Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


3 records – page 1 of 1.

Core and comprehensive health care services (Update 2008)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9403
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-12-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2008-12-06
Replaces
Core and comprehensive health care services (1994)
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
CORE AND COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES (UPDATE 2008) CMA believes that physicians must be actively involved in the decision-making process on core and comprehensive services. It developed a framework for this purpose after review and analysis of national and international decision-making frameworks, and after consideration of the political, policy and legal context of Canadian health care decision making. In addition to the framework, key terms associated with core and comprehensive health care services are operationally defined. Quality of care and ethical and economic factors are considered in a balanced and flexible manner, recognizing that the relative importance of any one factor may vary depending on the health care service being considered. CMA first prepared this policy in 1994 to help physicians participate in making choices concerning core and comprehensive health care services. Over a decade later, the issue of defining these services remains a central issue for patients, providers and funders of Canada's health care system. Looking ahead, this will become even more pertinent as regional authorities assume greater authority in planning and allocating health funding across a broad range of programs. Constructive leadership from the medical profession is essential to ensure a high quality Canadian health care system. Specifically, physicians must be actively involved in the decision-making process on core and comprehensive health care services. CMA reviewed and analyzed several national and international decision-making frameworks and subsequently developed a framework for making decisions about core and comprehensive health care services (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services: a Framework for Decision Making, CMA, 1994). It also considered the current political, policy and legal context in which decisions on health care are made in Canada. Key terms associated with core and comprehensive health care services were operationally defined. CMA encourages the use of its framework for making decisions about these services. Quality of care and ethical and economic factors are considered in a balanced and flexible manner, recognizing that the relative importance of any one factor may vary depending on the health care service being considered. Each factor affects decision making at the patient-physician (micro) level, the hospital and regional (meso) level and the provincial, territorial and national (macro) level. This policy summary addresses the requirement for governments to fund core medical services but not the availability or desirability of private or alternative funding for these services. Definitions Uniform use and interpretation of the terms used in this area are particularly important in policy development, negotiations and communications. The 1984 Canada Health Act stipulates that all "medically necessary" services be insured; however, the act does not define "medically necessary." This lack of a clear operational definition gives the provinces/territories some flexibility in the breadth of coverage provided by their insurance plans. However, it may also cause ambiguity and difficulty in selecting core health care services. CMA defines medically necessary services as those "that a qualified physician determines are required to assess, prevent, treat, rehabilitate or palliate a given health concern or problem as supported by available scientific evidence and/or professional experience." (Adapted from Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 96.) Health care services are "not only services provided by or under the supervision of a physician, but also a wide range of services performed by many other health care professionals." (Adapted from Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 92.) Medical services is "a category of health care services provided by or under the supervision of a physician." (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 96.) Comprehensive health care and medical services are distinguished from core health care and medical services. Comprehensive health care and medical services are "a broad range of services that covers most, if not all, health care needs. These services may or may not be funded/insured by a government plan." (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 86.) Core health care and medical services are those that "are available to everyone as funded/insured by a government plan. [Alternative] funding sources for these services are not necessarily excluded." (Core and Comprehensive Health Care Services, page 86.) Framework for decision making CMA advocates a systematic and transparent decision-making framework for determining which services are considered core and comprehensive health care services. The framework was originally intended for medical services; however, it can also be applied to health care services. It is flexible so that users may adapt it to their own specific circumstances and needs. It is not a formula or set process that yields a quantifiable result for any given service, nor does it prescribe which services to insure or not insure. CMA has put forth the following principle concerning the framework. When decisions about core and comprehensive health care services are made, the various levels at which decisions can be made must be considered. These include the patient- physician (micro) level, the hospital and