Integrated Clinical Information Program (ICIP) Architecture Review - Final Report Summary
August 2004
OVERVIEW .................................................3 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH ...........................3 GOAL STATE DRIVERS, BUSINESS NEEDS ..............8
GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................ 8
Overview
The ICIP architecture review was initiated to identify opportunities to accelerate the deployment of core clinical systems across NSW to address the major priorities being tackled by NSW Health in the clinical services reform program. These priorities include: Managing access block Occupancy rates and bed capacity Effective management of the patient at all stages of the patient journey, whether between sections of a hospital or across the continuum of care from acute to community based (public and private) services Improved patient safety and reduction in adverse events Reducing off stretcher times Improved patient satisfaction in their journey through health and in the interfaces between services. The IM&T program has to be implemented in a way that allows the key systems to be implemented to address the current problems and priorities, while providing the foundation for clinical functionality across all Areas to support the delivery of health services at all points of the patients journey across the system. This includes systems to support: access to critical patient information from across the public and private sector delivered to any service the patient accesses; effective referrals between services; smooth transition of patients from hospital to community based care, residential care or general practice; a single point of access to key results within an Area to prevent duplication of diagnostic tests; integrated care processes implemented by multiple clinical professionals working as part of a multidisciplinary team; making navigation through health easier for the patient; effective management of patient flow and the alignment of supply and demand improved safety and quality. The review identified the following ICIP strategies to be accelerated to address the major problem areas and reform priorities: implementation of a patient centric area wide repository in all Areas to support shared access to medical records to all clinicians in an Area; evaluation of alternative Clinical Information Systems to introduce choice and drive competition; extended roll out of CHIME to give wider access to community health information, with evaluation of alternative products to support the migration to a single patient repository; establishment of a Health Service Provider Directory to support referrals between services; development of a strong integration capability to manage the exchange of information between health services and simplify the management of the Electronic Health Record.
way that supported more integrated service delivery, better quality care and improved patient safety and more integrated performance management. The focus of the ICIP review was to ensure that the IM&T program as it is currently defined could support clinicians in providing high quality and safe care at all stages of the patient journey. The IPART report highlighted the imperative to implement the core ICIP systems in a timely manner, and to reassess implementation and integration opportunities and risks. The review has focused on the opportunities to ensure ICIP is aligned and able to respond to the needs of NSW Health and adapt to evolving models of care. The report recommends strategies to accelerate the implementation of core functionality across the state building on the existing investment. The report also recommends that greater value can be obtained by introducing more competition into the marketplace. The objective of the ICIP Architecture Review Project is to define an overall architecture and set of strategic initiatives to guide NSW Healths development of state-wide clinical systems over the next 5-7 years. A comprehensive approach has been taken across a 20 week project, reviewing current Department and Area Health Service (AHS) performance in delivering the program, designing a future goal state architecture and defining implementation plans, required investments and models for shared governance moving forward.
Figure 1: High Level ICIP Architecture Review Approach The Key deliverables of the process were: A Current State Assessment reviewing current clinical technology performance across a range of areas including: business, process, information, human, application, technical and implementation; The definition of an ICIP architecture that can be applied at a practical level to support the implementation of the Electronic Health Record and clinical systems at the point of care; High level assessment of alternative implementation options for programs within the ICIP environment across NSW Health; Review and refinement of existing principles and standards to support selection and delivery of new ICIP solutions, including guidelines for implementation of strategic solutions to meet the patient safety and quality of care objectives of NSW Health;
Identification of practical, achievable implementation plans and the appropriate functional focus to meet the business goals of Area Health Services and the Department and integrated existing initiatives with revised strategies; Revised governance strategies for balancing business needs with architecture design requirements; Systems Integration and delivery strategies guiding overall integration infrastructure and operating platforms High level funding estimates for near term initiatives Risk management strategies.
ICIP has not been managed as an integrated program and the governance model has varied over time
A handful of AHSs have relatively mature and robust technology deployed from their major tertiary referral hospital, however from a state-wide perspective, the ICIP systems are deployed using different combinations of software hosted on different platforms. In the majority of areas, the current infrastructure is immature compared to industry standards, complex, not flexible and costly to operate. Although pockets of excellence exist across the State, there is currently no sense of a There is no sense of a state-wide foundation upon which clinical outcomes can be delivered and improved. state-wide Despite some successes, the overwhelming majority of AHSs are relatively immature in foundation upon the implementation of clinical systems. ICIP has had a mixed implementation record which clinical which has led to a perception of the existence of the haves and have nots, rather outcomes can be delivered and than being a centrally coordinated program. evolved There is also a feeling amongst AHSs that there has been inequity in the response to the different requirements of rural AHSs and Community Health services from a technology perspective.
