P. Joseph Gibson

Estimating Increased Electronic Laboratory Reporting Volumes for Meaningful Use: Implications for the Public Health Workforce

Objective: To provide formulas for estimating notifiable disease reporting volume from ‘meaningful use’ electronic laboratory reporting (ELR). Methods: We analyzed two years of comprehensive ELR reporting data from 15 metropolitan hospitals and laboratories. Report volumes were divided by population counts to derive generalizable estimators. Results: Observed volume of notifiable disease reports in a metropolitan area were more than twice national averages. ELR volumes varied by institution type, bed count, and by the level of effort required of health department staff. Conclusions: Health departments may experience a significant increase in notifiable disease reporting following efforts to fulfill meaningful use requirements, resulting in increases in workload that may further strain public health resources. Volume estimators provide a method for predicting ELR transaction volumes, which may support administrative planning in health departments.

Measuring Population Health Using Electronic Health Records: Exploring Biases and Representativeness in a Community Health Information Exchange.

Assessment is a core function of public health. Comprehensive clinical data may enhance community health assessment by providing up-to-date, representative data for use in public health programs and policies, especially when combined with community-level data relevant to social determinants. In this study we examine routinely collected and geospatially-enhanced EHR data to assess population health at various levels of geographic granularity available from a regional health information exchange. We present preliminary findings and discuss important biases in EHR data. Future work is needed to develop methods for correcting for those biases to support routine epidemiology work of public health.

Electronic Health Record (EHR)-Based Community Health Measures: An Exploratory Assessment of Perceived Usefulness by Local Health Departments

BackgroundGiven the widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems in health care organizations, public health agencies are interested in accessing EHR data to improve health assessment and surveillance. Yet there exist few examples in the U.S. of governmental health agencies using EHR data routinely to examine disease prevalence and other measures of community health. The objective of this study was to explore local health department (LHD) professionals’ perceptions of the usefulness of EHR-based community health measures, and to examine these perceptions in the context of LHDs’ current access and use of sub-county data, data aggregated at geographic levels smaller than county.MethodsTo explore perceived usefulness, we conducted an online survey of LHD professionals in Indiana. One hundred and thirty-three (133) individuals from thirty-one (31) LHDs participated. The survey asked about usefulness of specific community health measures as well as current access to and uses of sub-county population health data. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine respondents’ perceptions, access, and use. A one-way ANOVA (with pairwise comparisons) test was used to compare average scores by LHD size.ResultsRespondents overall indicated moderate agreement on which community health measures might be useful. Perceived usefulness of specific EHR-based community health measures varied by size of respondent’s LHD [F(3, 88) = 3.56, p = 0.017]. Over 70% of survey respondents reported using community health data, but of those < 30% indicated they had access to sub-county level data.ConclusionRespondents generally preferred familiar community health measures versus novel, EHR-based measures that are not in widespread use within health departments. Access to sub-county data is limited but strongly desired. Future research and development is needed as LHD staff gain access to EHR data and apply these data to support the core function of health assessment.

Leveraging public health's participation in a Health Information Exchange to improve communicable disease reporting

BACKGROUND Infectious diseases can appear and spread rapidly. Timely information about disease patterns and trends allows public health agencies to quickly investigate and efficiently contain those diseases. But disease case reporting to public health has traditionally been paper-based, resulting in somewhat slow, burdensome processes. Fortunately, the expanding use of electronic health records and health information exchanges has created opportunities for more rapid, complete, and easily managed case reporting and investigation. To assess how this new service might impact the efficiency and quality of a public health agencys case investigations, we compared the timeliness of usual case investigation to that of case investigations based on case report forms that were partially pre-populated with electronic data. INTERVENTION Between September 2013-March 2014, chlamydia disease report forms for certain clinics in Indianapolis were electronically pre-populated with clinical, lab and patient data available through the Indiana Health Information Exchange, then provided to the patient’s doctor. Doctors could then sign the form and deliver it to public health for investigation and population-level disease tracking. Methods: We utilized a novel matched case analysis of timeliness changes in receipt and processing of communicable disease report forms. Each Chlamydia cases reported with the pre-populated form were matched to cases reported in usual ways. We assessed the time from receipt of the case at the public health agency: 1) inclusion of the case into the public health surveillance system and 2) to close to case. A hierarchical random effects model was used to compare mean difference in each outcome between the target cases and the matched cases, with random intercepts for case. RESULTS Twenty-one Chlamydia cases were reported to the public health agency using the pre-populated form. Sixteen of these pre-populated form cases were matched to at least one other case, with a mean of 23 matches per case. The mean Reporting Lag for the pre-populated form cases was 2.5 days, which was 2.7 days shorter than the mean Reporting Lag for the matched controls (p = <0.001). The mean time to close a pre-populated form case was 4.7 days, which was 0.2 days shorter than time to close for the matched controls (p = 0.792). CONCLUSIONS Use of pre-populated forms significantly decreased the time it took for the local public health agency to begin documenting and closing chlamydia case investigations. Thoughtful use of electronic health data for case reporting may decrease the per-case workload of public health agencies, and improve the timeliness of information about the pattern and spread of disease.