regional (meso) level and the provincial, territorial and national (macro) level. CMA recognizes that decisions are made at several levels: (1) the micro level, which involves individual decisions about service delivery made by patients, physicians and other providers, (2) the meso level, which involves regional health authorities and health care institutions such as hospitals, community groups and professional staff, and (3) the macro level, which involves system wide decisions made by governments, the electorate and professions as a whole. It is important to take into account the likely effect of any decision on each level: a decision that is acceptable at the macro level may be impossible to deliver at the meso level and inappropriate for patients or practitioners at the micro level. Coordination is essential to make consistent decisions among levels and incorporate the concerns of patients, providers and payers. CMA upholds a second principle concerning the decision making framework. Quality of care and ethical and economic factors must be considered when decisions about core and comprehensive health care services are made. Quality of care Effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and patient acceptance are elements of quality of care. To be considered a core medical service, a medical service must be of high quality (i.e., it addresses effectively a health concern or condition through improved health outcomes and is delivered efficiently, appropriately and in a manner acceptable to patients) as well as fulfilling ethical and economic criteria. A medical service that is shown to be of little effectiveness cannot be delivered efficiently or poses many problems for patient safety or acceptance is less "medically necessary" than services that meet the quality of care criteria. Such a service is therefore unlikely to become or remain a core medical service. The adoption of evidence-based medicine such as through the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a key component of quality improvement. CPGs are based on a systematic review of experience and research, and they help physicians to make decisions about necessary care. CPGs that are well developed and appropriately evaluated may also help to define core health care services. CPGs are also tools for the pursuit of quality, to maximize effective care and to reduce waste and ineffective activity in a given service, resulting in savings. Clinical research is a key aspect of improvement in quality of care. Such research focuses on the effectiveness and impact of health care services on health outcomes. Procedures that demonstrate better outcomes than others should be included in a core health care package, whereas those that demonstrate inferior outcomes may be limited or excluded in some instances. When applying the concept of core health care services, provision must be made for ongoing evaluation of the quality of current services and appropriate assessment of new ones. While it is important that the decision-making framework be evidence-based to the greatest extent possible, it should not be evidence-bound - that is, decisions may still need to be made from limited evidence. Ethical factors Balancing finite fiscal resources and high quality medical and other health care services requires explicit societal choices about which services will be publicly funded (and for whom), which can be purchased and which will not be available at all in the Canadian system. These issues are ethical ones because they involve rights, responsibilities and societal values. Whether decisions about resource allocation are made at the macro, meso or micro level, they must be fair. This means that those likely to be affected by a decision, whether they are patients, providers or payers, must have adequate opportunity for input into the decision-making process and must be informed about the reasons for the decisions. When the availability of a health care service is inadequate to meet the demand, the criteria for allocating it should be fair and explicit. One such criterion is medical need: even if not all needed services can be publicly funded, services that are clearly unnecessary should not be funded in this way. Funding decisions should be nondiscriminatory; decisions about which health care services should or should not be publicly funded should not be based on age, sex, race, lifestyle and other personal and social characteristics of the potential recipients of a service. Economic factors (Cost-effectiveness) The level of public funding for health care services is ultimately a societal decision, as discussed in the section on ethical factors. Once such a societal decision has been made, economic factors are useful in determining the allocation of resources among health care services, especially in times of fiscal restraint. There are various economic methods for evaluating funding decisions, the most common of which is cost effectiveness analysis. This approach suggests that decisions to insure a particular service should take into account cost in relation to outcome, e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Services that have a low cost for a significant gain in effectiveness may be more acceptable for public funding than others. This approach cannot be used in isolation; quality of care and ethical considerations must be taken into account before a final determination of the source of funding for core or comprehensive health care services is made. Determination of which health care services are to be included in or excluded from a publicly financed health insurance plan should also incorporate an economic analysis of the primary and secondary effects on both the patient and provider populations. Some of the factors that should be included in such an analysis are: availability of substitutes, discretionary income, availability