Mhunt17

UTGE1-MH LR, Great post! I couldn't agree more about using standards with medical terminology and acronyms. In my opinion, if there were not a set protocol on accepted medical acronyms, no patient EMR would be interoperable. Medical terminology and acronyms is healthcare's own special language (Sewell & Thede, 2013). People would interpret things differently if there was not a set standard. I know in my clinical experience I have come across abbreviations that did not make sense in the context they were being used. This could cause great harm to a patients care, especially in medication administration. For example, in a patient's EMR, I saw the abbreviation "hs". I automatically assumed that this meant "at bedtime"; however, the provider meant for it to be interpreted as "half strength". One could see how misinterpretation such as this could have a great impact on the patient. I also like how you take into account globalization. People travel all over the world nowadays. This makes the need for medical terminology and acronym standards even greater. Patient information must not be interoperable just within their hometown, but really worldwide. You never know when appendicitis might hit you while in the midst of China! Sewell, J., & Thede, L.Q. (2013). Informatics and nursing: Opportunities and challenges.(4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

UTGE1-MH SW, I really liked how you used the example of the VHS!! That is a great way to think of "standards". You're right. If the manufacturers did not use the popular VHS format, their movies would not play, thus be useless. That is exactly how I picture patient data/information. If a healthcare team member cannot access the needed patient information, the information is useless, which affects patient care. I also liked how you pointed out how important it is for different members of the healthcare team to be able to access the same patient information. I know I often forget that I am not the only one using the patient's EMR. There are multiple doctors, nurses, physical therapists, pharmacists, social workers, speech therapists, etc. that all use the patient's EMR to plan their particular area of care. If all of the members of the healthcare team were not on the same page in knowing what is going on with the patient and looking at the same documented data, the patient's care would be affected. Your post reminds me of the example that Sewell and Thede use in the book. Sewell and Thede (2013) point out that when a patient is seen for a follow-up appointment in an outpatient clinic, it is not uncommon for the outpatient clinic not to be able to access the patient's inpatient data. This is why it is essential for standards with interoperability to exist. In order for the patient to receive the best of care, his/her EMR needs to be able to accessed by all healthcare providers. Sewell, J., & Thede, L.Q. (2013). Informatics and nursing: Opportunities and challenges.(4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

UTGE1-MH As Sewell and Thede state, “Interoperability can be thought of as the ability to share data” (p. 323). Unless the shared data can be interpreted, it is useless; therefore, it is imperative that standards exist. We live in a world where everything is documented. This is especially true regarding healthcare. As we know, doctors are not a “one-stop shop”. There are many different specialties, and a person’s ailment determines what type of physician he or she consults. People often have comorbid diseases; therefore, it is very common for a person to consult many different physicians. As Kalra’s paper points out, “Patient care increasingly requires clinical practitioners to access detailed and complete health records in order to manage the safe and effective delivery of complex and knowledge-intensive health care, and to share this information within and between care teams” (p. 136). If there were not standards within EHR’s, it would be impossible for various care teams to share and correctly interpret data. Thus, without standards patient care could be jeopardized. Standards are ultimately criteria or protocols that have been formally approved or recognized that ensure data can be interpreted in the same manner by various parties (Sewell & Thede, 2013). Standards must not only exist within the electronic healthcare world, but they must exist in the casual, “real” world as well. I really liked the example Sewell and Thede used for describing standards. It is quite common for people to have a misinterpretation due to a difference in language or culture. As Sewell and Thede demonstrate, “For example, the word “stroller” has several meanings depending on one’s cultural background. Two meanings that it can have are a type of baby carriage or walking slowly. Hence, a sign reading “No strollers” in a museum could be understood by some that one should not meander through the museum and by others that baby carriages are not allowed” (p. 266). While this misinterpretation does not pose a significant threat in real life, simple misinterpretations could be life-threatening in the healthcare setting. With this being said, shared information within inoperable systems cannot be accurately interpreted or efficiently used without standards being in place. Kalra, D. (2006). Electronic health record standards. IMIA Yearbook 2006: Assessing Information-Technologies for Health, 1. Retrieved from IMIA Yearbook 2006: Schattauer GmbH Verlag für Medizin und Naturwissenschaften Sewell, J., & Thede, L.Q. (2013). Informatics and nursing: Opportunities and challenges. (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.