Transcript CT HCBS Slides 2015 - CHATTER – Conversations About Health

Identifying PHR Requirements
through Town Hall Meetings
Minakshi Tikoo, PhD MBI – Connecticut’s HealthIT Coordinator
Giuseppe Macri, - Research Assistant I
Rachel Rusnak, MPA – Research Assistant III
Agenda
• CT HIT Landscape
• Overview of Connecticut’s Process
• Town Hall meetings
• Data Analysis
• RFP Requirements derived from Town Hall meetings
• Lessons learned and Q&A
2
CT HIT Landscape
• EHR Incentive Program
• Secure Direct Messaging HISP
• Provider Directory (PD)
• Enterprise Master Person Index (EMPI)
• Integrated Eligibility System (IE)
• All Payer Claims Database (APCD)
• Statewide HIT Strategic Operational Plan Development
Electronic capabilities of labs,
physicians, and pharmacies
HIT Enabled Providers
Initial Outreach Strategy
Outreach Activities:
1. Development of a TEFT Webpage
http://www.ct.gov/cthealthit
2. Creation of Educational Materials
3. Identification of and Outreach to Stakeholders
4. Hosting Town Hall Meetings
Outreach Metrics
Organization Type
Outreach
Provider
11
State Affiliates
9
Senior Centers
28
Advocacy Groups
8
Area Agencies on Aging (AAA)
5
AAA Advisory Committees
2
TOTAL
63
Participant Type
Provider
Advocate/Consumer
Total
Attendees Percent
158
72%
61
28%
219
100%
Town Hall Meetings
• Educational Component

Personal Health Record Overview

Blue Button Standard

Direct Secure Messaging

PHR Use and Health Outcome Examples
• Question, Answer & Open Discussion
• Wrap up
Town Hall Discussion Questions
1.
What comes to mind when you first think about Health IT?
2.
What are the benefits of a PHR?
3.
What are the challenges of using a PHR?
4.
What would you like to see in a PHR?
5.
Who should have access to a PHR?
6.
Should we offer PHR choices?
9
Should CT offer PHR choices?
Participants indicated 3 offerings to be ideal
Three PHRs allows potential users to:
•
•
•
•
Test multiple solutions
Choose the best solution
Learn without becoming overwhelmed
More person-centered
Response Data Analysis
• Free list domain analysis of participant responses
• Used rank and frequency of a response to a statistical value of
salience (Smith’s S score)
• S scores were used to determine which domain held the highest value
for stakeholders
Domain Name
Frequency
Average
rank
Smith
Index
Safety
90.91%
2.500
0.722
Information and
Planning
81.82%
3.000
0.685
Satisfaction
81.82%
3.000
0.673
Respect/Rights
45.45%
4.800
0.367
Access
72.73%
9.250
0.297
First Impressions of HealthIT
Consumer Responses
Provider Responses
Wanted in a PHR
Consumer Responses
Provider Responses
Benefits of PHR use
Consumer Responses
Provider Responses
Barriers to PHR Use
Consumer Responses
Provider Responses
Who should have access to a PHR?
NCI Word Clouds
Challenges Wordle
Benefits of PHR use
First Impression
Features to include in PHRs
NCI Domains Captured
Domains
Sub-domains
Health
Respect & Rights
Health,
Medications
Wellness &
Safety
Safety
Wellness
Restraints
Domains
Sub-domains
Access
Service Coordination
System
Financial Information
Performance
Service Information
Staff Competence
Domains
Sub-domains
Choice & Control
Family Outcomes
Satisfaction
Family
Family Involvement
Indicators
Community Connections
Access & Support Delivery
Information & Planning
Domains
Sub-domains
Work
Residence
Community Inclusion
Individual
Relationships
Outcomes
Choice & Decisionmaking
Satisfaction
Self-Determination
PHR Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Direct Secure Messaging Enabled (Security Concerns)
Single Factor Authentication (Security Concerns/Convenience)
Patient Consent Registry (Privacy Concerns/Respect & Rights)
Calendar/Service Appointment Reminders (Notification/Convenience/Planning tools)
Multilingual Capability (Convenience/Functional Concerns)
ONC §170.314 (e)(1) compliance (Access to Health Data)
Section 508 compliance (Disability Support/Access to Health Data)
Data Aggregating Toolkit (Access to Health Data/Choices of PHR)
Final Thoughts
• It was initially hypothesized that Providers and Consumers would
have significantly different responses
• When compared against other state’s RFPs, several of the
requirements gathered from Town Hall meetings are validated
• Collecting large amounts of data does not require complex study
designs
Lessons Learned
• Engage stakeholders early and frequently
• Use multiple languages where applicable
• Utilize Federal Plain Language Initiative guidelines
• Provide subtitles for video clips
• Educational components pertaining to emerging technology may
improve participant response rates
Questions
http://www.ct.gov/cthealthit
Contact Information
Minakshi Tikoo, PhD MBI – [email protected]
Giuseppe Macri, - [email protected]
Rachel Rusnak, MPA – [email protected]