of private insurance, direct and indirect costs of service provision, barriers to entry and the existence of fixed global budgets. Economic analyses also include measurement of the opportunity costs, in terms of foregone services, associated with public financing of health care services. When possible, the public's needs should be distinguished from its wants for the purposes of public policy and funding. From a clinical perspective, providers have always addressed patient needs on a case-by-case basis. However, fiscal restraint and the rationalization of health care services often result in the onus being placed on the provider to make micro resource allocation decisions. Local decisions (i.e., at the hospital and community level) about the rationalization of health care resources can restrict providers' ability to deliver services and patients' ability to receive them. Therefore, it is critical that the patient and provider perspectives be included in any economic analysis undertaken to define core health care services. Future directions As enunciated in its policy statement, Federal Health Financing, the CMA will urge the federal government to ensure that full funding be available to support provincial and territorial provision of core medical services. Nevertheless, there remain concerns regarding how the comprehensiveness principle is being interpreted. First, the array of core services varies considerably among the provinces/territories (e.g., prescription drug coverage). Second, the basket of core health services needs to be modernized to reflect Canadians' emerging health needs and how health care is now being delivered (e.g,. more out-patient care). While a degree of latitude is required to accommodate differing regional needs, core services should be available to all Canadians on uniform terms and conditions and should not be limited to physician and hospital services. There should be ongoing periodic monitoring and reporting of the comparability of Canadians' access to a full range of medically necessary health services across the country. Furthermore, there is a need for a federal/provincial/territorial process that is transparent, accountable, evidence-based and inclusive to regularly update the basket of core services. CMA will work with provincial/territorial medical associations and other stakeholders to develop a process for defining a national list of core medical services. Greater transparency is required when de-insuring services, including the need for consultation and providing an adequate notice period for patients, providers and funders. A new framework is also required to govern the funding of a basket of core health services that allows at least some core services to be cost-shared under uniform terms and conditions in all provinces and territories.
Documents
Less detail

Federal Health Financing (Update 2008)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9129
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-05-27
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-05-27
Replaces
Federal health financing (Update 2001)
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
Federal Health Financing (Update 2008) The Canadian Medical Association believes that financial support from the federal government for health care should provide the following: * The maintenance and improvement of standards of health care service across Canada. * The financial stability necessary to effectively plan health care delivery and flexibility in spending across Canada to respond to local circumstances, emerging health needs, and new patient-care modalities. * The indexing of federal health cash payments to provinces and territories to reflect changes in population growth, ageing, epidemiology, current knowledge, new technology and economic growth. * Greater accountability, visibility and improved linkages of services to users. * Greater equity across the provinces and territories in the ability to finance necessary health care programs. * The joint policy discussions necessary to address health issues of national importance. The CMA is committed to preserving the right of reasonable access to high-quality health care regardless of ability to pay. It is also committed to achieving national health care standards (accessibility, universality, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration) and to developing health goals to ensure that all Canadians receive the best possible care when required. The CMA supports the goal of maintaining the national integrity of the health care system. It encourages the federal government to be sensitive to the concerns of equity, and to ensure that provinces and territories that have not attained a level of health care services and facilities equivalent to those of other provinces and territories, because of fiscal incapacities, have access to additional funding requirements to reduce the gap. The CMA recognizes that flexibility in spending across Canada is important to respond to changing health care needs and changes in the delivery of health care, as is the necessity of joint policy discussions to address health issues of national importance. Stability in funding is viewed as the mechanism to achieving effective health care planning. Over 50 years of federal financing In 1957 and 1966, the federal government introduced the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and Medicare Act. These programs reflected the federal government's desire to implement 50-50 basis with the provinces for the funding of hospital and physician services. The federal support was program specific, with contributions determined to be about half the national average of per-capita expenditures on health care. This provided greater assistance to provinces with lower per-capita costs. In 1977, the funding arrangement was replaced by the negotiated