Guiding Principles
With these business needs in mind, the following guiding principles for the implementation of the ICIP architecture have been developed: Provide stakeholders with a single, integrated view of patient information 1. In order to best support a continuum of care for patients, ICIP applications and technologies need to be deployed to provide stakeholders with a single, integrated view of patient information 2. The architecture and proposed initiatives will be aligned with clinical priorities and outcomes 3. The ICIP architecture will empower clinical decision making 4. The ICIP architecture will support the continuum of care across settings and AHS boundaries 5. Application choice will be maintained within an agreed framework at the AHS level to engender competition, meet differing needs across AHSs and reduce risk of provider lock-in 6. The ICIP architecture is designed to minimise the complexity and variety of systems that an individual clinician is required to use while still providing all necessary system functionality
Architecture Options
The goal state architectures most important purpose is the construction, management and sharing of patient information in a secure and accessible way. The goal state In recommending a specific architecture to meet this requirement a number of options architectures most were considered, however, broadly, two architecture options were evaluated for the important purpose is the construction, ICIP goal state architecture: management and 1. a regional or area-based patient-centric data repository to store information, sharing of patient information in a built over time, fed by other specialist systems, or 2. portal-based technologies which dynamically query and access patient data at secure and accessible way the time of need using new integration technologies Both solutions assume that specialist systems still exist for acute point of care management, community health, patient administration, diagnostic support and other daily clinical system requirements. The key difference is whether a patients eMR is both stored in a consolidated repository and distributed throughout the specialist systems a consolidated eMR, or whether the information only exists in the specialist systems with the patient centric view being dynamically built at time of need - a distributed eMR. The use of a single repository for the entire state was discounted due to the cost and maintenance of the required infrastructure, the risks associated with consolidating mission critical information for the whole state, and the acceptance this level of change would require. There are broadly In addition to determining whether a repository or dynamic approach was preferred, two options NSW other important decisions in recommending an integrated architecture for NSW Health Health should were: consider an areabased patient-centric 1. The framework in which competition would operate data repository, or 2. How each of the major current systems would integrate with the architecture, portal-based in particular for Community Health technologies which 3. How systems governed by Local IT Initiatives (LITI), the Greater Metropolitan dynamically query Transition Taskforce (GMTT) and Toward a Safer Community (TASC) would be and access patient impacted data
Assessment Criteria
The following criteria were used in the assessment of the two underlying solutions (referred to from this point onward as 1. Single region-wide patient repository and 2. Portal-based web services architecture): Key Business Criteria Support for a single view of the patient facilitation of clinical information sharing across settings Ability to accelerate clinical decision making (e.g. Decision Support) Ability to manage patient flow Patient and technology risk Facilitation of better access for patients, health service providers and management Total solution cost
Flexibility to IMTB change, AHS boundary re-alignment, trends in technology and new models of care
Key Technology Criteria Performance and scalability Levels of required maintenance (application and integration) Solution readiness and maturity for NSW Healths scale of operation Ability to support for clinical intelligence (analysis not necessarily real-time at the point of care) Usability Consistency with the national HealthConnect architecture
The deployment of clinical applications based on a patient repository also creates significant efficiencies in terms of integrating with state-wide solutions for an electronic Health Record (eHR) and the master Health Service and Provider Directory (HSPD). Rather than having the state-wide eHR integrate directly with multiple source systems within an AHS, event summary interfaces will be greatly simplified through the use of a single repository. Another advantage of the clinical repository is the ability to facilitate extracttransform-load capabilities for data warehousing and clinical reporting. A repository achieves Finally, a repository achieves something everywhere for all Health settings. By something rolling out area or region-wide patient for personal information, results, notes, everywhere for assessments and referrals, Health achieves a common base upon which to extend levels all Health settings of maturity and to build on and create momentum.
