Text or Not to Text? A Narrative Review of Texting as a Case Management Intervention.

PURPOSE: To review current literature on texting as a sustainable intervention of case management in the outpatient setting. FINDINGS: Texting, as a case management intervention, provides the medically complex client with a pathway to achieve care plan goals. Texting increases adherence, communication, and self-management. It can increase client enrollment in disease management programs, while providing support, flexibility, convenience, cost savings, and increased participation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: In current practice, such as management of the coronavirus (COVID-19), other pandemics, or natural/environmental disasters, texting is a solution-focused intervention that can deliver and retrieve real-time information to a medically complex population. It can link patients to resources and increase outreach, efficiency, quality, and coordination of care. Texting can promote adherence to appointments, increase medication compliance and disease management interventions, and provide motivational change messages. However, there are legal and regulatory concerns that carry potential consequences and implications that should be approached judiciously (Mellette, 2015). Texting is not one size fits all; it can cause HIPAA breeches, hinder communication with certain populations, confuse health messaging, and replace human communication, thereby reducing staffing in practice.

Doctors Routinely Share Health Data Electronically Under HIPAA, and Sharing With Patients and Patients' Third-Party Health Apps is Consistent: Interoperability and Privacy Analysis.

Since 2000, federal regulations have affirmed that patients have a right to a complete copy of their health records from their physicians and hospitals. Today, providers across the nation use electronic health records and electronic information exchange for health care, and patients are choosing digital health apps to help them manage their own health and health information. Some doctors and health systems have voiced concern about whether they may transmit a patient's data upon the patient's request to the patient or the patient's health app. This hesitation impedes shared information and care coordination with patients. It impairs patients' ability to use the state-of-the-art digital health tools they choose to track and manage their health. It undermines the ability of patients' family caregivers to monitor health and to work remotely to provide care by using the nearly unique capabilities of health apps on people's smartphones. This paper explains that sharing data electronically with patients and patients' third-party apps is legally consistent under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) with routine electronic data sharing with other doctors for treatment or with insurers for reimbursement. The paper explains and illustrates basic principles and scenarios around sharing with patients, including patients' third-party apps. Doctors routinely and legally share health data electronically under HIPAA whether or not their organizations retain HIPAA responsibility. Sharing with patients and patients' third-party apps is no different and should be just as routine.

Telemedicine for cancer care: implementation across a multicenter community oncology practice.

PURPOSE: To describe onboarding and utilization of telemedicine across a large statewide community oncology practice and to evaluate trends, barriers, and opportunities in care delivery during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: We describe telemedicine onboarding and utilization across a statewide oncology practice, covering 221 sites of service and more than 650 practitioners. We describe qualitatively the onboarding process of a diverse set of administrative, technical, and clinical partners. We describe quantitatively utilization throughout the practice. We describe a survey conducted to enlighten barriers and opportunities for optimal utilization. RESULTS: Multistakeholder education was directed to clinical teams, administrative and technical support staff, and patients through webinars and team meetings. Utilization was high from April through October 2020, representing 15% to 20% of new-patient visits and 20% to 25% of established-patient visits. In a survey offered to all clinicians, 96% of respondents indicated they are using telemedicine, with 33% using it for more than 25% of patient encounters. Among respondents, 59% reported that the use of telemedicine helps expedite diagnosis and treatment more than seeing patients in person in the clinic, 55% of respondents managed urgent issues by telemedicine, 80% believed that patients benefited From urgent assessment by telemedicine, and 57% believed an emergency department visit or a hospitalization was avoided because of a telemedicine visit. Most clinicians reported that patients enjoy benefits of telemedicine because of decreased exposure risk, decreased transportation requirements, and ease of including caregivers in the visit with the treating clinician. The most common barriers to patients accessing telemedicine were technical challenges and broadband access. Despite this, less than 5% of respondents routinely use telephone-only communication, as most typically use bimodal audio/video communication. Many clinicians have expansion ideas on how telemedicine can further expand the longitudinal care delivery for our patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine can be implemented successfully across a large statewide oncology practice and service a high volume of patients. Clinicians utilize telemedicine for new and established patients with minimal dysfunction. Clinicians believe patients benefit From telemedicine For new, established, and urgent care visits. Broadband access functionality should be explored to optimally serve our patient population.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Incidence of Endocarditis Before and After the 2007 AHA Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association updated its recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in 2007, advising that AP cease for those at moderate risk of IE, but continue for those at high risk. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to quantify any change in AP prescribing and IE incidence. METHODS: High-risk, moderate-risk, and unknown/low-risk individuals with linked prescription and Medicare or commercial health care data were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan databases from May 2003 through August 2015 (198,522,665 enrollee-years of data). AP prescribing and IE incidence were evaluated by Poisson model analysis. RESULTS: By August 2015, the 2007 recommendation change was associated with a significant 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59% to 68%) estimated fall in AP prescribing for moderate-risk individuals and a 20% (95% CI: 4% to 32%) estimated fall for those at high risk. Over the same period, there was a barely significant 75% (95% CI: 3% to 200%) estimated increase in IE incidence among moderate-risk individuals and a significant 177% estimated increase (95% CI: 66% to 361%) among those at high risk. In unknown/low-risk individuals, there was a significant 52% (95% CI: 46% to 58%) estimated fall in AP prescribing, but no significant increase in IE incidence. CONCLUSIONS: AP prescribing fell among all IE risk groups, particularly those at moderate risk. Concurrently, there was a significant increase in IE incidence among high-risk individuals, a borderline significant increase in moderate-risk individuals, and no change for those at low/unknown risk. Although these data do not establish a cause-effect relationship between AP reduction and IE increase, the fall in AP prescribing in those at high risk is of concern and, coupled with the borderline increase in IE incidence among those at moderate risk, warrants further investigation.