Established Programs Financing (EPF) arrangements. The new "block-funding" agreement established a predetermined level of financial contributions by the federal government that was linked to the rate of change of gross national product (GNP) and changes in the provincial/territorial populations. It is important to note that federal transfers are comprised of cash and tax points. The objectives of the EPF arrangements as set out by the Prime Minister in June 1976, were (a) to maintain across Canada the standards of service to the public under these major programs, and to facilitate their improvement; (b) to put the programs on a more stable footing, so that both levels of government are better able to plan their expenditures; (c) to give the provinces the flexibility of in the use of their own funds which they have been spending in these fields; (d) to bring about greater equity among the provinces with regard to the amount of federal funds that they receive under the program; and (e) to provide for continuing joint policy discussions relating to the health and post-secondary education fields. The need for funding predictability Over the course of their existence, the EPF arrangements were amended four times - 1982 (Bill C-97), 1984 (Bill C-96), 1989 (Bill C-33) and 1991(Bill C-69). These changes resulted in freezes in the growth of federal health transfers and created a period of funding uncertainty for provinces and territories. On April 1, 1996, the federal government introduced the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) which combined two transfer programs, EPF and the Canada Assistance Plan into one transfer program for insured health services, post secondary education and social assistance programs. Cash payments under the CHST were subject to the five program criteria of the Canada Health Act (1984) - accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration as well as the single condition that the province/territory must provide social assistance to applicants without a minimum residency requirement. In combining these programs the federal government used the opportunity to cut cash entitlements to the provinces/territories from $18.5 billion per year 1995-1996 to a low of $11.1 billion per year in 1999-2000. However, due to improving economic conditions and a rapidly impending balanced budget, the federal government announced in its September 1997 Throne Speech that it would be increasing the cash floor to $12.5 billion per year in 1998-1999 to 2002-2003. This measure was announced in the 1998-1999 budget; however, rather than an increase in funding, it was merely a partial reversal in cash reductions to the provinces/territories. Targeted federal financing Since 2000, the federal government has increased the use of targeted investments and in the health arena. On Sept. 11, 2000, First Ministers issued a Communiqué on Health announcing a series of investments, over five years, which focused on health and other social programs. The CHST cash floor was "increased" by $2.5 billion effective April 1, 2001. The February 2003 Budget in support of that year's First Ministers' Accord on Health Care Renewal confirmed: (1) a two-year extension to 2007-2008 of the five-year legislative framework put in place in September 2000, with an additional $1.8 billion; (2) a $2.5 billion CHST supplement, giving provinces the flexibility to draw down funds as they require up to the end of 2005-2006; and (3) the restructuring of the CHST to create a separate Canada Health Transfer and a Canada Social Transfer effective April 1, 2004, in order to increase transparency and accountability. In September 2004, First Ministers signed an agreement on health care that included commitments to reduce wait times, address gaps in health human resources, expand home care, continue efforts in primary care reform, implement a national pharmaceutical strategy, and develop national public health goals. To support the new agreement, the federal government committed to increase health funding by a total of $18 billion over 6 years or $41 billion over 10 years. This includes: * $3 billion to close the "short-term Romanow gap;" * $500 million for home care and catastrophic coverage; * $4.5 billion for a Wait Time Reduction Fund; * $1 billion for health human resources (to be transferred in last four years of agreement); * $500 million for medical equipment; and * a 6% escalator for the Canada Health Transfer. The 2007 budget provided over one billion additional dollars for the health care system mainly through a $612 million investment to accelerate the implementation of patient wait-time guarantees, $400 million for Canada Health Infoway to support the further development of health information systems and electronic records, and $300 million for a vaccine program to protect women and girls against cancer of the cervix. Clarifying responsibilities and accountability The 2007 budget made reference to the federal government's constitutional responsibilities for health care and stressed an increased concern of accounting for federal health transfers to the provinces/territories. The Oct. 16, 2007 Speech from the Throne, to open the second session of the 39th Parliament of the Government of Canada, included a commitment to introduce legislation that would place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new cost-shared programs in areas of provincial/territorial jurisdiction, and would also provide an opt-out option with compensation for provinces and territories if they offer compatible programs. The main foundation for this proposal is set out in the Feb. 4, 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA), in which the federal government gave several undertakings with regard to new "Canada-wide initiatives" in areas of provincial jurisdiction: * collaboration with provincial/territorial