Notifiable condition reporting practices: implications for public health agency participation in a health information exchange

BackgroundThe future of notifiable condition reporting in the United States is undergoing a transformation with the increasing development of Health Information Exchanges which support electronic data-sharing and -transfer networks and the wider adoption of electronic laboratory reporting. Communicable disease report forms originating in clinics are an important source of surveillance data for public health agencies. However, problems of poor data quality and delayed submission of reports to public health agencies are common. In addition, studies of barriers and facilitators to reporting have assumed that the primary reporter is the treating physician, although the extent to which a provider is involved in the reporting workflow is unclear. We sought to better understand the barriers to and burden of notifiable condition reporting from the perspectives of the three primary groups involved in reporting workflow: providers, clinic staff who bear the principal responsibility for reporting, and the public health workers who receive and process reports from clinics. In addition, we sought to situate these findings within the context of the future of notifiable disease reporting and the potential impacts of electronic lab and medical records on the surveillance system.MethodsSeven ambulatory care clinics and 3 public health agencies that are part of a Health Information Exchange in the state of Indiana, USA, participated in the study. Data were obtained from a survey of clinic physicians (N = 29), interviews with clinic reporters (N = 11), and interviews with public health workers (N = 9). Survey data were summarized descriptively and interview transcripts underwent qualitative analysis.ResultsIn both clinics and public health agencies, the laboratory report initiates reporting workflow. Provider involvement with reporting primarily revolves around ordering medications to treat a condition confirmed by the lab result. In clinics, reporting is typically the responsibility of clinic reporters who vary in frequency of reporting. We found an association between frequency of reporting, reporting knowledge and perceptions of reporting burden. In both clinics and public health agencies, interruptions and delays in reporting workflow are encountered due to inaccurate or missing information and impact reporting timeliness, data quality and report completeness. Both providers and clinic reporters lack clarity regarding how data submitted by their reports are used by public health agencies. It is possible that the value of reporting may be diminished when those responsible do not perceive receiving benefit in return. This may account for the low awareness of or recollection of public health communications with clinics that we observed. Despite the high likelihood that public health advisories and guidance are based, in part, on data submitted by clinics, a direct concordance may not be recognized.ConclusionsUnlike most studies of notifiable condition reporting, this study included the clinic reporters who bear primary responsibility for completing and submitting reports to public health agencies. A primary barrier to this reporting is timely and easy access to data. It is possible that expanded adoption of electronic health record and laboratory reporting systems will improve access to this data and reduce reporting the burden. However, a complete reliance on automatic electronic extraction of data requires caution and necessitates continued interfacing with clinic reporters for the foreseeable future—particularly for notifiable conditions that are high-impact, uncommon, prone to false positive readings by labs, or are hard to verify. An important finding of this study is the association between frequency of reporting, reporting knowledge and perceptions of reporting burden. Increased automation could result in even lower reporting knowledge and familiarity with reporting requirements which could actually increase reporters’ perception of notifiable condition reporting as burdensome. Another finding was of uncertainty regarding how data sent to public health agencies is used or provides clinical benefit. A strong recommendation generated by these findings is that, given their central role in reporting, clinic reporters are a significant target audience for public health outreach and education that aims to alleviate perceived reporting burden and improve reporting knowledge. In particular, communicating the benefits of public health’s use of the data may reduce a perceived lack of information reciprocity between clinical and public health organizations.