There is some question whether Portal architectures are stable and scaleable enough to Because real-time messaging must be available 100% of the time to support portal support state- wide architectures, an extremely robust and high performance integration solution would be processing required. Even if this solution could be implemented for results reporting, it would then need to be extended into order management, clinical documentation and decision support. The increased amount of information and rules involved in these capabilities would place an enormous load on integration services. A perception exists that a portal-based architecture would be cheaper, providing the same functionality as a repository-based architecture. In investigating solutions for ICIP, the Architecture team did not find a portal-based solution able to completely handle the complex requirements of a tertiary referral hospital, nor do we believe this architecture would represent a cheaper goal state architecture once the effort and cost of integration have been factored into the total cost of the solution.
We recommend that NSW Health potentially open the market to an additional CIS vendor, to be managed within an agreed strategic framework
However, we also recommend that NSW Health potentially open the market to an additional CIS vendor, to be managed within an agreed strategic framework. There are three main reasons for this approach. First, having a multi-vendor environment will reduce the risk and over reliance on one vendor to deliver. Second, by establishing a managed, but competitive environment, NSW Health can expect greater flexibility from the vendor community in terms of pricing, implementation timeframes and technical inter-operability. Finally, the added cost of integration with a second platform will be mitigated by a core build approach and can be further addressed contractually with each successful vendor. We recommend a formal process to be conducted in year 1 of the strategy to determine whether a viable alternative exists. Although the introduction of an additional CIS vendor is recommended, order management and results reporting functionality need to be tightly coupled (i.e. same vendor). This recommendation ensures integration risks are minimised between these highly complex modules. Areas can then choose whether to bolt on tools from the same or other vendors to handle decision support, referrals, scheduling and clinical documentation.
The CIS will be tiered based on the acuity of setting with tight coupling of orders and results functionality
Community Health
The goal state architecture for community health systems is driven by the same principles as the systems needed to support acute settings, that is: support for a single view of the patient, facilitation of clinical information sharing across settings and the ability to effectively manage patient flow. A key consideration for the goal state architecture in terms of community health was, therefore, the future deployment strategy for Community Health Information Management Enterprise (CHIME). In the main, CHIME is viewed positively by community health users across the state. It is a custom designed solution which supports many of the core business functions within community health, providing an eMR for community health and supporting an integrated view of the client across community health services. Further, for most community services, it is the only practical solution available. On this basis, it is recommended that the deployment of CHIME should continue and an agreed development plan for the State standard build should be established in collaboration with Program areas to determine maintenance and development priorities for CHIME. However, the current platform upon which CHIME is based does not enable the desired inter-operability with an Area wide repository and would require redevelopment in a new technology. This is also true of all existing major clinical information systems, but these applications are already in the process of being standardised on .Net and J2EE architectures at their own cost. Accordingly, it is recommended that longer-term alternatives be investigated during phase 1, including extending the patient-centric architecture into the community, with a view to its migration to a single area wide repository during phase 2. It is important that this builds on the existing knowledge of community health requirements, relating to business processes, functional requirements and information and classification requirements.
It is recommended that an agreed development plan is established for CHIME and alternatives are investigated during phase 1
In all tiers, the Department (through the Clinical Investment Council and Design Authority) has responsibility for setting standards and ensuring compliance with the architecture. This change in governance is critical to the success of an integrated results reporting capability and to ICIP as a whole. As part of the design, build and rollout of integrated results reporting across the state, it is recommended that systems supporting major diagnostic services be rationalised. NSW Health has achieved an appropriate level of standardisation for pharmacy and if similar levels of standardisation can be achieved for radiology and pathology, integration complexity is reduced and the results reporting capability is more easily achieved. State-wide strategies for PACS and EDIS are also priorities that NSW Health needs to investigate. Tier 3 clinical systems are currently governed within ICIP through Local IT Initiatives (LITI), Greater Metropolitan Transition Taskforce (GMTT) and Towards a Safer Community (TASC). These initiatives have established significant clinician buy-in and success in managing the systems that support specialty areas. These initiatives should continue under ICIP, and an evaluation of other specialist IT initiatives should be conducted to determine whether they are appropriate for inclusion or, based on a high degree of overlap with larger initiatives or an inability to integrate should be sunsetted. LITI, GMTT and TASC match the governance model proposed in the ICIP implementation strategy and they are valuable to Health as they encourage innovation and ensure re-usability outside the larger program. Initiatives should only be governed by LITI, GMTT and TASC if there is a clear and defined migration path to the broader initiatives and the system is used across multiple AHSs. The clinical investment council (See Implementation Strategy page 22) should have responsibility for the decision of whether initiatives are handled by LITI, GMTT or TASC.
