© 20011 Cygnus, Inc.

Cygnus: Workstation Solutions for Healthcare

Cygnus creates wood and metal computer workstation solutions with a focus on the healthcare industry. Wall mounted computer desks, charting stations, articulating arms and medication cabinets are some of our largest sellers. Also visit our Social Media page and connect with us. http://www.cygnusinc.net/get_social_with_cygnus.html

Monday, April 2, 2012

Spending on security of health data breaches to hit $70B by 2015 - FierceHealthIT

Spending on security of health data breaches to hit $70B by 2015 - FierceHealthIT:
March 29, 2012 — 3:24pm ET | By  


With the cost of healthcare data breaches continuing to rise year after year, it shouldn't come as a surprise that spending on the security of that information is estimated to hit $40 billion this year, and balloon to $70 billion three years from now, according to a recently published report from Princeton, N.J.-based consulting firm The Boyd Company.
Specifically, investments in electronic health records and mobile technology to meet government compliance standards are cited as key to the expected spending splurge. Because of the inevitable increase in medical records sharing, new and improved efforts will be mandatory to keeping health data safe.

The report breaks down current data security costs in the U.S. by city, with New York ($32.6 million), San Francisco ($27.8 million) and Los Angeles ($25.7 million) spending the most annually on such protection.
"In an industry whose cost structures are under constant scrutiny by patients, insurance companies and government agencies, comparative economics are ruling investment and location decisions for new facilities," the authors wrote. "In today's difficult economy, improving the bottom line on the cost side of the ledger is often easier than on the revenue side for many healthcare services companies."

Read more: Spending on security of health data breaches to hit $70B by 2015 - FierceHealthIT http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/healthcare-data-breaches-hit-70b-2015/2012-03-29?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss#ixzz1qtWl0H8w

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Point of No Return?

