Secondary use of health data applies personal health information (PHI) for uses outside of direct health care delivery. It includes such activities as analysis, research, quality and safety measurement, public health, payment, provider certification or accreditation, marketing, and other business applications, including strictly commercial activities. Secondary use of health data can enhance health care experiences for individuals, expand knowledge about disease and appropriate treatments, strengthen understanding about effectiveness and efficiency of health care systems, support public health and security goals, and aid businesses in meeting customers' needs. Yet, complex ethical, political, technical, and social issues surround the secondary use of health data. While not new, these issues play increasingly critical and complex roles given current public and private sector activities not only expanding health data volume, but also improving access to data. Lack of coherent policies and standard "good practices" for secondary use of health data impedes efforts to strengthen the U.S. health care system. The nation requires a framework for the secondary use of health data with a robust infrastructure of policies, standards, and best practices. Such a framework can guide and facilitate widespread collection, storage, aggregation, linkage, and transmission of health data. The framework will provide appropriate protections for legitimate secondary use.

In response to mounting evidence that use of electronic medical record systems may cause unintended consequences, and even patient harm, the AMIA Board of Directors convened a Task Force on Usability to examine evidence from the literature and make recommendations. This task force was composed of representatives from both academic settings and vendors of electronic health record (EHR) systems. After a careful review of the literature and of vendor experiences with EHR design and implementation, the task force developed 10 recommendations in four areas: (1) human factors health information technology (IT) research, (2) health IT policy, (3) industry recommendations, and (4) recommendations for the clinician end-user of EHR software. These AMIA recommendations are intended to stimulate informed debate, provide a plan to increase understanding of the impact of usability on the effective use of health IT, and lead to safer and higher quality care with the adoption of useful and usable EHR systems.

Background: Integrated personal health records (PHRs) offer significant potential to stimulate transformational changes in health care delivery and self-care by patients. In 2006, an invitational roundtable sponsored by Kaiser Permanente Institute, the American Medical Informatics Association, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was held to identify the transformative potential of PHRs, as well as barriers to realizing this potential and a framework for action to move them closer to the health care mainstream. This paper highlights and builds on the insights shared during the roundtable.

BackgroundAdoption of EHRs by U.S. ambulatory practices has been slow despite the perceived benefits of their use. Most evaluations of EHR implementations in the literature apply to large practice settings. While there are similarities relating to EHR implementation in large and small practice settings, the authors argue that scale is an important differentiator. Focusing on small ambulatory practices, this paper outlines the benefits and barriers to EHR use in this setting, and provides a "field guide" for these practices to facilitate successful EHR implementation.DiscussionThe benefits of EHRs in ambulatory practices include improved patient care and office efficiency, and potential financial benefits. Barriers to EHRs include costs; lack of standardization of EHR products and the design of vendor systems for large practice environments; resistance to change; initial difficulty of system use leading to productivity reduction; and perceived accrual of benefits to society and payers rather than providers. The authors stress the need for developing a flexible change management strategy when introducing EHRs that is relevant to the small practice environment; the strategy should acknowledge the importance of relationship management and the role of individual staff members in helping the entire staff to manage change. Practice staff must create an actionable vision outlining realistic goals for the implementation, and all staff must buy into the project. The authors detail the process of implementing EHRs through several stages: decision, selection, pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation. They stress the importance of identifying a champion to serve as an advocate of the value of EHRs and provide direction and encouragement for the project. Other key activities include assessing and redesigning workflow; understanding financial issues; conducting training that is well-timed and meets the needs of practice staff; and evaluating the implementation process.SummaryThe EHR implementation experience depends on a variety of factors including the technology, training, leadership, the change management process, and the individual character of each ambulatory practice environment. Sound processes must support both technical and personnel-related organizational components. Additional research is needed to further refine recommendations for the small physician practice and the nuances of specific medical specialties.

Federal legislation (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act) has provided funds to support an unprecedented increase in health information technology (HIT) adoption for healthcare provider organizations and professionals throughout the U.S. While recognizing the promise that widespread HIT adoption and meaningful use can bring to efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of healthcare, the American Medical Informatics Association devoted its 2009 Annual Health Policy Meeting to consideration of unanticipated consequences that could result with the increased implementation of HIT. Conference participants focused on possible unintended and unanticipated, as well as undesirable, consequences of HIT implementation. They employed an input-output model to guide discussion on occurrence of these consequences in four domains: technical, human/cognitive, organizational, and fiscal/policy and regulation. The authors outline the conference's recommendations: (1) an enhanced research agenda to guide study into the causes, manifestations, and mitigation of unintended consequences resulting from HIT implementations; (2) creation of a framework to promote sharing of HIT implementation experiences and the development of best practices that minimize unintended consequences; and (3) recognition of the key role of the Federal Government in providing leadership and oversight in analyzing the effects of HIT-related implementations and policies.