A key feature of NSW Healths IT Architecture is the distinct segmentation of the architecture into a thin, passive Event Summary (eHR layer) and a rich Clinical Information System (CIS Layer) to build and manage a patients eMR and provide clinicians with a single view of a patient. Distinct segmentation of the architecture into a thin, passive Event Summary and a rich CIS The Clinical Information Systems functionality will be tiered based on clinical acuity and requirements, represented here as Tertiary (Principal referral, Paediatric Specialist and Ungrouped Acute), District (Major Metropolitan, Major Non-Metropolitan and Community Acute) and Community (Community Non-Acute, Psychiatric, Multi-Purpose Services, Hospices, Rehabilitation and Mothercraft) requirements1 A single area-wide patient repository (see architecture options page 8) Tight coupling of order management and results reporting functionality (see architecture options page 8) The architecture also recommends a distributed Health Service and Provider Directory (HSPD) environment with replicas in each clinical hub from where applications are deployed. In the short term a HSPD will assist in making available services known to clinicians and the community and for facilitating the referral process. In the long term this capability could be developed to facilitate access management to clinical systems for Health service providers. It is also essential for interagency transfer of information; for example the Better Service Delivery Program. Patient Identification and transaction matching will be achieved through multiple options. At a state level, patient record matching needs to support the electronic Health record program (eHR). At an area level, these services will be performed either through matching software resident within the patient repository platform or through existing Health third party alternatives A strong integration layer and capability is required to manage inter and intra-AHS clinical information sharing (including the management of event summaries with the eHR), integration with directories, specialist and patient administration systems and a common user interface Remote Access will also be enabled via integration technologies and will give external stakeholders such as GPs access to Areas clinical systems and the patient repository (based on appropriate security). Ideally clinicians would access the clinical systems they require through a common user interface or portal. In this model clinicians would also have a single logon and their access would be managed via the HSPD. Diagnostic and specialty systems (both the large requirements for radiology, pathology, pharmacy and emergency departments and the smaller requirements of the systems governed by LITI, GMTT and TASC), should be rationalised and based on architecture standards to minimise integration risk and ensure maximum re-usability. ICIPs technical architecture foundations will also be deployed based on the different requirements of each tier.
1
A strong integration layer and capability is required to manage inter and intra-AHS clinical information sharing
Based on the existing NSW Health Peer Groupings ICIP Architecture Review Page 16
Integration Priorities
The implementation of an integration architecture to facilitate information sharing for applications and services is fundamental to the success of the program. Current approaches to implementation have meant that limited sharing of technology assets has been possible and that many areas have immature enterprise Application Integration (eAI) capabilities. It is therefore recommended that the design, implementation, rollout and support of the core components of eAI tools and technologies are handled by a dedicated group with representation from all AHSs and with initial assistance from industry. The guiding principles for the implementation of ICIPs integration priorities are: It is recommended that the design, implementation, rollout and support of the core components of eAI tools and technologies are handled by a dedicated group with representation from all AHSs
1. There is a strong integration layer/capability to manage inter and intra AHS clinical information sharing and a common user interface 2. Event summaries be should sent to the eHR layer from the patient repository, not from all the independent source systems, to minimise the number of interfaces required 3. Messages are pushed from AHSs integration layer to regional integration layer, rather than pulled 4. Mapping and translation for information that is transferred between settings, AHS and regions occurs at an AHS-level, wherever possible 5. Secure transactions occur between AHSs and between Health and external agencies 6. Agreed NSW Health standards must be used when defining, storing, and exchanging data 7. Integration components should be reusable across the state 8. The ICIP Integration Architecture must be flexible and applicable across a diverse range of settings. 9. Information must be accessible to those who need it regardless of organisational boundaries, but within appropriate privacy and security and access controls 10. There is a preference for a single state-wide eAI vendor 11. Implementation of the different eAI capabilities should be aligned with the roadmap. Initially only application and technical connectivity (adaptors), There are transformation and formatting and communications middleware are required. conceptually 2 Only when the maturity of Healths clinical information systems and their integration layers integration requirements increase should Business Process and Interaction an AHS management tools be considered. integration layer and a Regional There are conceptually 2 integration layers an AHS integration layer and a Regional integration layer integration layer. These layers have different purposes and objectives, but strong interaction, a common approach to implementation and follow the same guiding principles. The role of the AHS integration layer will be to: interface Admission, Discharge and Transfer (ADT) information to clinical support and diagnostic systems; interface results to the patient repository; submit orders to clinical support and diagnostic systems; synchronise provider and service information; pass event summaries and discharge referrals to the regional layer, and facilitate local clinical intelligence and KPIs through batch Extract, Translate and Load (ETL) processes.