May 12, 2008 By Annie Macios, For The Record, Vol. 20 No. 10 P. 14

A pair of studies raises concerns about the viability of implementing mobile, point-of-care solutions.
As healthcare documentation becomes more automated and streamlined, technology enters into the equation across the continuum of care—including at the point of care. Mobile documentation at the point of care can do wonders for workflow and documentation; however, its implementation is not without challenges.
Two recent reports by the Spyglass Consulting Group—“Healthcare Without Bounds: Point of Care Computing for Nursing” and “Healthcare Without Bounds: Point of Care Computing for Physicians”—highlight the current state of mobile computing in hospitals and ambulatory care. They present the findings of an end-user market study focused on the adoption of point-of-care computing by physicians and nurses across the United States.
The reports uncover strong opinions gleaned from more than 200 in-depth interviews regarding the opportunities and challenges for adopting computing solutions at the point of care. It also identifies the market drivers, trends, opportunities, and challenges in using mobile computing devices.
According to the survey, clinicians believe the right point-of-care computing device depends on physical location, urgency of the situation, tasks to be performed, complexity of the required applications, and, most importantly, personal preferences. Gregg Malkary, founder and managing director for Spyglass Consulting Group, says there is really no ideal device for point-of-care computing thanks to these variables.
Smartphones/PDAs
While viewed by physicians as an ideal device for communicating, managing personal and clinical workflows, and accessing stand-alone, reference-based tools, smartphones are used by fewer than 14% of the physicians interviewed to access single-function clinical applications for managing patient data, prescribing medications electronically, and capturing patient billing charges.
There is a big push for physicians to use smartphones and PDAs for accessing clinical applications, but the study shows that doctors are not using it in this way because screen size presents a problem. “If given a choice between a 2- X 2-inch screen or a full-size terminal, they’ll choose the full-size screen,” says Malkary. For that reason, he says smartphones/PDAs currently have limited clinical utility but great potential.
Tablet PC
Tablet PC use varies based on the environment. “For the hospital-based clinician, it is too heavy and its battery life is only two to three hours for what is often a 10- to 12-hour workday,” says Malkary. Tablet PC applications resemble DOS applications, and with wireless networks there are often dead zones because of poor handoffs within the hospital. According to the report, more than 90% of nurses are reluctant to use the tablet PC for bedside nursing.
In an ambulatory environment, however, tablet PCs are more prevalent and have more widespread adoption because there is limited geography. Malkary says the tablet PC is more convenient in this setting because there are usually no more than 30 steps between offices rather than the five or six miles that hospital-based clinicians may encounter during an average shift. Financials also come into play in ambulatory settings, where doctors are more financially motivated to use tablet PCs because they pay for them themselves, according to Malkary.
Mobile Clinical Carts
Patient safety concerns have driven 56% of the healthcare organizations represented in the Spyglass Consulting survey to implement departmental initiatives that include mobile computer carts. Ideally, these carts enable nurses to generate structured clinical documentation, automate safety checks and procedures through bar code technology, access information on demand, automate the collection of vital sign data, facilitate real-time communication among all care team members, and practice evidence-based nursing.
Mobile clinical carts, also known as computers on wheels (COWs), are the workhorse of hospital-based nursing. Unfortunately, while the cart is mobile, it is usually left in the hallway due to space limitations in hospital rooms. Another reason for COWs’ lack of use at the site of care is that it is not yet required by hospital administration. However, “That will change as medication administration moves to bar coding,” says Malkary.
According to the survey, rather than COWs, nurses prefer to use a fixed station for documentation. “If they can find a terminal every 10 yards, they will use those instead,” says Malkary. He also notes that nurses often do their documentation on paper first and then input the report afterward.
Wall-Mounted PCs
According to the survey, these devices are gradually replacing COWs as a more useful point-of-care computing tool. Ironically, COWs have helped establish wall-mounted PCs. “The good thing about the COWs is that they let you know where to put a fixed station,” says Malkary.
Putting Them Into Practice
While smartphones, tablet PCs, mobile clinical carts, and wall-mounted PCs offer opportunities for point-of-care computing, the pitfalls associated with these devices sometimes overshadow the benefits. Malkary says better communication can help overcome many barriers. “Facilities have to develop a better solution and get the clinicians involved in the process. IT makes recommendations on the technology, but they also need to understand the clinical workflow,” he says.
Malkary says getting clinicians involved in the decision making for such devices will improve the chances of implementing a user-accepted solution and, ultimately, improve workflow, patient care, and patient safety.
The physician survey suggests that widespread adoption of these devices depends on how practitioners perceive their use. When looking to increase the adoption of point-of-care computing technology, Malkary says the investment a facility is able to make, as well as the return on investment, are important factors to consider. “In looking at the investment perspective, you have to ensure the technology will deliver an automated hardware, software, infrastructure, and workflow solution,” he says. “If you only automate the current system that you have, that helps, but you have to automate across the board for the adoption to be more widespread. It all comes down to eliminating inefficient processes.”
