LinkedIn has emerged as one of the most important social platforms to collaborate, educate, network, and publish content. Professionals from around the globe use LinkedIn as a way to establish and cultivate relationships, leveraging its communication capabilities to establish relevance and demonstrate expertise on just about any topic you can imagine.
The relevance of biometric technology to improve patient identification and SSO in healthcare is a main focus of the new “Biometrics in Healthcare” LinkedIn Group.
LinkedIn “Groups” are an integral tool to categorize discussions that center on a particular topic or subject matter and a chance to learn and converse from some of the most trusted global experts in their respective fields. In that spirit, we have created a brand new LinkedIn Group centered on the use of biometrics in healthcare. Biometrics in Healthcarewas created to help advance discussions on the use of this technology for patient identification and single sign-on (SSO) in the industry but more importantly, it was established to help others understand and appreciate the benefits of using biometrics including:
Testimonials
Case studies
Examples of return on investment (ROI)
Technology updates
Clearing up misunderstandings on what biometrics can and can’t accomplish
We invite you to join the Biometrics in Healthcare LinkedIn Group and participate in the discussion. It’s your chance to ask questions, read more about how the use of biometrics is helping increase patient safety and improve data integrity across the industry and interact with professionals who understand the benefits and limitations of this technology.
Expect the significance and impact of biometrics in healthcare to grow in the coming years as more hospitals and healthcare organizations understand its value and flexibility. The new Biometrics in Healthcare LinkedIn Group will prove to be an important tool for healthcare professionals to use in their quest to research the technology and determine if their facility can benefit from its use.
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/LinkedIn-flickr-010917.jpg445800John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-08-31 18:09:402021-06-25 10:47:24Join the Biometrics in Healthcare LinkedIn Group
Accurate patient identification and data matching in healthcare to ensure patient safety along the care continuum is a complex challenge for most healthcare organizations. Common names, lack of proper ID, identity swapping, and the explosion of new patient touchpoints (mHealth apps, patient portals for example) to access personal health information (PHI) has created problems for organizations that still rely on antiquated methods of identifying patients and places them at a high risk of committing medical errors that could jeopardize patient safety.
The increased complexities of achieving accurate patient identification in healthcare raise questions about the most suitable strategies to implement. Join us on September the 10th from 1 – 2pm EDT for a free webinar on patient identification in healthcare.
Achieving accurate patient identification in healthcare is a key strategic goal of healthcare organizations across the industry as they continue to explore new technologies that have the ability to meet modern demands of the new digital health paradigm in the wake of the shift to a patient-centered wellness approach and a push to better understand the individual patient. Unified views of patient data across any care setting is a growing necessity despite the variability in data capture methods, systems, and a lack of patient identification industry standards.
In the absence of a unified view of patient data, healthcare organizations will continue to make medical errors with incomplete or inaccurate information. Access to accurate, complete PHI is one of, if not the most vital component to deliver quality, cost-effective care and the only way to accomplish this is to establish accurate patient ID at the point of registration/access so the patient’s entire medical history supports immediate care or a wellness event. Complete and accurate medical histories must be linked to any point along the care continuum to truly achieve patient-centered care.
Join us on September the 10th for a free webinar on the state of patient identification in healthcare and a comprehensive overview of strategies and technologies healthcare organizations can use to improve and sustain accurate patient ID. Plus, we will address the growing use of biometrics for patient ID, explain how it’s being used, and what return on investment (ROI) hospitals have realized since implementing it at their facilities.
Topics covered during the free one-hour webinar include:
• The current state of patient identification in healthcare • Patient identification challenges • Using biometrics for patient ID across the care continuum
Join us on September the 10th from 1pm – 2pm EDT as we explore the topic of patient identification in healthcare and offer an overview of how biometrics is a viable solution to increase patient ID accuracy and patient safety along the care continuum.
Tell a friend or colleague! This is your chance to learn from experts in patient identification, ask questions, and engage in the discussion. Have a question you would like to ask during the webinar? Please visit the webinar landing page to sign up and leave your question or write it in the comments below.
Looking forward to seeing you on September the 10th!
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/free-webinar-2.jpg445800John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-08-25 16:52:312021-06-25 10:29:03Free Webinar: The State of Patient Identification in Healthcare
The explosion of mHealth apps and patient portals for PHI access demands more modern patient and clinician identification technologies than user names and passwords.
The following guest post was submitted by Michael Trader, President and Co-Founder of RightPatient®
The rise of digital health tools for PHI access
Encouraging patients to take a more active and engaged role in their healthcare has been a key focus of healthcare providers in the wake of Meaningful Use requirements. What began as an industry mission with specific benchmarks and goals has since manifested into the actual use of myriad digital tools and platforms that are educating, engaging, and working to empower patients to increase accountability and responsibility for their own health and, when applicable, the health of their families. In fact, a recent HIMSS survey on how mobile apps and portals improve patient engagement indicated that on the provider side:
73% of organizations used app-enabled patient portals to increase consumer participation in their overall health and wellness goals as well as meet relevant Stage 2 and Stage 3 Meaningful Use requirements under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.
Nearly half of those polled stated that “implementation of mobile services for access to information is a high priority at their organization.” Additionally, more than half – 57 percent – indicated that their facility implements a mobile technology policy, which often has a focus on mobile health security capabilities.
About one-third of polled healthcare organizations stated that they provide “organizational-specific apps” to the patient community.