governments to identify priorities and objectives; * not to introduce new initiatives without agreement of a majority of provincial governments; * provincial/territorial governments to determine detailed program design and mix; * provincial/territorial governments can reinvest any funds not needed to deliver objectives; * federal/provincial/territorial governments to agree on accountability framework; and * funding to be contingent on meeting or committing to objectives specified in accountability framework. The most notable application of SUFA principles in respect of new programs to date has been the Sept. 15, 2004 Asymmetrical Federalism that Respects Quebec's Jurisdiction Agreement in which Quebec agreed to develop and implement its own plan to attain the objectives of the First Ministers' 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care, and to report progress to Quebecers using comparable indicators, mutually agreed to with other governments. The accountability framework set out in SUFA would appear to be the linchpin of assuring the national character of any future health programs. Its implementation has thus far been a failure. While governments did agree to common indicators in 2000 and 2003, and did produce them in 2002 and 2004, they have been resistant to any attempts at comparability/benchmarking between jurisdictions and they failed to produce them at all in 2006. The Health Council of Canada lamented this lack of cooperation in its 2007 annual report. Ensuring federal health financing is responsive to Canadians' health needs The CMA believes that the federal government has a special responsibility for financing health care. The development of the health care financing system on a cooperative federal/provincial/territorial basis has many merits. It has resulted in the clear perception that the federal government has an obligation to ensure that reasonably comparable, high quality health care services are available, on a reasonably comparable basis, to all Canadians. Through its financial contributions in support of the 2000, 2003 and 2004 health accords, the federal government has effectively restored the cuts made to federal health transfers during the early 1990s. However, health care which is now at 40 per cent of total provincial/territorial program spending continues to grow. The CMA must remain vigilant to ensure that the federal government continues to provide stable, predictable and adequate funding necessary to maintain and improve the standards of health care service across Canada. This federal funding should provide for a system that is effective, efficient and responsible. With respect to the broader continuum of care, the future of Medicare is uncertain. While the federal government's role in funding health care remains tied to the Canada Health Act, Medicare must be modernized to reflect the current and future reality of the delivery of care. In 1975, just after Medicare was fully adopted, hospital and physician expenditures represented 60% of total health expenditures; as of 2006, this share has dropped by almost one-third to 43%. Over the past two decades, prescription drugs, as a proportion of total health spending, have doubled from 7% in 1986 to an estimated 14.2% in 2006. While a majority of Canadians have prescription drug coverage from either private or public plans, it is estimated that some 3.5 million are either uninsured or underinsured for prescription drug costs. However, there is a clear consensus on the need for catastrophic prescription drug coverage and a growing concern about how to address the issue of very costly "orphan" drugs for rare diseases, and expensive treatments for common diseases such as breast cancer. In 2003, First Ministers committed to having catastrophic drug coverage in place by the end of 2005-2006, and while this is one of the elements of the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy, little collective action has taken place beyond further study. Similarly a 2003 commitment by First Ministers to first-dollar coverage for a basket of short-term acute home care, community mental health and end-of-life care services remains unmet. The issue of long-term care of the elderly also looms on the horizon as the first cohort of the baby boom generation turns 65 in 2011. Indeed hospitals are already feeling the pinch of a lack of alternative level of care beds. International experience suggests that long-term care cannot nor should not be financed on the same pay-as-you-go basis as medical/hospital insurance. Innovative approaches will be required to provide funding for the broader continuum of care (see CMA Policy Statement, It's Still About Access: Medicare Plus). We can expect to continue to see a mix of public and private plans and out-of-pocket payments (e.g., co-payments) and greater use of tax policy. This is the experience of most European and other industrialized countries. In Canada and internationally, the prospects for additional health programs funded on a first-dollar basis out of general taxation revenues are slim. In its 2007 budget, the federal government introduced a Registered Disability Savings Plan to help parents of children with a severe disability to ensure their children's future financial security by investing after-tax income on which the investment income will accumulate tax-free. Consideration should be given to implementing a similar contributions-based program for long-term care as is found in some other countries. Another possibility would see the creation of a Canada Extended Health Services Financing Act that would provide a mechanism for sustainable federal funding to support provinces and territories providing necessary health services in the home and community setting. Such legislation would be based on a series of principles supported by Canadians to meet their health care needs.