Malkary says the point-of-care device selected at a particular facility depends on the investment an organization can make. With IT investments, facilities usually start with an electronic medical record (EMR) and a digital infrastructure. EMR deployment usually takes a significant amount of capital and includes many subsystems, leaving little left in the budget for items such as point-of-care computing technology. “But the requirements of doing documentation at the point of care need to be automated, and it takes a lot of deployments and experimentation to get to a point where it works most efficiently,” says Malkary. By coming up with standardized solutions that work facilitywide, the adoption of these devices can potentially increase, he adds.
Communication overload can interfere with practitioners’ ability to get the clinical information they want when they want it. “The devices offer a lot of support tools for doctors, but they [physicians] also get flooded with a lot of alerts and reminders to respond to. If physicians click off an alert in an effort to go straight to the clinical data, then they have added liability should some medical situation arise from that alert,” says Malkary.
Citing inefficient processes as a common difficulty of effectively employing mobile computing, Malkary finds that a facility’s technical infrastructure is often inadequate to support work from point-of-care devices. “Security is a big impediment, especially when a physician might need to know 10 or more user names and passwords because security is made so stringent. A doctor might have to log in 80 to 90 times a day, which is an unrealistic expectation,” he says.
Infection Risk
According to the survey, 65% of physicians say they fear infection if they use mobile computing devices at the point of care, a 160% increase from 2005.
“Point-of-care computing devices are a large vector of contamination, and hand washing is the key to reducing the risk of infection. It’s a real infection control risk, but it’s not always been seen as a risk,” says Malkary. He notes that perceptions are changing now that Medicare is no longer paying for medical mistakes such as infection caused within the hospital.
Success Stories
While the news from the Spyglass surveys is not encouraging, the deployment of mobile computing technology is working at some facilities. Medstar Health in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C., region and Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital in Parkersburg, W.Va., are examples of how point-of-care computing devices can be successfully deployed in healthcare facilities big and small.
MedStar Health, the largest healthcare system in its region, introduced mobile devices to its physicians in 1998 and has experienced success with the technology since then. Included on Hospitals & Health Networks’ list of the top 100 most wired hospitals for four consecutive years, MedStar is a nonprofit, integrated system that includes a community-based network of eight hospitals with more than 5,000 physicians.
Used at five of the system’s eight hospitals, PatientKeeper, which is deployed on Palm Treo smartphones, helps physicians collect and input charges at the point of care. As any healthcare administrator knows, being paid appropriately and in a timely manner is an integral part of keeping a healthcare facility running smoothly—a fact that physicians are also keenly aware of. “We are able to provide the hospitalist physicians with patient billing demographics through an interface, and it provides a much more efficient and effective way of capturing inpatient charges,” says Suzanne Carter, Medstar’s vice president of information systems customer service.
Staci Parks, the project leader for the PatientKeeper initiative, says physicians responded positively to the technology, which allows them to view and act on information. Its applications give physicians the power to access patients’ electronic records, write prescriptions, enter charges for services, document patient encounters, and send messages securely to other caregivers in a single, integrated environment available at the point of care.
The most noticeable benefit has been capturing a more effective charge cost, mitigating the problems associated with misplaced paperwork, and the lapse in time between the point of care and documentation. Benefits are also realized on the administrative side, where the practice management staff know instantly which patients the doctors have seen. “The entire process has been sped up,” says Parks, who adds that the initiative will expand to additional facilities within the system and into surgical specialty areas.
Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, a 375-bed facility that is also listed among the top 100 most wired hospitals, as well as one of the top 25 most wireless facilities, adopted mobile computing carts approximately six years ago. Within the last 16 months, after a long discovery process and a one-month trial with multiple carts, Camden-Clark adopted Artromick mobile computing carts to replace more bulky, cumbersome equipment that wasn’t being used as much as it otherwise might be.
Nursing informatics analyst Kerry Cottrell works with the nursing staff on a daily basis and has seen firsthand the improved workflow and time savings the new mobile computing carts have offered the hospital. Among the benefits Cottrell reports are the ability to use the carts at the bedside, the additional area for charting that is decentralized from the nursing station, and the capability to provide readily accessible information in a timely manner.
“It improves efficiency by allowing one-time documentation at bedside rather than once at bedside then again at the nursing station. The nurses are using them pretty extensively—a lot more than ever before,” says Cottrell, adding that it saves time for nurses, who can quickly access information over the wireless network and no longer have to save their charting until a computer is available at the nursing station. The new mobile computing carts are so efficient, in fact, that the old ones are no longer at the facility, says Cottrell.
Besides being easy to use, Cottrell says the carts are ergonomically efficient and adjustable, easy to move and control, and have a better, more easily rechargeable battery life than those on previous carts, all adding to the overall acceptance and successful implementation of the technology.
— Annie Macios is a freelance writer based in Doylestown, Pa.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 4 Comments