One important facet in the goal to improve patient engagement is providing easier and faster access to personal health information (PHI). Manifested through Meaningful Use Stage 2, the benchmark is stated as:
The idea is for healthcare providers to reach beyond traditional means of accessing PHI (think in person visits) and adopt digital health tools for easier, faster, and more convenient ways of accessing this data (think patient portals and provider mHealth apps). In concept, increasing the availability of tools and platforms to access PHI is a good thing — it caters to increasing patient demand to offer greater PHI accessibility through resources that offer more convenience and are in lockstep with the rise of the digital health movement. However, the explosion of digital tools for PHI access carries an inherent risk that patient identities will be compromised, stolen, or shared leading to a sharp increase in fraud and medical ID theft that poses a direct threat to not only patient safety and provider medical error liability, but also to the rising cost of healthcare. Not to mention the fact that the rising use of digital tools to access PHI compromises patient data integrity which is critical to maintain because of the ripple effect it has on the ability to provide accurate care along the continuum and the confidence it represents to successfully participate in health information exchanges (HIEs).
Keep in mind that each time a perpetrator commits healthcare fraud or medical ID theft, the fallout of legal fees, settlement costs, and expenses to restore an identity are passed down to ALL patients in the form of higher fees for medical services. Therefore, collectively there is a pressing need to ensure that adoption of stricter and more secure methods of patient identification must run parallel to the rise in digital tools and platforms for safe access to PHI. Otherwise, patients may not be as willing to use these tools for fear of medical ID theft or unlawful access to their PHI data which directly compromises their safety, security, and privacy.
Monetary damages are only the tip of the iceberg for healthcare organizations when discussing the impact of fraud and medical ID theft. It was been well documented that reputation can be negatively effected when patients perceive or a data breach confirms that healthcare providers are not taking the necessary action to increase PHI access security.
How can we correlate an increase in quality patient engagement with secure PHI access? Patient engagement is, without a doubt, a key linchpin to the success of healthcare’s triple aim. Simply stated, it is not possible for the healthcare industry to achieve the goals of lower costs, an enhanced patient experience, and improving population health in the absence of strong and sustainable patient engagement.
Securing PHI access for higher levels of patient engagement
Scour the internet for articles that cover patient willingness to use digital health IT tools to access PHI and you will discover that despite the industry wide effort to adopt tools that provide more convenient and faster access to medical data, few patients are actually doing so. In fact, a recent survey revealed that just 21% of respondents said they use the Web to access their health data. Meanwhile, 10% said they use e-mail and 40% view the data in person.
The reason behind patient unwillingness to use mHealth tools and portals for PHI access runs the gamut from dissatisfaction with mobile health applicationsto challenges in finding and using instructions, data inaccuracy, and device malfunctions or data syncing issues. Furthermore, issues related to poor mHealth app and portal securityhave hampered more widespread adoption of these tools and stoked patient fears that their privacy could be compromised by using them.
Setting aside those with opinions that privacy can never exist in the healthcare industry, the link between patient confidence and trust that their identities and PHI are protected when using mHealth apps or patient portals is palatable and has a direct effect on their willingness to use these tools as part of their overall care.
First, it’s important to distinguish the difference between “privacy” and “security” as it applies to healthcare data. HIMSS does an excellent job of breaking down the differences:
“Privacy” is the right of an individual to make choices with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of their data; “security” is the safeguards – physical, administrative and technological – used to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the data. Because the challenges are many, there is a tendency to focus on “security” in mHealth. Patient privacy cannot be achieved without adequate data safeguards; however secure devices do not necessarily preserve patient privacy.
One of the largest impediments to widespread adoption of mHealth tools, portals, and other digital health platforms is inadequate mobile security policies that fail to take into account the necessity of adopting more modern patient identification tools that are commensurate to the data they protect. For example, most healthcare providers continue to use user name and passwords to protect patient identities when using mHealth tools and portals. While these may have once been permissible security protocols in the past, these identity verification methods are now considered antiquated and should be replaced. Even though user names and passwords have proven to no longer be secure enough to protect patient identities, almost all healthcare providers still rely on their use for mHealth apps and patient portals.
Secure PHI access requires modern patient and clinician ID technology
If healthcare providers expect patients to adopt mHealth tools and patient portals as a more convenient way to access PHI, the implementation of stronger and more secure identification technology is critical. Most healthcare security experts agree that due to the large amount of PHI data moving across provider locations via mHealth apps and patient portals, stronger security is needed to prevent data breaches if a patient’s identity is compromised. Plus, the increasing complexity of mHealth apps and their distinct ability to sync PHI data across multiple devices raises important questions about how to properly protect patient privacy to ensure HIPAA compliance for these new tools.
Securing PHI access is not limited to patient interactions with mHealth tools or patient portals however. A sound strategy to secure mobile and remote access to this sensitive data is required not only for patients, but also for any clinician that has access to mobile technologies. A 2014 HIMSS Analytics Mobile device study reported that:
…approximately one-quarter of US hospitals (28 percent) reported that smartphones are in use at their organization. On average, 169 devices are deployed per hospital. In comparison, 24 percent of US hospitals reported that tablet computers are in use at their organization, with an average of 37 devices deployed per hospital. (source – https://capsite.himssanalytics.org/assets/Uploads/2014-Mobile-Essentials-Brief-TOC12914.pdf)
Healthcare organizations must plan to implement a technology that has the flexibility to be used for secure patient and clinician identification, usually through a strategic combination of a strong single sign-on (SSO) platform to establish strict identification checks and provide a concrete audit trail of data access history with an enterprise-wide patient ID solution to secure remote access to PHI from mHealth apps and patient portals. The modern identification technology of choice for many healthcare providers to meet the rising demand for tighter security to access PHI is biometrics.
