Read on Twitter
If only there were a standard for electronic transmission of results data. We paid $30Bn dollars for this?
Oh. https://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=279
Wait.https://www.hl7.org/implement... href=" https://twitter.com/AaronMiri/status/1275613424643444740">https://twitter.com/AaronMiri...
Oh. https://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=279
Wait.
So, the story here is an interesting one. Back in late 2010/early & #39;11, at @ONC_HealthIT when I was leading the S&I Framework (when that was a thing) @jitin led the LRI S&I project to reconcile competing(*) HL7 implementation guides for lab reporting.
(*) long story.
It was successful! A very good LRI implementation guide was produced and attached to @ONC_HealthIT certification criteria & linked to CMS MU measured.
Except that use of the guide wasn& #39;t *required* -- only incorporation of electronic results.
Except that use of the guide wasn& #39;t *required* -- only incorporation of electronic results.
That gave flexibility -- people didn& #39;t need to rip and replace existing implementations. Reasonable. But....
Then @jitin led the development of a companion LOI guide for orders. But there were never MU criteria & certification criteria.
Then @jitin led the development of a companion LOI guide for orders. But there were never MU criteria & certification criteria.
Then the results measure was "topped out", which was cheered at the time, because MU measures. Ugh. Except that @ONC_HealthIT didn& #39;t certify stuff without a corresponding MU measure, so the certification criteria were removed.
So by a bunch of very reasonable steps, all the policy levers to drive interoperable orders and results were removed.
Now.
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="📠" title="Faxgerät" aria-label="Emoji: Faxgerät">
Now.
