Events Calendar

Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
C.D. Howe Institute Roundtable Luncheon
2014-04-28    
12:00 pm - 1:30 pm
Navigating the Healthcare System: The Patient’s Perspective Please join us for this Roundtable Luncheon at the C.D. Howe Institute with Richard Alvarez, Chief Executive Officer, [...]
DoD / VA EHR and HIT Summit
DSI announces the 6th iteration of our DoD/VA iEHR & HIE Summit, now titled “DoD/VA EHR & HIT Summit”. This slight change in title is to help [...]
Electronic Medical Records: A Conversation
2014-05-09    
1:00 pm - 3:30 pm
WID, the Holtz Center for Science & Technology Studies and the UW–Madison Office of University Relations are offering a free public dialogue exploring electronic medical records (EMRs), a rapidly disseminating technology [...]
The National Conference on Managing Electronic Records (MER) - 2014
2014-05-19    
All Day
" OUTSTANDING QUALITY – Every year, for over 10 years, 98% of the MER’s attendees said they would recommend the MER! RENOWNED SPEAKERS – delivering timely, accurate information as well as an abundance of practical ideas. 27 SESSIONS AND 11 TOPIC-FOCUSED THEMES – addressing your organization’s needs. FULL RANGE OF TOPICS – with sessions focusing on “getting started”, “how to”, and “cutting-edge”, to “thought leadership”. INCISIVE CASE STUDIES – from those responsible for significant implementations and integrations, learn how they overcame problems and achieved success. GREAT NETWORKING – by interacting with peer professionals, renowned authorities, and leading solution providers, you can fast-track solving your organization’s problems. 22 PREMIER EXHIBITORS – in productive 1:1 private meetings, learn how the MER 2014 exhibitors are able to address your organization’s problems. "
Chicago 2014 National Conference for Medical Office Professionals
2014-05-21    
12:00 am
3 Full Days of Training Focused on Optimizing Medical Office Staff Productivity, Profitability and Compliance at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers Featuring Keynote Presentation [...]
Events on 2014-04-28
Events on 2014-05-06
DoD / VA EHR and HIT Summit
6 May 14
Alexandria
Events on 2014-05-09
Latest News

20% deceased wrongly marked alive in EHR

In a Californian healthcare system, nearly 20% of deceased patients were inaccurately labeled as alive in the electronic health record, leading to unnecessary outreach efforts. Researchers identified 676 patients at an academic health care system who were deceased but incorrectly marked as alive. Over 900 letters regarding unmet preventive care needs were sent to these misclassified deceased patients. Neil S. Wenger, MD, MPH, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), highlighted the issue’s solvability, citing a state database capable of identifying most deceased patients, but current regulations limit its access to financial institutions rather than healthcare institutions.

Wenger and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open that discrepancies in electronic health records (EHRs) often fail to indicate patient deaths, prompting their investigation into the proportion of active patients inaccurately marked as alive. The study involved analyzing EHRs of 11,698 seriously ill patients from 41 primary care clinics affiliated with UCLA, tracking them for two years or until November 2022. Comparing the EHR alive cohort against the California Department of Public Health Public Use Death File, they found 676 patients (5.8%) erroneously marked as alive in the EHR but deceased in the Death File. Of these patients, 80% had outstanding appointments or encounters, leading to 338 portal messages and 221 telephone calls. Deceased patients also received letters about unmet preventive care needs, mailed correspondence, vaccine and care orders, authorized medications, and maintained active appointments post-death. The researchers highlighted the impact on health management, billing, advanced interventions, and measurement, hindering the health system’s ability to learn from adverse outcomes and implement quality improvements. The study’s limitations include its single health system focus and modest follow-up period. Wenger emphasized that raising awareness may contribute to addressing this issue.