Lack of a strong PHI access policy can also have a negative impact on provider reputation. In a recent report on medical identity theft by The Ponemon Institute, 79% of patients surveyed said it is “very important” for healthcare providers to ensure the privacy of health records and allow them to have direct control of their health records.
Why biometrics?
The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires healthcare organizations to secure remote access to PHI data as a safeguard for patient privacy and to eliminate data breaches that can lead to fraud and medical identity theft. Once considered secure identification criteria, user names and passwords are now considered antiquated and unable to offer strong protection to secure PHI access largely due to the fact that:
Most patients don’t want to worry about memorizing a complex password and thus default to using a simplistic password that’s easily guessable.
Most patients use the same password for many accounts, resulting in one key that unlocks dozens (or hundreds) of doors.
Most patients don’t even keep their passwords in secret. Everything from Netflix accounts to bank accounts to web accounts to video game accounts are often shared between friends, family members, and even strangers.
The use of biometrics for individual identification poses a much more secure and flexible technology to address the pressing need for healthcare to adopt stricter PHI access security protocols. Why?
We have written extensively about the applicability of biometric patient identification to improve patient safety in healthcare. Biometrics relies on identifying patients and clinicians by who they are, rather than what they have (ID badges) or what they know (user names, passwords) which can be more easily stolen or shared. Biometric identification technology is a more secure method to identify patients in self-driven interactions by allowing them to use the camera or microphone on their smartphone or tablet and use facial or voice recognition biometrics for accurate authentication. Biometrics offers more flexibility and convenience because it has the ability to be implemented at patient touchpoints where user name and password entry would be cumbersome and inappropriate — home health settings for example.
The use of biometrics for identification also offers a concrete PHI access audit trail, a more accurate tracking mechanism than user names or passwords which can easily be shared and often skew analytics because it’s impossible to determine the actual individual using the credentials. This is important because litigation often relies on these audit trails used in the defense of medical identity theft or healthcare fraud claims.
Conclusion
Participation in portals and the use of mHealth and other mobile apps to access PHI is a key catayst to increase patient engagement in healthcare. Patients must have the confidence in their healthcare provider that their PHI is easily accessible and protected with the strongest authentication security on the market that ensures their privacy and safety. User names and passwords are no longer sufficient authentication credentials to meet the expanding need to offer a more flexible, scalable, and more secure identification technology for mHealth apps and patient portals.
Equally important is protecting clinician access to sensitive PHI data. Protocols must be implemented that abandon user names and passwords in favor of technologies such as biometrics that are more secure, less susecptible to being stolen or shared, and leave a concrete PHI data access audit trail.
Have questions about the use of biometrics for patient identification in healthcare? Feel free to leave a comment or question below.
The following guest post was written by Brian Bilia, Enterprise Sales Consultant with RightPatient®
More Schools Using Non-Contact Biometrics for Individual Identification
In case you missed it, this week Virginia Commonwealth University announced the implementation of iris recognition in their on-campus dining halls for student identification. In addition to presenting a safer and more secure way to identify students the deployment according to the article, the initiative is designed to be:
“…helpful for students who forget or lose their IDs over the weekend, as there is not a way to get a replacement card over the weekend.” (USA Today, “New iris cameras at Va. school scan students’ eyes for entry into dining hall” http://usat.ly/1L4cbWb)
If schools adopt iris biometrics for student ID based on it’s non-contact, hygienic form factor, shouldn’t the healthcare industry offer the same protection to patients?
The article goes on to report that one of the main reasons Virginia Commonwealth and another schools chose to deploy iris recognition was because of its non-contact, hygienic feature:
“VCU is following in the steps of other schools — including George Mason University — which introduced the eye scanning system last year. Both schools opted for the this non-contact form of biometric technology — as opposed to a fingerprint scanner — because it is less invasive and won’t spread germs.” (USA Today, “New iris cameras at Va. school scan students’ eyes for entry into dining hall” http://usat.ly/1L4cbWb)
Essentially, hygiene played a critical role in determining which biometric modality the school would use for student identification. Due to the fact that iris recognition does not require physical contact with a biometric device, it presents one of the most hygienic hardware options available, keeping end users safe from the spread of germs and illness that could otherwise be a risk when using a contact dependent modality such as fingerprint or palm vein recognition. The fact that schools continue to adopt iris recognition for identification due to it’s hygienic, non-contact features begs the question — shouldn’t hospitals adopting biometric patient identification tools be investigating non-contact biometric modalities too?
Non-Contact, Hygienic Biometric Patient ID in Healthcare
In the healthcare industry, patient safety is the #1 priority. Rising conscientiousness about new strategies to keep patients safe rise combined with the explosion of digital health tools has pushed hospitals to re-assess hospital acquired condition (HAC) control policies and implement new platforms and monitoring programs that provide a safer and more hygienic environment for patient care. In addition, new policies by Medicare now penalize hospitals with high HAC rates raising the level of urgency to adopt digital health tools that support hospital infection control policies.