The role of the regional (multi-Area) integration layer will be to: direct the appropriate identification and matching of transactions between systems; transmit event summaries and discharge referrals from the AHS layer handle information sharing for external stakeholders, which includes the subscription of event summaries for GPs, communication with state or federal agencies such as the HIC and integration with business exchanges; enable a common user interface and access management for clinicians; enable legislative reporting requirements, and facilitate regional and state-wide clinical intelligence and KPIs through batch Extract, Translate and Load (ETL) processes.
The following diagram depicts the recommended components of NSW Healths goal state integration architecture.
Benefits Realisation
The proposed goal state architecture brings different benefits to each of Healths stakeholders, the ICIP Architecture: benefits patients by: increasing their access to the Health system; better sharing their information between caregivers; supporting the patient journey and emerging models of care, and providing their clinicians with tools to make the best possible decisions. The ICIP architecture benefits patients by increasing access, better sharing their information and supporting the patient journey and emerging models of care
benefits clinicians by: - providing access tools and technologies that assist in making the best possible clinical decision for the patient; - identifying their patients and relevant history; - improving the coordination of information sharing between services and settings, and - saving their time. benefits management by: allowing better forecasting and management of demand; enabling patient flow across the system; supporting front-line accountability, and enabling better planning and configuration of clinical services.
ICIP will accommodate multiple providers and technology platforms while at the same time promoting standardisation of processes and information flows across settings and AHSs
Adverse events occurring in medication administration and surgery Aged Care and Chronic Care are areas of increased demand due to longer life spans and improved treatment programs AHS mergers will dramatically change the current balance of ICIP systems and will combine incompatible systems and networks together Because of an inadequate focus and integration between technology and human performance, ICIP initiatives not providing clinicians with an optimum level of support
available service providers for consequential care Facilitates communication of clinically significant information (including care plans) across settings within an AHS, across AHSs and between GPs and NSW Health Provides for the unique identification of patients at the point of care, along with access to longitudinal clinical information and medical history Supports the implementation of standard protocols, decision support processes and data structures across the state Allows different settings to share a single view of a patient and to share a care plan, enabling improved treatment in the community (i.e. keep people out of hospital) Supports the deployment of standard processes and protocols for managing chronic diseases. Provides a long term strategy for aligning AHS networks and systems Has the flexibility to accommodate changes in AHS boundaries Enables strong link between people and technology to drive patient care Programs and projects have a defined goal to support clinical processes and decisions Human performance strategy managed by Program Management Office (PMO)
10
ICIP Roadmap
The deployment of the ICIP architecture will occur through distinct phases that build a common level of capability across the state. Each phase is intended to take between 24 and 36 months. The investment in infrastructure will matched to phase Deployment through distinct phases with requirements, thereby reducing the risk of over investment. matching Benefits realisation needs to be tied to each successive step and measured with infrastructure and tangible clinical performance metrics if appropriate benefits are not realised there adequate funding should be no progression to a subsequent phase. As a rule-of-thumb, progression should occur when approximately two thirds of Areas have implemented the planned functionality so momentum is maintained and a foundation is established. Adequate funding is crucial to the success of any program. The ICIP review recommends that the majority of the ICIP program funding should focus on the current phase to ensure implementation momentum and broad uptake across the State. The success of ICIP will be measured At the same time, focused pioneering development will also be encouraged. against practical and Pioneering projects will build standards and demonstrate potential benefits for future clearly defined KPIs development. The pioneering projects targeted for phase one include pilots for the with benefits eHR and electronic prescribing decision support (ePDS) for AHSs that already have realisation tied to mature results and order management functionality. The balance of the Departments each successive step. budget should be reserved for existing commitments. No benefits no progression While each initiative includes an infrastructure component, a significant risk for ICIP is the commitment of the AHSs to invest in infrastructure foundations (desktops and networks) to support the proposed ICIP architecture.