Documents
Less detail

Guiding Principles for Physician Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Adoption in Ambulatory Clinical Practice

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9117
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-02-23
Topics
Health information and e-health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2008-02-23
Topics
Health information and e-health
Text
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PHYSICIAN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS (EMR) ADOPTION IN AMBULATORY CLINICAL PRACTICE The following principles outline what is important to physicians and why as they make the decision to adopt electronic medical record systems (EMRs) in ambulatory clinical practice. Physician adoption of the EMR has the potential to transform patient care and the quality of health statistics and health research in Canada, as long as the right conditions are met and the guiding principles outlined here are adhered to. Adoption of EMRs in clinical ambulatory practices will lead to significant improvements in data comprehensiveness, clinical relevance and quality — and this, in turn, will lead to improved clinical decision support, core data sets and health statistics that meet the primary goal of enhancing health care delivery, treatment and outcomes. PRINCIPLES General Policy
Privacy. A physician’s ethical and legal responsibility as data steward of the patient’s medical information must be protected and enhanced.1
Choice. There must be appropriate independence of choice that respects physicians’ professional and business autonomy. Physicians must be free to choose the EMR product that best meets the needs of their practice model, type and size.
Voluntary. Physician adoption of EMRs must be voluntary, not mandated or coerced.
Non-discriminatory. Programs designed to offset physicians’ costs or encourage them to adopt EMRs must be non-discriminatory (i.e., not tied to a single EMR product or health care practice model). While such restrictions may be attractive to some payors and administrators, they discriminate against physicians who do not meet their criteria and risk creating two “classes” of physicians and patients.
Outcome-related incentives. Incentives for EMR adoption should be tied to clinical benefits and outcomes, not driven by cost containment. Financial incentives or bonuses that are tied to clinical outcomes may encourage EMR utilization and optimize the use of these systems in ambulatory clinical practices. 1 For more detail on the physician’s ethical responsibilities as data steward of patient information please refer to the CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism, Guiding Principles for the Optimal Use of Data Analytics by Physicians at the Point of Care, and Guiding Principles for Physicians Recommending Mobile Health Applications to Patients. Page 2 Financial
Unrestricted. Funding for EMRs in physician offices must be equally available to all physicians, and not restricted to a single EMR product or physician practice model.
Funding. Cost analyses have determined that the majority of the benefits from EMRs accrue to the health care system (i.e., payors and patients) and not to individual physicians. It is only reasonable that those who benefit most should assume the costs.
Comprehensive. The cost of implementing an EMR system goes beyond acquisition of hardware and software. Funding for physician adoption of EMRs must be comprehensive and include costs associated with the initial purchase, as well as implementation, change management, ongoing operation, and evergreening of the system.
Save harmless. Early adoptors who need to update or replace their existing systems, as well as physicians whose EMR vendor goes out of business, must not be disadvantaged. These physicians must not be penalized or excluded from funding programs, and should be provided with the necessary transition support. Business
Vendor sustainability. Vendor stability is critical to EMR adoption by physicians. This can be achieved through vendor compliance with technical and business requirements that address fiscal sustainability as well as EMR product quality, technical standards and capabilities.
Due diligence. Because physician practices vary in type, size and needs, there is no “one-size-fits-all” EMR solution. Physicians must assess the needs of their individual practice to determine the best product.
Workflow re-engineering. Implementation of EMRs in ambulatory clinical practice may require workflow adjustment or re-engineering. Assessments of workflow and practice needs must be part of EMR change management programs.
HR impact. Adoption of EMRs in ambulatory clinical practices will have an impact on human resources. Provision should be made for physician and office staff retraining, retention and turnover.
Support and service agreements. Physician use of EMRs in ambulatory clinical practice requires appropriate support and service agreements not only to provide the necessary infrastructure and connectivity, but also to guarantee ongoing, accessible and reliable technical support. Physicians must be able to access patient records in their EMR system at all times, regardless of where the records are physically stored (e.g., off-site with an alternate service provider, or onsite in a local client server).