In lockstep with the urgency to increase patient safety in any possible way, hospitals and healthcare organizations are quickly catching on to the benefits of using biometrics for patient identification as a means to increase patient safety but what they are also discovering is that not all biometric hardware modalities have the ability to offer a non-contact, hygienic experience. Biometric hardware that requires physical contact by a patient can be interpreted as non-hygienic and raises the risk of HAC’s if the device is not properly sanitized after each use. Even when properly sanitized, these devices still pose a threat to patient safety due to the fact that cleaning agents do not have the ability to remove 100% of germs or bacteria.
Despite the advantages of using iris recognition for patient ID in healthcare, certain stigmas exist about this technology that may make a healthcare organization hesitant to adopt. Many feel that iris recognition is too invasive and beams visible light into a patient’s eyes to determine their identity. In reality, iris recognition is often confused with retinal scanning which does use visible light for identification. Iris recognition instead uses camera technology with subtle infrared illumination to acquire images of the detail-rich, intricate structures of the iris. It’s 100% safe, and our field research has proven that patients are overwhelmingly accepting of using iris recognition for identification when presented with the option to protect them from duplicate medical records, fraud, and medical ID theft.
Iris recognition has proven to be one of the most popular biometric modalities for individual identification for a number of reasons, including it’s non-contact, hygienic form factor that protects end users from germs and bacteria that otherwise exist on alternative biometric hardware devices. Hygiene has a rising influence in determining which hardware modality is utilized in biometric identification management projects, and the advantages of using iris recognition biometrics has positioned the technology for strong adoption growth in the years to come.
How important is hygiene to you when selecting a biometric hardware modality?
Brian joined RightPatient in July 2015 as Enterprise Sales Consultant for the Midwest Region. Prior to RightPatient, Brian held several roles in sales management and new business development achieving over 15 years of experience working with the healthcare/hospital industry.
Understanding the value of using a biometric patient identification solution that offers a choice of multiple biometric modalities is key to a better understanding of how this technology can truly increase patient safety in healthcare.
The following guest post was written by David Cuberos, Enterprise Sales Consultant with RightPatient®
On many occasions throughout the course of conversations with different hospitals and healthcare systems, the question of which biometric modality to deploy for a biometric patient identification management project always surfaces. After all, choosing which biometric hardware modality to deploy is a critical factor for patient acceptance and efficient system performance – metrics that have a significant impact on the success and return on investment (ROI) of the initiative. More often than not when our customers and community get an in depth look at the variety of biometric hardware modalities we offer compared to other alternatives, they are curious about why we would support multiple devices instead of just one, and what the pros and cons are of each. The answer uncovers an important, but not frequently discussed attribute of biometric patient identification solutions that hospitals and healthcare organizations should be aware of.
Experience in Biometrics and Health System Integration Matters
The origins of RightPatient®’s biometric matching technology trace back 13 years through the experience and global track record of managing both small and large scale biometric identification management projects in many different industries by our parent company M2SYS Technology. As a proven innovator and expert in biometric matching technology, our experience has taught us that the success of these initiatives is largely dependent on ensuring that the biometric modality used matches the unique needs of our end users, offers the flexibility to change or add a modality in the future, has the ability to be customized prior to launch, and is easily scaled up as the deployment grows.
Experience in managing biometric identification management projects has also taught us the importance of using human factor engineering as part of our system design process based on understanding what makes a task easy for hospital staff and what makes it hard in order to ultimately develop biometric tools that would support healthcare organization goals. Deployments became more about identifying solutions that would cut down on “human error” and providing biometric hardware and software systems that fit employee need and workflow and less about deploying a solution that used the most popular and well known technology and relied on traditional conventions.
Ergonomics have become more influential in biometric patient ID system design, and training curriculum was refined to reflect the sources of expert performance, and how hospital staff acquire expertise in working with biometric identity systems. And perhaps most importantly, biometric deployments based on human factor engineering are designed to make systems more resilient in the face of shifting demands.
Hardware diversity, patient identification mobility, and back end databases that use certain biometric matching types are the only way that hospitals will be able to reach pre-deployment defined goals of eliminating duplicate medical records/overlays, preventing medical ID theft/fraud, and increasing patient safety. The biometric hardware chosen for a deployment has a direct effect on achieving these goals which is why it becomes a critical decision in the overall project scope.
The Problem of “Locking In” to One Biometric Modality System Platform
Biometric vendors who only offer a choice of deploying one biometric modality system for a patient ID initiative are hamstrung by the limitations of the device manufacturer. In other words, they “lock” you into using one biometric modality system that inhibits the ability to expand a deployment to meet the new realities of identifying patients in healthcare – biometric patient ID systems must now be able to offer patient identification at new touchpoints along the care continuum (e.g. – smart mobile devices, patient portals, and telehealth) and not just accurate ID at the point of service. Biometric patient ID systems that rely on one biometric modality can’t offer this flexibility because they can’t identify patients in these scenarios and often times, hospitals who deploy these solutions must either make another investment in a system that does have this capability, or risk not addressing how to offer accurate patient identification for the aforementioned new patient touchpoints – a risk that could have extremely negative repercussions should a patient be mis-identified or a clinician misses key patient health data missing from their medical record.
Deploying a biometric patient authentication system that offers a variety of modalities is the only way a hospital can meet the increasing complications of ensuring accurate identification along the care continuum at new touchpoints, using voice or facial recognition biometrics for smart mobile devices as an example. Absent of this flexibility, hospitals and healthcare organizations are running the risk of non-authorized individuals accessing sensitive personal health information (PHI), or medical information not being attributed to the proper records which is a direct threat to patient safety and an extreme liability.
