As many of you know and have reported, the performance, i.e. speed, of the
Health Maintenance tool has been absolutely lousy for the past few months. While we thought we had improved function a couple of months ago with the introduction of a new tool meant to speed up the loading of data, we soon found this had no effect. The idea was that this tool, called
Health Facts, would cache individual patient data so that each time you went to HM, the only data that would need to load would be those that had not previously hit the page. Well, whether that tool works or not,
Health Maintenance remains slow and dysfunctional.
We've been told by Cerner that
Health Maintenance "works as designed". So we now know that the design is faulty. What we have found out is that the tool is designed to find every clinical event that satisfies the health maintenance measure. (A clinical event is any result that we are counting, e.g. LDL.) So, while this isn't such a big deal for an event that occurs every 10 years (tetanus) or even every year (mammogram), a serum creatinine can occur dozens, even hundreds, of times in the lifetime of the patient (data exists for the past 5 years). We have found that there are patients who have had hundreds of these events and that the tool records each of these events to a so-called table. What would be considerably more reasonable would be that the last posted value be used to satisfy the HM expectation and so avoid slowing down the process of displaying the HM elements.
So the bad news is that, and we (meaning, Josh Wherry of IS fame and uber-talent) have haunted Cerner as much as is feasible. The system designers are aware of our dissatisfaction, but, because of evolving software code, are unable to make the fix for us.
But the good news is that we have a clear understanding of the bad news and that Josh has written a work-around piece of code. This will enable the HM tool to work effectively and efficiently until we are able to take on updated code from Cerner later this year. The fix, though, will involve a single hitch for it to work.
Without getting into any more detail than I already have, once this work-around is tested and then brought to a computer near you, one test will display in somewhat funky fashion: the creatinine. The test will show as an above-the-line expectation if not resulted within the past 365 days, but will
not display the last date that it was actually performed. Conversely, if the creatinine had been done in the last 365 days, such that the expectation has been satisfied, the date noted below the line will read incorrectly.
The better news is that the correct date of the creatinine, and presumably the performance of HM in general, will present "as designed" by the end of this year without the need for Josh's work-around.
Thanks Josh!