Healthc Inform Res.  2012 Mar;18(1):57-64. 10.4258/hir.2012.18.1.57.

Comparing the Certification Criteria for CCHIT-Certified Ambulatory EHR with the SNUBH's EHR Functionalities

• Heo EY
• Hwang H
• Kim EH
• Cho EY
• Lee KH
• Kim TH
• Kim KD
• Baek RM
• Yoo S

• KMID: 2166618
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2012.18.1.57

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study aims to investigate the suitability of electronic health record (EHR) systems in Korea for global certification and to propose functions for future global systems by comparing and analyzing the certification criteria for Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) Certified Ambulatory EHR with BESTCare, which is the EHR system at Seoul National University Bundang hospital.
METHODS
Domain expert groups were formed to analyze the inclusion of BESTCare functions and the types of differences for each of the CCHIT Certified 2011 Ambulatory EHR Certification Criteria. The types of differences were divided into differences in functions (F), differences in business processes (B), and differences in government policies (P).
RESULTS
Generally, the criteria that showed differences in functions pertained to the connection between the diagnosis/problem list and order, the alert and warning functions for medication-diagnosis interactions, and the reminder/instruction/notification messages related to the patient's immunization status; these absent functions were enhanced clinical decision support system (CDSS) functions related to patient safety and healthcare quality. Differences in government policies were found in the pharmacy's electronic prescription functions, while differences in business processes were found in the functions constrained by the local workflow or internal policy, which require some customization.
CONCLUSIONS
Functions that differed between the CCHIT certification criteria and the BESTCare system in this study should be considered when developing a global EHR system. Such a system will need to be easily customizable to adapt to various government policies and local business processes. These functions should be considered when developing a global EHR system certified by CCHIT in the future.

Keyword

Functionality; Certification Commission for Health Information Technology; Interoperability; Security; Electronic Health Record

MeSH Terms

Certification
Commerce
Electronic Health Records
Electronic Prescribing
Immunization
Korea
Medical Informatics
Patient Safety
Quality of Health Care

Reference

1. Shin HM. The future of health care services and digital. Microsoftware. 2010. 319:156–163.

2. Ha KS, Park HY, Lee SI, Kim JW, Hwang H, Cho EY, Heo EY, Lee MH, Yun GS. EHR system functionality and exchange of medical information. 2010. Seoul, Korea: Center for Interoperable EHR.

3. Kim HS, Cho H, Lee IG. Design and development of an ehr platform based on medical informatics standards. J Intell Inf Syst. 2011. 21:456–462.

4. CCHIT certified 2011 ambulatory HER certification criteria [Internet]. Certification Commission for Health Information Technology. c2012. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Chicago (IL): CCHIT;Available from: http://www.cchit.org/sites/all/files/CCHIT%20Certified%202011%20Ambulatory%20EHR%20Criteria%2020110517.pdf.

5. CCHIT certified 2011 certification handbook [Internet]. Certification Commission for Health Information Technology. c2012. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Chicago (IL): CCHIT;Available from: http://www.cchit.org/sites/all/files/CCHIT%20Certified%202011%20Certification%20Handbook%20May%2017%202011%20FINAL.pdf.

6. BPHC electronic medical record resources [Internet]. Bureau of Primary Health Care. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Available at: http://bphc.hrsa.gov/chc/CHCInitiatives/emr.htm.

7. Benchmarks for electronic medical record systems [Internet]. COPIC. c2010. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Denver (CO): COPIC;Available from: http://www.callcopic.com/home/resources-tools/clinical-guidelines-and-tools/benchmarks-for-electronic-medical-record-systems/.

8. COPIC. Benchmarks for electronic medical record systems: a decision tool and resource. 2001. Denver (CO): COPIC Insurance.

9. Health level seven international (HL7) [Internet]. 2012. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Ann Arbor (MI): Health Level Seven International;Available from: http://www.hl7.org.

10. Rowley R. Practicing without paper charts: one clinic's experience. c2005. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Leawood (KS): American Academy of Family Physicians;Available from: http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2005/0200/p37.html.

11. Drury BM. Ambulatory EHR functionality: a comparison of functionality lists. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2006. 20:61–70.

12. Shin HM. Digital hospital architecture and our attitude. Microsoftware. 2010. 322:152–159.

13. HIMSS analytics Asia: stage 7 hospitals. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. 2012. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Chicago (IL): HIMSS;Available from: http://www.himssanalyticsasia.org/emradoption-model-stage7hospitals.asp.

14. Electronic health records and meaningful use. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2012. cited at 2012 Mar 20. Washington: US Department of Health & Human Services;Available from: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=2996&mode=2.

15. Kim SH. Health information technology standardization trend and interpolation. HN Focus. 2007. 14:44–49.

16. Kim IG. Center for Interoperable EHR. Interoperability standards for EHR harmonization and tools. 2010. Seoul, Korea: Elsevier Korea.

17. Park WS, Seo SW, Lee MJ, Kim ON. Health information privacy and security. 2010. Seoul, Korea: Center for Interoperable HER.

18. Cho IS, Kim JA, Go YT, Song SH, Park RW. Clinical decision support system. 2010. Seoul, Korea: Center for Interoperable HER.