The ability to establish and maintain patient data integrity is also called into question when locking into a single biometric modality system. The holy grail of patient data integrity is to achieve 100% accuracy, cleanse a master patient index (MPI) of any duplicate medical records/overlays, and then have the ability to maintain that level of integrity as the database grows. Since single biometric modality systems do not have the ability to address accurate patient identification at all touchpoints along the care continuum, hospitals and healthcare organizations run the risk that a care event will either be administered to the incorrect patient, or medical data could be accessed and stolen by an unauthorized individual. Deploying multiple biometric modalities such as facial and voice recognition to address accurate patient ID at ALL touchpoints is the only way that true patient data integrity can be established and maintained.
Conclusion
As the biometric identification management industry continues it’s rapid pace of evolution and expansion parallel to the evolution and expansion of new patient touchpoints to access medical data and services, hospitals and healthcare organizations should be thinking of deploying a solution that leverages multiple modalities that can accurately identify patients no matter where they are. The only way to accomplish this is the use of a biometric patient ID solution that offers a choice of modalities and a high degree of flexibility for deployment to address various patient touchpoints along the care continuum.
Don’t fall into the trap that a one biometric modality system will be sufficient to ensure accurate patient ID and a high level of patient data integrity across the care continuum. Learn more about how a choice of biometric hardware modalities for patient identification in healthcare is a smarter investment that will truly help hospitals and healthcare organizations achieve the goals that measure the success of the initiative.
Partnering with a vendor that has deep experience in biometric identification management technology, a strong track record of healthcare system integration experience, and a history of innovation is the only way to achieve the results you expect.
What patient ID challenges have you experienced that were solved by the use of multiple biometric modalities? Please share your comments below.
David Cuberos is an Enterprise Sales Consultant with RightPatient® helping hospitals and healthcare organizations realize the benefits of implementing biometrics for patient identification to; increase patient safety, eliminate duplicate medical records and overlays, and prevent medical identity theft and healthcare fraud.
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/flat-remote1.png565566John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-08-10 18:50:062022-08-26 10:16:45Why We Offer a Choice of Hardware Modalities for Biometric Patient ID
The following post was submitted by Brad Marshall, Enterprise Development Consultant with RightPatient®
As someone with a long track record of implementing enterprise IT solutions in healthcare, I frequently observe hospitals “shuffling the project deck” as they compare and contrast the merits and return on investment (ROI) of each initiative in order to determine which makes the most sense to allocate budget dollars. Does politics at times play a part in the decision of which technology projects eventually get approved? Yes, at times. Are there often misinterpretations of the value that an enterprise IT project can offer in both the short and long term? Absolutely. Do hospitals often place a high priority on implementing projects that in reality, should be pushed further down the list in lieu of the value that another project brings to the table? Definitely.
Are healthcare organizations evaluating the proper criteria to prioritize enterprise IT Projects?
Case in point: the implementation of biometrics for patient identification in healthcare. Although I am obviously biased towards this technology since I work for a company that has helped many hospitals throughout the world see the benefits of using it to increase patient safety, prevent duplicates and overlays, and protect patients from medical identity theft and fraud, it doesn’t alter the facts about how implementing biometrics before making a commitment to other competing enterprise software projects is something more healthcare organizations should consider. Why? Let’s look at some specific examples of alternate enterprise project implementations that would actually benefit and see performance improvements if a biometric patient identification project deployment took preference:
1. EHR Projects – Although the implementation or “switch” to another EHR vendor is perhaps one of the most complicated, time consuming, and resource-intensive enterprise software projects a healthcare organization will ever undertake, the implementation of a biometric patient identification system prior to embarking on an EHR project is a smart idea. Why?
Our experience has shown that there is always an uptick in duplicate medical records when you are initially implementing or switching to a new EHR system, primarily because staff are adjusting to new workflows and are less likely to catch duplicates the first few months. Since duplicate medical records present a direct threat to patient safety and a serious treatment error risk to healthcare organizations, their prevention should be priority #1 for any modern EHR system.
I am not necessarily advocating the push for budget dollar allocation to biometric patient identification over an EHR project, however implementing a biometric patient identification solution before an EHR Go Live will make it more successful by immediately eliminating the possibility of creating duplicate medical records and overlays and prevent staff from making registration and patient identification mistakes while learning the new system.
2. Duplicate Medical Record “Clean-Up” – Often times, I run across hospitals that may be evaluating the implementation of a “duplicate medical record clean-up” project prior to deploying biometrcis for patient identification. Without discounting the importance of purging duplicate medical records from any EHR database, the argument for why hospitals should consider the use of biometrics for patient identification is clear — healthcare organizations will successfully perform a “de-duplication” cleanup but continue creating duplicates until they implement stronger patient ID technology and will most likely have to do another cleanup down the road.
Keep in mind that it only takes one – ONE – mistreatment at the hands of incorrect, missing, or incomplete medical data due to duplicates or overlays to result in harm, or possibly even death of a patient. Ask yourself, are you willing to assume the risk of medical errors to patients and the repercussions (which often can include hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in legal fees and compensation) of these errors for the short term gain of a “clean” master patient index (MPI)? Chances are, you aren’t willing to take that risk which leads to a stronger argument to implement biometrics for patient ID prior to launching a duplicate medical record clean-up initiative.