Risk management strategies (liability and insurance) tied to EMR adoption must address the privacy, security, business continuity and professional liability requirements of physician practice in an electronic environment. Change management and transition
Critical to success. To fully realize the benefits from EMR adoption, the move from paper to electronic records requires change management support and services geared specifically to physician EMR adoption.
Ongoing. Change management is a key success factor in driving both uptake and optimal utilization of EMRs in ambulatory clinical practice. To realize the full benefits of EMR adoption on health care outcomes, physician change management programs must be ongoing, not one-time. Page 3
Comprehensive. Comprehensive change management for physicians who adopt EMRs must include the tools and services to assist with system needs assessment, EMR selection, implementation, workflow adjustment, and training for physicians and staff, as well as suggestions to maximize use of the EMR.
Physician driven and designed. Change management must meet the real and individual needs of physicians as they move to an EMR-based practice. This requires flexibility (not one-size-fits-all), “just in time” capacity and delivery, and a mechanism for evaluating the program.
Payor funded and delivered. Delivery and costs of these programs should be borne by payors as part of any physician EMR funding programs or agreements. Usability and human factors
User interface and usability. User interface and usability of EMR systems are critical success factors for physician acceptance and optimal utilization of EMRs in clinical practice.
Workflow. EMR adoption requires changes to physician workflow, such as history-taking and charting. Done properly, workflow changes related to EMRs should result in administrative efficiencies and improved clinical outcomes.
Core principles of practice must be respected. The EMR must allow the physician to practice comprehensive care, efficiently manage patients with multiple problems and respect the doctor-patient relationship where the patient’s values, wishes, advance directives and physical and social function are integral to medical care.
Training and education. Training in the use, benefits, shortcomings and opportunities of an EMR must become part of the medical education curricula in all stages of physician practice: undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing medical education.
Standardized data. Large data sets that record every observation are unworkable in practice. The EMR must allow the physician to record and access data in a standardized way.
Data quality. Data quality is critical to patient care. Physicians require access to accurate, clinically relevant data. Inaccurately recorded and unfiltered data does not benefit patient care. Clinical patient care
Management of patient records. EMR systems allow physicians to quickly access and manage patient data in an organized fashion (e.g., search, sort and retrieve data, spot trends, or flag charts). This leads to more efficient practices and enhances care delivery.
Referrals and patient summaries. The ability to transmit referral requests and reports electronically using an EMR greatly facilitates the consultation process. Core clinical data sets generated from the EMR can be used to share or hand off patient care among providers, facilitating both continuity of care and emergency access to relevant data.
Drugs and lab reports. Physician use of an EMR permits drug and lab data to be recorded and shared more accurately and efficiently. Benefits to patient care include automated prescription renewals, quick identification of patients affected by drug alerts, and collation of lab data to show trends.
Decision support. EMR adoption in ambulatory clinical practice makes clinical decision support (i.e., access to timely, appropriate, evidence-based information) possible at the point of care. This has the potential to enhance patient safety, care delivery and health outcomes. Page 4
Patient values and autonomy. Patient values and autonomy cannot become secondary to the "data management" requirements of the EMR. An EMR must provide the same (or better) standards of patient confidentiality as traditional paper-based records.
Accessibility. Patient data must always be collected and stored in an EMR with the primary goal of improving individual patient care. Data accessibility for clinical care is more important than compiling a large common data set. Health Research
Standardized data. Primary care is driven by symptoms, not diagnoses, and both must be recorded in the EMR in a standardized way.
Clinical coding. Primary care disorders are low-prevalence and will require a high degree of precision when data are coded.
Evidence-based care models. The episode-of-care data model demonstrates how symptoms and symptom clusters evolve over time. It is possible to derive the sensitivity and specificity of symptoms and symptom clusters to improve pre-test likelihood and avoid unproductive testing.
Core and aggregate data. Standardized data means that core data sets can be combined, and their aggregation allows identification and analysis of rarer conditions.
Documents
Less detail