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

SaaS EHR Down Time vs. In House EHR Down Time


Posted: 09 Aug 2011 03:26 PM PDT on www.emrandehr.com


As part of my continuing series of posts about EHR Down time (see my previous Cost of EHR Down Time and Reasons Your EHR Will Go Down posts), I thought it would be interesting to look at how a SaaS EHR down time is different from an in house EHR down time.
I’ll use the list of reasons your EHR go down as my discussion points for how it’s different with a SaaS EHR versus an in house EHR. On each point, I’ll see if either approach has an advantage over the other.

Power Outage – Certainly a power outage will impact both types of EHR implementations. If your computer or router doesn’t have power, then it doesn’t matter where your EHR is hosted. However, many clinics use laptops which can run for quite a while without being plugged in. Plus, a small UPS for your network equipment is pretty cheap and easy to implement.
However, a good UPS for your own server will cost a bit more to implement. Plus, the UPS won’t likely last very long. Most UPS are there to give you enough time to power down your system properly or to handle a short power outage. Of course, in this case we’re talking about a small clinic implementation. I have done an EMR implementation where we had some nice UPS and even a backup generator. However, this is the exception.

Conclusion: Slight Advantage for the SaaS EHR

Hard Drive Failure – Certainly the failure of a hard drive in your desktop machine will affect both types of EHR install equally. So, that part is a wash. However, the hard drive failure on your local server is much more of an issue than a SaaS EHR vendor. At least, I’ve never heard of a hard drive failure causing an issue for any SaaS software vendor of any type. Both in house and SaaS EHR implementations can implement redundant hard drives, but SaaS EHR vendors have to implement redundant servers.

Conclusion: Advantage SaaS EHR

Power Supply Failure – This one is similar to the Hard Drive failure. I know a lot of EHR vendors that have their clinics buy an in house server that doesn’t have redundant power supplies. I can’t imagine a SaaS EHR vendor buying a server without redundant power supplies even if the redundancy is across servers.

Conclusion: Advantage SaaS EHR

Network Cable – Cables can get pulled out of switches just as easily as servers. So, I conclude that it will affect SaaS EHR and in house EHR the same.

Conclusion: Tie

Switch/Router – Loss of a switch/router will cause either a SaaS EHR or in house EHR to go down.

Conclusion: Tie

Motherboard Failure – An in house server only has one motherboard. If that motherboard fails, you better hope you have a great tech support contract to get a motherboard to you quickly (For example, Dell has a 4 hour support contract which is amazing, but pricey). Certainly a motherboard can fail for a SaaS EHR as well, but since they likely have multiple servers, they can just roll the users over to another server while they replace the motherboard.

Conclusion: Advantage SaaS EHR

EHR Software Issue – This is a hard one to analyze since a software issue like this could happen on either type of EHR install. It really has more to do with the EHR vendor’s development and testing process than it has to do with the way the EHR software is delivered.
You could argue that because the SaaS EHR is all hosted by he company, they will be able to see the issues you’re having first hand and will have tested on the hardware they have in place. A client server/in house EHR install could be on a variety of EHR systems that the EHR vendor didn’t know about and couldn’t test as they developed and deployed the system. So, I could see a slight benefit for the SaaS EHR system.

However, one disadvantage to the SaaS EHR system is that they are hosting it across dozens of servers and so when something goes wrong on a server it’s sometimes hard to figure out what’s going wrong since all the servers are the same. Maybe that’s a bit of a stretch, but we’ve all seen times when certain users of a service are down, but not others.

Conclusion: Maybe a slight advantage to SaaS EHR

Internet Outage – This one is the most clear cut benefit to an in house server. When your internet connection goes down, the in house server keeps plugging along no problem. Loss of your internet connection with a SaaS EHR is terrible. No doubt that’s often the greatest weakness of a SaaS EHR. Although, it can be partially mitigated with multiple internet connections (ie. wired internet and wireless broadband internet).

Conclusion: Advantage In House EHR

I have to admit that I didn’t realize going into this analysis that it was going to be a landslide for the SaaS EHR. Although, that’s quite clear from this analysis. When it comes to EHR down time, the SaaS EHR is much better. Unless, you live in an area where the internet connection is unreliable and slow. Then, you don’t really have much choice since SaaS EHR needs a reliable internet connection.
It’s also worth noting that this article only talks about how EHR down time relates to SaaS EHR versus in house EHR. There are certainly plenty of other arguments that could be made for and against either implementation method such as: speed, privacy, security, cost, etc.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

Monday, April 25, 2011

Study: Patients believe EMRs bring accuracy to their records


From: www.healthcareitnews.com April 21, 2011 | Healthcare IT News Staff

TAMPA, FL – The majority of patients and physicians have a positive perception of electronic documentation, according to a survey conducted by Sage Healthcare Division, a unit of Sage North America.  