3. Big Data and Analytics – These are project priorities that perhaps perplex me the most, especially in the context of establishing higher data integrity when preparing to join a health information exchange (HIE), or as part of a merger that joins separate Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs). If a healthcare organization is seeking to allocate budget dollars to initiatives that advance data integrity, that’s good news. No one will argue that the healthcare industry simply has to better understand and find wisdom in the terabytes of data their systems possess to help advance the “triple aim” and deliver higher quality care, especially as more disparate networks are attempting to share data . However, the problem is that allocating budget dollars to these deployments is the quintessential “cart before the horse” mentality.
Instead of placing more emphasis on cleaning existing “dirty” data, healthcare organizations are rushing to the HIE table for fear of losing a seat or appearing indifferent to their patients and the industry wide push on sharing and making health data more accessible. What good is joining a HIE (or merging IDN’s) in the absence of technology that ensures that not only is the data you share clean and all medical data is properly attributed to the correct patient, but also guarantees that the data will STAY clean to give you the confidence that clinicians truly have a complete picture of a patient’s health and medical history when administering care.
I’m reminded of a story that is a perfect illustration of why implementing biometrics for patient ID should take precedence over many other health IT projects, especially those that address data quality.
Years ago I worked for a local YMCA that had a leaky roof over the gymnasium. Each time it would rain heavily, staff would be scrambling to place buckets around the gym floor that would strategically catch the water leaking from the roof. The leaks would cause event and class cancellations, disrupt workout schedules, and generally leave paying members feeling a bit frustrated. YMCA management then made a decision to replace the aging, wooden gym floor with a new model that was built with a soft rubber substance – a radical new technology that was supposed lower the impact and strain of running on a hardwood surface. They then spent tens of thousands of dollars replacing the floor, and as you may have guessed, the next time a powerful storm came through, it leaked water all over the new gym floor. The irony in this situation of course is that management should have allocated the funding to fix the roof before they had the new floor installed.
As we continue to help the healthcare industry understand the advantages of implementing biometrics for patient identification, we understand that many healthcare organizations are not flush with cash to haphazardly allocate to any enterprise project that comes down the road. There are many mission critical projects that simply take precedence in the broader scope of improving the quality of care. Shouldn’t the deployment of biometrics for patient identification be one of them?
Brad Marshall is an Enterprise Development Consultant with RightPatient®. With several years of experience implementing both large and small scale biometric patient identification projects in healthcare, Brad works closely with key hospital executives and front line staff to ensure project success.
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RightPatient-is-the-right-solution-for-accurate-patient-identification.jpg445800John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-07-29 19:20:442021-06-24 10:58:45Biometric Patient Identification Implementation Should Be Higher On The Priority List
As more hospitals adopt iris recognition for patient identification, it is important to establish a hardware maintenance initiative to maximize return on investment.
The following guest post was submitted by Joe Kubilius, Director of Product & Process Management at RightPatient®
1. Hygienic/Non-Invasive – Iris cameras do not require physical patient contact to capture biometric credentials, ensuring a safe, hygienic environment and drastically lowering the risk of patients acquiring hospital borne illness through the spread of germs and bacteria. In addition, no visible lights or lasers are used when capturing a patient’s biometric credential – they simply have their picture taken.
2. Accuracy – Iris recognition is widely considered to be the most accurate form of biometrics across the entire industry. The iris offers more detailed input when constructing biometric enrollment templates than fingerprints or facial recognition and represents one of if not the most unique biometric credential of the human body. The chances of two people having the same iris pattern is 10⁷⁸! Plus, iris recognition relies on one to many biometric matching — the only true way to prevent duplicate medical records/overlays, identify unconscious patients, and prevent medical identity theft and fraud at the point of enrollment.
3. Stability: Did you know that the human iris completely forms at 10 months of age and remains stable throughout your life? Just about every other human biometric attribute can change over time which has a negative impact on system performance and possibly requiring frequent re-enrollment.
4. Speed – Iris recognition is extremely fast, typically returning results in 3 seconds or less even for databases containing millions of records.
As hospitals increase their use of iris recognition, it’s important to remember that hardware maintenance is key to maximizing ROI and avoiding hardware replacement costs. Responsible investments in biometric solutions requires establishing an ongoing hardware maintenance initiative to ensure longevity and optimal system performance.
How to clean an iris camera
Even though patients do not come into direct contact with an iris camera, staff may have limited positioning contact with the device to ensure it properly captures quality photographs. Plus, considering the fact that these devices are used in a healthcare environment, patients or staff may accidentally sneeze or cough on or near the camera causing a need to disinfect. What’s important to remember is that these devices are digital cameras and just like any other biometric hardware device used within a hospital setting, need periodic maintenance to ensure optimal performance. Here are the proper steps to clean an iris camera:
Materials Needed:
Use either a 70%~83% Ethanol mix solution or 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) as the cleaning agent
Only use a microfiber cloth to clean the camera
Steps:
Apply a small amount of ethanol to microfiber cloth and wipe with care but do not rub too hard
Wipe camera with a dry microfiber cloth
Cautions:
Rubbing with pure alcohol could run the risk of removing the paint or finish from the camera
Do not use disinfection medicine with Benzene, Methanol and Acetone as a cleaning solution on the camera
Conclusion
Properly maintaining biometric hardware is key to maximizing ROI and eliminates fees for replacement cameras. Plus, to achieve optimal system performance that ensures patient enrollment success and 100% identification accuracy requires ongoing maintenance that includes cleaning the iris camera when needed. We hope these tips have been helpful!