Impact of HIPAA's minimum necessary standard on genomic data sharing.

This article provides a brief introduction to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule's minimum necessary standard, which applies to sharing of genomic data, particularly clinical data, following 2013 Privacy Rule revisions. This research used the Thomson Reuters Westlaw database and law library resources in its legal analysis of the HIPAA privacy tiers and the impact of the minimum necessary standard on genomic data sharing. We considered relevant example cases of genomic data-sharing needs. In a climate of stepped-up HIPAA enforcement, this standard is of concern to laboratories that generate, use, and share genomic information. How data-sharing activities are characterized-whether for research, public health, or clinical interpretation and medical practice support-affects how the minimum necessary standard applies and its overall impact on data access and use. There is no clear regulatory guidance on how to apply HIPAA's minimum necessary standard when considering the sharing of information in the data-rich environment of genomic testing. Laboratories that perform genomic testing should engage with policy makers to foster sound, well-informed policies and appropriate characterization of data-sharing activities to minimize adverse impacts on day-to-day workflows.

Compliance Challenges Facing Healthcare Providers in 2016.

It is time to add risk analysis and risk management to your policies and procedures manuals to comply with the HIPAA Security Rules. CMS is very serious about protecting patients' health information. There is no doubt that complying just with HIPAA security is a complex undertaking, because the rules themselves have multiple elements. Create a road map that not only sees the big picture but is detailed enough to address specific concerns unique to your practice, such as identifying the right individuals in your practice to lead the effort. And finally, if you need professional help then get it--because not every practice has the time and resources needed for this effort.

Sharing Overdose Data Across State Agencies to Inform Public Health Strategies: A Case Study.

Data sharing and analysis are important components of coordinated and cost-effective public health strategies. However, legal and policy barriers have made data from different agencies difficult to share and analyze for policy development. To address a rise in overdose deaths, Maryland used an innovative and focused approach to bring together data on overdose decedents across multiple agencies. The effort was focused on developing discrete intervention points based on information yielded on decedents' lives, such as vulnerability upon release from incarceration. Key aspects of this approach included gubernatorial leadership, a unified commitment to data sharing across agencies with memoranda of understanding, and designation of a data management team. Preliminary results have yielded valuable insights and have helped inform policy. This process of navigating legal and privacy concerns in data sharing across multiple agencies may be applied to a variety of public health problems challenging health departments across the country.

PORTER: a Prototype System for Patient-Oriented Radiology Reporting.

To empower patients to participate in their medical care and decision-making, effective communication is critical. In radiology, the clinical report is the primary medium of communication. Although radiologists historically have authored reports with the referring provider as the intended reader, patients increasingly access the reports through portals to electronic health record systems. We developed a system named PORTER (Patient-Oriented Radiology Reporter) to augment radiology reports with lay-language definitions. Our IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study protocol analyzed 100 knee MRI reports from an academic medical center to identify the most commonly utilized terms. A glossary of 313 terms was constructed to include definitions of the terms and, where available, links to reference sources and public-domain images. Flesch-Kincaid readability scores were computed to assure that definitions were readable at or below 10th-grade reading level. The system provided an interactive web site to view outpatient knee MRI exams. After logging in with their exam ID number and date of birth, patients viewed their report annotated with definitions from the glossary. Applicable images were displayed when the user's mouse hovered over a glossary term. This patient-oriented system can help empower patients to better understand their radiology results.

Battle Hacks.

Federal, state, and private-product options exist to help practices stay in compliance with HIPAA privacy and security regulations while keeping patient information secure. The Texas Medical Association offers one such product, the Online HIPAA Security Manager, at a discounted rate for members.