DOD/VA health IT demos find interface troubles
- By Peter A. Buxbaum
- Aug 13, 2008
A recent test of an automated system to streamline the credentialing of health care providers by the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments found no compelling business case for the system.
That was one of the conclusions of a series of joint demonstration projects conducted by DOD and VA, according to a report released by the two departments June 30.
The credentialing project, which took place in San Antonio, involved building an interface between DOD’s Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System and VA’s VetPro. The interface handled the first-time credentialing of providers for both departments.
The project was designed to eliminate duplication of effort when the two departments independently verify credentials on the same medical practitioners.
“Not only was there a lack of demand for the [information technology] capability, the cost saving with each use was shown to be marginal, and the nonfinancial impact did not provide a compelling case for automation,” the report states.
A project in El Paso, Texas, that involved the Laboratory Data Sharing Initiative revealed variations in the use of Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) codes.
The project involved three databases: CoPath (DOD’s pathology specimen analysis system), DOD’s Composite Health Care System (CHCS), and VA’s Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA).
Ambiguous SNOMED CT codes passing from VistA to CHCS to CoPath can generate messages that the collection sample is invalid. When that happens, the performing facility is unable to process the specimen, the report states.
The project also revealed ineffective communication regarding system updates. “DOD/VA [shared] IT solutions interface with multiple agency-specific systems,” the report states. “Any changes to these systems may disrupt the ability to share data.”
The projects were required under the fiscal 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. Other projects focused on budgeting, financial management and staffing and were conducted in the Puget Sound region of Washington; Anchorage, Alaska; Honolulu; Augusta, Ga.; and Hampton, Va.
About the Author