Joe Kubilius is Director of Product and Process Management with RightPatient®. With over 10 years of experience in the design, development, and implementation of biometric identity management solutions, Joe has been integral to the success of hundreds of large and small scale deployments across the globe.
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/S1110024.jpg15362048John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-07-15 06:00:062015-07-20 04:46:53How to Properly Clean an Iris Camera
One of the hallmarks of an efficient and value-added biometric patient identification vendor is its ability to offer a choice of biometric modalities to deploy. If you prefer to use fingerprints for biometric patient identification, there are some important factors to consider when assessing hardware to ensure patients can be easily enrolled and accurately identified. Fingerprint biometrics has evolved over the years, and there are many new scanners available that offer distinct advantages over legacy models, most notably the use of dual finger scanners over single image capture devices.
Let’s explore why dual fingerprint scanners pose a greater advantage for patient identification in healthcare.
Considering the use of fingerprints for patient ID in healthcare? More hospitals are evaluating the advantages of dual fingerprints over single image capture devices.
Dual vs. Single Fingerprinting
Is there a difference? Absolutely. Deciding to use a dual vs. a single fingerprint reader for patient ID in healthcare is a smart decision for several reasons:
1. Higher accuracy & reliability: Dual fingerprint readers have the ability to capture two single prints simultaneously, offering enhanced accuracy for identification and verification versus single-finger scanners. A two fingerprint scanner is also more effective at guiding a patient to scan consistently. Patients can touch a single finger in various ways which could lead to more frequent cases of false-no-matches. However, with dual fingerprint readers, patients can’t make these scanning inconsistency mistakes because the device will not return a match (or non-match) unless fingers are properly placed on the scanner.
Dual fingerprint readers offer many more advantages than single image devices including higher accuracy and reliability.
2. Eligibility: Since approximately 10% of the patient population can’t consistently provide high-quality images for enrollment or identification, adding a second finger to a biometric template decreases the percentage of patients who are unable to successfully use fingerprints for identification. Skin integrity can be affected by factors such as age, environment, and working conditions and is an important factor for the success off a biometric fingerprint patient ID deployment. Remember, the end goal for any biometric patient identification deployment is to enroll as many patients as possible to maximize system value, so the fewer patients that are eligible to enroll, the higher the risks are for misidentification which can lead to duplicate medical records/overlays, medical ID theft, fraud — all direct threats to patient safety.
Plus, dual fingerprint readers are considered to be more effective devices to read dry, blurred, wet, damaged, or scarred fingers that diverse patient populations can have.
3. Durability: Most dual fingerprint readers are designed and built to be versatile hardware devices with durability to be used in high throughput environments such as healthcare that can endure long-term heavy use before the end of their life cycle. Single fingerprint readers have a shorter shelf life, and must be replaced more often due to their less durable construction.
4. Affordability: Despite their clear advantages over single image fingerprint readers dual fingerprint readers remain affordable hardware devices for patient ID in healthcare. Dual fingerprint readers for patient ID in healthcare also retain a small form factor to allow their affordable, widespread distribution throughout a health network.
5. Versatility: Dual fingerprint scanners enjoy the same versatility as single print devices to be deployed in a host of different environments including use with mobile devices, an increasingly important environment to ensure accurate patient ID along the entire care continuum.
Curious to see a dual fingerprint reader in action? Take a look at this demo video to learn more about their advantages and how they work:
Considering the use of fingerprints for patient ID? What other questions do you have that we can answer?
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Fingerprint_detail_on_male_finger.jpg450800John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-07-13 21:33:442021-06-24 10:08:24The Advantages of Dual vs. Single Fingerprints for Patient ID in Healthcare
Last week, word came from Washington D.C. that the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME) included language in a letter written to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions that accentuated the importance of accurate patient identification as a key component to ensure patient safety. In the letter, CHIME CEO Russell Branzell wrote:
“The accurate and effective matching of patients with their healthcare data is a significant threat to patient safety. We must first acknowledge that the lack of a consistent patient identity matching strategy is the most significant challenge inhibiting the safe and secure exchange of health information. As our healthcare system begins to realize the innately transformational capabilities of health IT, moving forward toward nationwide health information exchange, this essential core functionality consistency in patient identity matching must be addressed.”
Did CHIME’s recent letter to Congress stressing the importance of establishing a national patient identifier light a fire under the government to act?
Kudos to CHIME for resurrecting this issue and calling intention to its importance in the scope of the new healthcare industry paradigm of fluidly sharing patient data both in and outside of healthcare networks to advance to goal of improving both individual and population health. In their letter, CHIME and Branzell also recommended that Congress remove the prohibition levied on HHS every year since 1999 that prohibits the use of federal funds for the development of a unique patient identifier.
CHIME’s actions are extremely significant in the overall scope of inching closer to the establishment of a national patient identification credential because they are arguably the most influential healthcare lobbyist on Capitol Hill representing the general views of over 1,400 members around the world, many of which are healthcare CIOs — a very powerful voice in health IT. The root of the patient identification problem at hand stems from multiple sources – lack of industry standards, a lack of consistency on how patient data is collected, and the public’s perception that they don’t have to show ID when accessing healthcare, just to name a few. Couple that with the aggressive push to establish concrete interoperability between healthcare systems for the seamless exchange of patient health data and you can see where the conundrum lies.