“The adoption of electronic health records has grown in recent years as the U.S. government’s incentive plans and the benefits of these systems are realized by more and more office-based physicians,” said Betty Otter-Nickerson, president of Sage Healthcare Division. “The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics estimates that more than half of office-based physicians have adopted a basic EHR, while more than 10 percent have adopted a fully functional system, such as Sage Intergy EHR. The results of the study will help Sage Healthcare design solutions that maximize the benefit to physicians and their patients.”

The Sage Healthcare Insights study examines the effect of implementing an electronic health record system on both physicians and their patients. The purpose is to understand how the perceptions of physicians who use EHR systems differ or are similar to the perceptions of the patients who recall seeing their physician use the system. According to the study, patients felt more comfortable with physicians that used an EHR system, and more importantly, felt that the information contained in the medical record was more accurate when they physically saw information being entered electronically. “What we learned is patients like to see their verbatim information entered into the record as they said it, not as the doctor interpreted it,” added Otter-Nickerson.

For Key Findings, [Continue Reading] article on www.healthcareitnews.com

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Meaningful Use Rules Now Official


HDM Breaking News, January 13, 2010

Agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services on Jan. 13 officially published two rules covering the meaningful use of electronic health records provisions of the HITECH Act within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Publication of the rules starts the clock for the public comment period, with both rules having a March 15 deadline for comment. The proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services defines "meaningful use" of electronic health records to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments. It lays out a series of measures to collect and report data to government agencies. The rule is 169 pages long in a PDF format.

An interim final rule from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology sets initial standards, implementation specifications and certification criteria for EHR technology. The rule is 33 pages long in a PDF format. A forthcoming rule will establish an EHR certification program.

The rules are available at gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.htm

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

Thursday, November 19, 2009

New Open Display Unit

We've made the open display unit for over 10 years. We dramatically redesigned the 2842OD to bring it together in the stylings of our award winning collection.

The wall-mounted computer workstation with open display works great with a touch screen monitor or all-in-one but also has enough room to house an small or ultra small form factor computer (depending on depth of cabinet).

The fold out keyboard tray flips open when longer input is required.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The Importance of Paper – Yes, Paper – in Health Information Exchanges

by Ashish V. Shah

By several different measures, the past President and current President of the United States have little in common. But both do share a vision of transitioning the American healthcare system to the use of electronic health records (EHRs) as quickly as possible – George W. Bush backed a 2014 deadline and Barack Obama has provisioned incentives within ARRA to drive adoption by 2015.

The byproduct of this type of commitment has spurred heavy investment in the healthcare IT industry, focused primarily on the development of EHR technology to improve operational efficiency and patient care. So, why are some physicians rejecting the notion of EHRs or in some cases … de-installing them? You would think with strong Presidential support and no shortage of financial investment in the industry that penetration of EHRs into the physician market would exceed 33 percent.

The reality is that at least 67 percent of physicians today who receive information from caregivers or labs outside of their care setting depend on paper. What they care about is having timely and reliable access to the information they need – not whether it comes to them in paper or electronic format – and they most certainly won’t stop depending on paper overnight. In fact, even physicians with EHRs often must depend on paper, especially if their EHR is not interfaced to the data sources. Without interfaces, their EHRs are empty and, by many accounts, not very useful. If the EHR isn’t useful, they say, why disrupt the familiar paper-based workflow? [Continue Reading]

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

Friday, April 17, 2009

You EHR, I say EMR...

I've posted surveys on LinkedIn about using the terminology EHR/EMR several times and got so many odd responses that made finding this post really enjoyable. Below is a great blog post from the EHR Scope Blog.

PHRs, EHRs, EMRs –Digesting the Alphabet Soup

April 17, 2009

PHR, EHR, EMR , can all make HIT a bit confusing PDQ (Pretty Darn Quick). Certainly everyone agrees what the letters in the three acronyms stand for – Personal Health Record, Electronic Health Record, and Electronic Medical Record. Yet the terms are often misunderstood and misused – even within the industry.

The two most often used interchangeably, albeit incorrectly are EMR and EHR. To the layperson and even to healthcare professionals it may sound like there is very little difference between an Electronic Health Record and an Electronic Medical Record, but there are clearly defined distinctions, depending of course on who is doing the defining.

Continue reading the article HERE

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Dan Laninga at 0 Comments

My Zimbio
Top Stories Share/Save/Bookmark