The whole concept of exchanging health information that I participate is to improve patient health outcomes. Therefore, I am often disappointed when someone says that HIE should be a center for patients. I am sick in Wisconsin and feel the effect of WISHIN. There is no other purpose for HIE than the patient. I have to breathe a little and remember that the best results are wonderful for the patient, but this patient does not “feel” that he has any opinion or participation. This is necessary to improve.
In Wisconsin, we have the approval, especially since there is a state-level system that allows the patient to decide that his data should not be shared on the stock exchange. It does not give them much, not ON. But more than a few. Therefore, it is usually the first step to switch from a vendor-centric model to a patient-based model.
This level is not good, but it’s better than a few years ago without a network. There is a bright future for sharing health information. I want to extend the future transition from a patient-centric provider to a patient-centered approach, a trend that has begun.
First of all, I have to address this claim. None of the current “provider-centric” HIE. The system today is very “manual” and hard to work. However, this is the last article. I feel bad for service providers who do not use HIE technology for the benefit of the patient.
However, I say that this is exactly the same, not making a “patient’s axis” a good statement. This means that the vendor now interacts with HIE where the patient is just a passenger. Therefore, the patient, operator against the provider, may be a better term.
Focus on the patient (also known as a patient)
So let me say “patient – participant” as a clear statement plus two words. I think the purpose of this initiative is to involve the patient. This can be a more genuine relationship, but you can also give you the feeling that you are involved.
This beautiful picture, Wisconsin, is a beautiful state, and right is how real WISHIN patients are taken. A unique selection of colors, because you can choose green as the best, red for areas that need more work. This graph is an existing case that includes access to a population percentage in WISHIN (and so on eHEX).
The patient’s basic needs in Wisconsin are our behavior, especially adults, to fly south in the winter (Arizona, Texas, Florida, etc.). WISHIN has the same priority through eHEX and direct contracts with HIE-to-HIE. They do not have good coverage in all states, but the regions south that we usually retreat are clearly considered to be a priority. In addition, there are also some other countries where people go to Wisconsin in the summer and fall.
WISHIN also provides support for direct-secure messaging. So all support Directly accessible.
Here are some other ways to treat the patient:
Providing credentials I say will take into account the disclosure, but there are many exceptions that lead to a useless note. I want an access record shared (live or shared) whenever my data is accessed, using the basic structure of WISHIN. Who has applied for access? What did you ask for? What did you get? When is that? Where are you? Why did they come (goal)? None of the networks I know tell you how HIE is used to determine the patient’s data. I understand the extent of the concern of the taxed entity, which gives us the exception of the “natural process”. I do not like these exceptions, but I understand why they exist. In my opinion, all Exchange access processes should inform the patient.
Enable API access to applications that the patient chooses and declares. In the past, it covered the PHR statement, but this concept is now limited. This article discusses the older concepts of PHR, but also modern health applications. PHR is a system that copies patient data and gives you the ability to connect applications with a copy of this data.