We have always thought that initiatives set in motion by the healthcare industry championing interoperability have always been sort of a “cart before the horse” scenario. Realistically, how can the healthcare industry expect to achieve meaningful interoperability when one of the core issues to reaching that goal (accurate patient identification) gets little to no attention as a key factor in its success? Furthermore, lack of a sustainable, federated patient identification credential inhibits progress towards the “triple aim” of healthcare — improving the patient experience, improving population health, and reducing the per capita cost of care.
Think the situation could get more complex? Don’t worry, it does. When you factor in the explosion of patient touchpoints permeating the healthcare market (e.g. mobile devices, patient portals, mhealth apps), the patient identification issue becomes much more stickier. As the multitude of channels patients can now submit and access health data to grows, any national patient identification solution must have the ability to address accurate patient identification at each and every touchpoint patients come in contact with. No longer interactions in strictly brick and mortar environments, administering care to patients has slowly evolved in lockstep with the rise of digital health capabilities, pushing the urgency to implement stricter patient ID protocols in an effort to ensure accuracy and safety.
Data accuracy in healthcare is unlike data accuracy in any other industry. Consumers can always rectify banking errors for example, but errors in interpreting inaccurate or missing health data can be matters of life and death adding even more urgency to solving the patient identification dilemma.
As we move closer towards opening the door even wider to advanced discussions on the issues surrounding patient identification within the U.S. healthcare system, you can bet that CHIME will continue to be a strong voice and influential entity to mold and shape future policies that address the need to establish more accuracy at each point along the care continuum.
What are your thoughts on CHIME’s statements to Congress? Will their efforts help left the moratorium? Please let us know in the comments below.
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fire-alarm.jpg445800John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-07-06 20:02:092021-06-24 09:45:52CHIME Breathes New Life Into Patient Identity Crisis in Healthcare
Although the use of biometrics for patient ID is not a new concept, many are still unaware of its benefits.
The following post on patient identification in healthcare was submitted by Jeremy Floyd, Healthcare Director at RightPatient®
We were excited at the chance to again participate in the Healthcare Financial Management (HFMA) trade show held this week at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando. Attendance was brisk, the exhibit hall was packed with vendors displaying the latest technological health IT solutions, and attendees were excited to learn and explore for new opportunities to improve revenue cycle management, coding, and business analytics. As is the case with all conferences and trade shows the RightPatient staff attends each year, we approached the event as a means to learn more about the unique needs of hospital CFO’s, revenue cycle managers, and all those who have a hand in healthcare finance, plus have a chance to demonstrate our own products and services as part of a concerted strategy to improve patient identification in healthcare and to address all of the ancillary conditions that lack of an accurate patient ID strategy can bring to the industry. Here is a recap of what we learned:
The benefits of deploying biometrics for patient identification resonate well beyond patient safety, and include a direct impact on revenue cycles and billing. Many of our existing customers have already seen a direct correlation between accurate patient identification and the revenue cycle, demonstrated in their ability to more accurately bill for services rendered, and offer a concrete audit trail of services provided in cases of dispute.
2. Many still feel that patients will not accept or participate in a biometric identification initiative: As we recently outlined in a blog post, our field research indicates that over 99% of patients accept the use of iris biometrics for identification and willingly enroll in the RightPatient system after they understand what it is being used for, how it protects their safety and privacy, and the protection if offers against medical identity theft and healthcare fraud. Patients do understand the use of biometrics for identification, contrary to popular belief that the technology will be only tepidly accepted.
3. Experience matters: Several people we spoke with at this year’s HFMA ANI show indicated their unwillingness to adopt biometrics for patient identification from a vendor with a short track record, an absence of real world experience in biometric technology, and a customer base that doesn’t include large hospital networks with complicated infrastructures and a wide network. Fortunately, RightPatient has this experience and a deep customer base of both large and small healthcare networks, a platform that already has pre-built versions compatible with all the major EHR providers (Epic, McKesson, CPSI, Meditech, and Cerner®). Plus we offer additional benefits to our biometric patient identification solution such as:
A HIPAA compliant SaaS cloud service designed to create a single, ubiquitous, federated patient identity
A seamless interface with IBM’s Initiate® platform to assign a unique, single patient identity profile across an Enterprise Master Patient Index (EMPI) kept authentic through our biometric matching system
The ability to secure remote personal health information (PHI) data access to safeguard patient privacy and help prevent data breaches that can lead to fraud and medical ID theft
We had a very positive experience at this year’s HFMA ANI conference and would like to thank the HFMA staff and all attendees we met for helping us to continue our mission of bringing biometrics for patient identification to more healthcare organizations throughout the world!
Jeremy has worked in the biometrics industry for nearly a decade and has real world experience with fingerprint, palm vein, finger vein, iris and face recognition technologies. He currently oversees the RightPatient™ Healthcare division of M2SYS Technology, including sales, business development and project management. Before taking over the Healthcare unit, Jeremy spearheaded the growth of the core biometrics division, working closely with Fortune 500 clients like ADP, JP Morgan & BAE Systems to implement biometrics in large identity management projects.
https://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/dreamstime_m_48771449.jpg13652048John Traderhttps://www.rightpatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RightPatient-Logoup.pngJohn Trader2015-06-26 14:51:092022-08-26 08:31:33Lessons Learned at this Year's HFMA ANI Conference
