to very critically question basic assumptions about health IT. Who said it's a powerful tool to improve healthcare and reduce costs? Who said it's ready for national dissemination? What conflicts do such individuals have with the health IT industry?

He blamed the system’s failures on a lack of a clear-cut strategy for implementing AHLTA—a problem he believes still exists. “In my opinion, the failures of AHLTA can be attributed to the overall lack of a clear, actionable strategy and poor execution from its genesis. As a result of the MHS’s lack of an information management/information technology strategy up to this point, theArmy Medical Department has been largely frustrated by a number of obstacles that continue to impede the system’s capabilities and functionality,” he said.

He also said that the services should have a greater input in decision making regarding AHLTA. “Military health system information technology investments and solutions should be transparent to the services sitting here at the table and should be jointly governed, meaning that we with service input are treated as principal customer clients of the system and that we are heard and acted upon promptly,” he said.

As a faculty member in a College of Information Science and Technology where undergraduates and graduate students are taught the importance of information science and consideration of the needs of end users as a primary enabler of IT success, how can there be a "lack of an information management/information technology" strategy in this national health IT project? How can there have been a lack of input into decision making by the services in the development and deployment of AHLTA?

Leaders from the Navy and Air Force detailed the challenges that their personnel face in using AHLTA. “Almost all of the providers I spoke to relate to the system going down unexpectedly, recently at least once a week,” Navy Deputy Surgeon General Rear. Adm. Thomas R. Cullison, MC, USN, told committee members. He added that while no one would like to return to paper records, providers are “largely dissatisfied” with the system and that the system slows down their clinic time. “Most of our providers say they have to stay later in the afternoon to finish up notes simply because it slows down clinic time,” he said.

Air Force Deputy Surgeon General Maj. Gen. Charles Bruce Green, USAF, MC, told the committee that Air Force primary care physicians spend about 40 percent of their time working with AHLTA versus 60 percent of their time with patients. On the other hand, specialists are “working around the system trying to find new solutions,” since the system does not address the needs unique to their practices. In his written testimony, Dr. Green said that the problems associated with AHLTA have resulted in “low productivity and provider morale.”

Forty percent of clinician time spent tinkering with balky computers? This should be astonishing to any reader unfamiliar with these issues, and an eye opener to our governmental representatives not just regarding the military, but regarding the entire lobby-promoted scheme to force clinicians to adopt HIT by 2014 or suffer financial penalties.

Specialists "working around" the system (thus risking the dangers of workarounds of HIT deficiencies observed by Koppel and others) because it does not meet the needs of their subspecialties? No surprises here. After reading about issues in development of domain specific healthcare information systems for high risk subspecialties (such as here), it should be obvious that the business IT-dominated health IT industry as it currently exists cannot fill such needs.

More importantly, I feel the AHLTA project is an illustration of what will be reproduced, thousands or tens of thousands of times over, in hospitals and physician practices all over this country as we proceed in a national EHR initiative based on false premises borne of the health IT lobby.

The Problem

Then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs S. Ward Casscells, M.D., told committee members that many of the problems that AHLTA has suffered have been “self-inflicted wounds,” due to software contracts with vendors that were “poorly written.” “We have had, over the past decade, contracts that were poorly written from the standpoint of performance, they have loopholes in them that permitted delays. We have, in some instances, lax oversight of some of these contracts,” he said.

Unbelievable. Hospitals sign HIT contracts putting all liability for system defects on clinicians, and that gag them from disclosing defects outside their organizations. The military's HIT contracts apparently had additional flaws that are probably pervasive in the commercial sector as well.

... In moving forward to rectify AHLTA problems, DoD has adopted a Unified Strategy Regional Distribtion Approach, a three-phased plan for reshaping the electronic health system. In written testimony, Dr. Casscells explained this strategy seeks to “improve provider satisfaction, improve reliability and strengthen data sharing throughout DoD and Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare delivery continuum and with private healthcare providers.” The first phase of the approach will focus on “stabilizing performance, reliability and the core infrastructure,” of the system according to Casscell’s written testimony.

"I want to be wary of overpromising. We have done that in the past [indeed, the entire HIT industry has massively overpromised for decades - ed.], but I am excited about this. I think there is a chance here that we can once again be leaders for the nation in electronic health records, as was the case several decades ago. I would like to think that a year or two from now, you will agree with me that AHLTA has gone from intolerable to indispensible,” Dr. Casscells told committee members.

Tommy J. Morris, acting director in DoD’s office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection and Readiness Programs, said that the only service that nonconcurred with their proposed blueprint to overhaul AHLTA was the Army [not exactly an unimportant stakeholder - ed.]

Dr. Schoomaker, on his part, challenged the notion that there was actually a “strategy” in place for rectifying AHLTA. “Mr. Morris has got a plan, he does not have a strategy. We asked for a strategy. A plan is just one element of a larger strategy. We asked for a strategy and our involvement in that strategy, so with respect, that is what we in a sense partially nonconcurred with,” Dr. Schoomaker said.

"I've got a plan." How familiar a refrain that is in a time of mass societal mismanagement.

If I were a politician examining health IT, I'd really start looking into how our government became convinced health IT was not only a worthwhile investment, but an "economic stimulus." As with our friends up north, it seems to be primarily a stimulus for poseurs and dyscompetents to come out of the woodwork, disrupt healthcare providers, and then collect massive fees for the "favor."

In consideration of the above, I ask:

If the military, with its internal discipline and ability to take over entire modern countries with just a few thousand soldiers lost, and its constrained patient population (active military personnel and families generally free of complex and chronic illnesses) can't get electronic health records right, why would anyone think inept and sometimes corrupt EHR companies, dyscompetent hospital IT departments, and reckless and cavalier hospital executives can?

I reiterate my concerns that the "AHLTA experience" will become all too familiar to hospitals and physician practices throughout this country, unless sanity and rationality is restored to our thinking about health IT.