DIRECT secure messaging as a common transport layer for reporting structured and unstructured lab results to outpatient providers

This report describes a grant-funded project to explore the use of DIRECT secure messaging for the electronic delivery of laboratory test results to outpatient physicians and electronic health record systems. The project seeks to leverage the inherent attributes of DIRECT secure messaging and electronic provider directories to overcome certain barriers to the delivery of lab test results in the outpatient setting. The described system enables laboratories that generate test results as HL7 messages to deliver these results as structured or unstructured documents attached to DIRECT secure messages. The system automatically analyzes generated HL7 messages and consults an electronic provider directory to determine the appropriate DIRECT address and delivery format for each indicated recipient. The system also enables lab results delivered to providers as structured attachments to be consumed by HL7 interface engines and incorporated into electronic health record systems. Lab results delivered as unstructured attachments may be printed or incorporated into patient records as PDF files. The system receives and logs acknowledgement messages to document the status of each transmitted lab result, and a graphical interface allows searching and review of this logged information. The described system is a fully implemented prototype that has been tested in a laboratory setting. Although this approach is promising, further work is required to pilot test the system in production settings with clinical laboratories and outpatient provider organizations.

[1]  Karim Keshavjee,et al.  Measuring the success of electronic medical record implementation using electronic and survey data , 2001, AMIA.

[2]  Walter V. Sujansky,et al.  A standard-based model for the sharing of patient-generated health information with electronic health records , 2014, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[3]  Karen Wagner The value of direct messaging. , 2014, Healthcare financial management : journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association.

[4]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  Case Report: The Development of a Highly Constrained Health Level 7 Implementation Guide to Facilitate Electronic Laboratory Reporting to Ambulatory Electronic Health Record Systems , 2009, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[5]  E. Hing,et al.  Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001-2013. , 2014, NCHS data brief.

[6]  Douglas H. Fernald,et al.  Issues and initiatives in the testing process in primary care physician offices. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[7]  David W Bates,et al.  "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  A. Jha,et al.  Office-based physicians are responding to incentives and assistance by adopting and using electronic health records. , 2013, Health affairs.

[9]  David W Bates,et al.  Electronic Results Management in Pediatric Ambulatory Care: Qualitative Assessment , 2009, Pediatrics.

[10]  Karen Lynn What's the "buzz" on labs and EMRs? , 2011, MLO: medical laboratory observer.

[11]  Rainu Kaushal,et al.  Physicians and electronic health records: a statewide survey. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[12]  John A. Vernon,et al.  “WHAT'S WHAT.” , 1902 .

[13]  John Flach,et al.  The management of test results in primary care: does an electronic medical record make a difference? , 2010, Family medicine.

[14]  Joseph Conn Fee frustrations. Connecting EHR systems too pricey, providers say. , 2013, Modern healthcare.