IEEE EMBC'14

1. RESULTS
ELECTRONIC
HEALTH
RECORDS
FOR
CARDIOVASCULAR
MEDICINE
Sofia
Ouhbi1,2,
Ali
Idri1,
José
Luis
Fernández
Alemán2,
Ambrosio
Toval2
and
Halima
Benjelloun1
sofia.ouhbi1@um.es,
idri@ensias.ma,
aleman@um.es,
atoval@um.es,
benjellounhalima@gmail.com
1Mohammed
V-­‐Souissi
University
(Morocco).
2University
of
Murcia
(Spain).
INTRODUCTION
Cardiovascular
disease
is
one
of
the
leading
death
causes
and
disability
in
the
world
and
can
be
beRer
understood
by
analyzing
data
from
health
records.
The
EHR
is
maintained
by
a
health
care
organizaSon
in
which
authorized
clinicians
can
enter
and
manage
a
paSent’s
health-­‐
related
informaSon.
The
usage
of
an
EHR
can
be
tremendously
beneficial
for
a
health
care
center,
and
can
lead
to:
• potenSal
producSvity,
• financial
improvement,
• quality
of
care
improvement,
• rapid
and
remote
access
to
paSent
informaSon,
• easier
chronic
disease
management,
• improved
conSnuity
of
care.
OBJECTIVE
The
aim
is
to
list,
to
analyze
and
to
assess
the
current
CCHIT-­‐
cerSfied
EHRs
which
may
be
used
in
cardiology
health
center
and
hospitals.
METHOD
The
search
of
these
EHRs
has
been
addressed
through
the
use
of
the
CCHIT
Website.
Quality
reporSng
guidelines,
set
out
by
PRISMA
group,
were
followed.
The
following
inclusion
criteria
(IC)
were
used:
• IC1:
EHRs
which
are
CCHIT-­‐cer@fied.
• IC2:
EHRs
for
cardiovascular
medicine.
PRISMA
FLOW
DIAGRAM
QUALITY
ASSESSMENT
QA1
• Has the EHR
been certified
more than
once?
QA2
• Has the EHR a
good CCHIT
usability review
(> 3)?
QA3
• Can the user
access the EHR
via a mobile
device?
QA4
• Does the EHR
support
interoperability
with other
sources?
EHR$product Certification$type Architecture$supported Dev.$tools Platform Regulations
Other$certification$program$
(QA1)
CCHIT$Usability$Rating$
(QA2)
Mobile$usage$
(QA3)
Interoperability$
(QA4)
Score
Sunrise(Ambulatory(Care(2011(Suite(5.5 Ambulatory Thin(Client SQL Windows,(Mac,(UNIX/Linux G Yes((ONC) Yes((5) Yes Yes 4
SuccessEHS(6.1 Ambulatory Thin(Client G Windows,(Mac,(UNIX/Linux HL7(CCD Yes((ONC) Yes((5) Yes Yes 4
PrimeSuite(2011 Ambulatory Client/server .NET Windows HL7(CCD Yes((ONC) Yes((5) Yes Yes 4
iPatientCare(10.8 Ambulatory Web(Services .NET,(Microsoft(Visual(Studio,(SQL Windows,(Mac,(UNIX/Linux HL7(CCD Yes((ONC) Yes((4) Yes Yes 4
ChartPlus(EHR(1.0 Ambulatory Web(Services G G G Yes((ONC) Yes((4) Yes Yes 4
NexTech(Practice(2013(10.8 Ambulatory Client/server G Windows HIPAA Yes((ONC) Yes((4) Yes Yes 4
American(Medical(SoftwareGEMR(22 Ambulatory Client/server SQL Windows HL7,(HiPAA Yes((ONC) Yes((5) No Yes 3
Medicat(2011(10.0 Ambulatory Client/server G Windows HIPAA Yes((ONC) Yes((5) No Yes 3
Centricity(Practice(Solution(9.5 Ambulatory Client/server G Windows G Yes((ONC) Yes((5) No Yes 3
Aprima(2011 Ambulatory Client/server G Windows,(Mac G Yes((ONC) Yes((5) No Yes 3
NextGen(Ambulatory(EHR(5.6(SP1 Ambulatory Client/server G Windows G Yes((ONC) Yes((5) No Yes 3
LeonardoMD(Virtuoso(1.0 Ambulatory Web(Services Microsoft(Visual(Studio,(SQL G HIPAA Yes((ONC) Yes((4) No Yes 3
Cehrus(10.8 Ambulatory Web(Services .NET Windows G Yes((ONC) Yes((4) No Yes 3
2011(Waiting(Room(Solutions(Web(Based(EHR Ambulatory Web(Services G Windows G Yes((ONC) Yes((4) No Yes 3
HealthMEDX(Vision(7.1.10 LTPAC Web(Services G Windows,(UNIX/Linux HiPAA(HL7(CCD Yes((ONC) G Yes Yes 3
Answers(EHR(Autumn(2011 LTPAC Thin(Client G Windows HIPAA Yes((ONC) G Yes Yes 3
NDoc(12.11 LTPAC Web(Services G Windows G Yes((ONC) G No Yes 2
CentriHealth(Individual(Health(Record((IHR)(2011.1 Ambulatory Web(Services G Windows,(Mac,(UNIX/Linux G Yes((ONC(and(Surescripts) G No Yes 2
ProGFiler(2012 Ambulatory Thin(Client G G HL7 Yes((ONC) G No Yes 2
Optimus(EMR(7.5.4.3 LTPAC Web(Services G Windows HL7,(HiPAA No G Yes Yes 2
ECSGElectronic(Chart(and(Financial(System(Version(9 LTPAC Client/server SQL G HL7 Yes((ONC) G No Yes 2
NetSolutions(6.4.7 LTPAC Web(Services .NET,(SQL G HL7(CCD No G No Yes 1
(
CONCLUSION
SpecificaSons
of
22
CCHIT-­‐cerSfied
EHRs
for
cardiovascular
medicine
were
assessed.
An
extracSon
form
has
been
defined
to
assist
EHR
stakeholders
for
cardiovascular
medicine
to
select
the
CCHIT-­‐cerSfied
EHR
that
best
fits
their
needs.
4 8 10 16 6 17 5 5 7 5 4 2 20 6 8 8 13 9
1
5 10 6
18%
36%
46%
73%
27%
63%
19% 19%
44%
31% 25%
9%
91%
27.2%
36.4%36.4%
59%
41%
5%
23%
45%
27%
Thin
C
lient
C
lient/server
W
eb
Services
A
m
bulatoryLTPA
C
W
indow
s
M
ac
U
N
IX
/Linux
H
IPA
AH
L7
C
C
D
H
L7
N
o
Yes
4
5
N
on
defined
N
o
Yes
1
2
3
4
Certification
type
Architecture
supported
Platform (27)
(17 EHRs)
Recommendations (16)
(13 EHRs)
Other
certifications
CCHIT usability
rating
Mobile
usage
QA Score