. . . due to “potential” problems (and the “potential” implications of those problems relative to patient safety) within Health Connect and what those “potential” problems may mean to current Kaiser members and, like all things that involve laws and interpretations of laws, this has NOT been a speedy thing to undertake.

The paragraph above (sorry, I have not followed the link to read the article) about finger-pointing instead of action is SOOOOOOOOOOO TRUE!!

I am attaching part of an email I wrote as the cover to a “Lessons Learned” document I submitted to Kaiser leadership last November–this is before finding out that our daughter’s medical records magically re-appeared (without a name, date, or MRN number at which point I stopped really trying to help Kaiser and “gave up” any hopes of things ever working out).

Anyway, for a small taste of what my opinion of Kaiser’s methodological weaknesses may be I am attaching part of the cover letter to my Lessons Learned doc, dated 11/10/2006:

The two most common reasons for a software implementation to have “issues” are 1) data integration requirements for all existing legacy systems are problematic and systems don’t “talk” to one another or 2) late in the game additional requirements and/or wishes are introduced, often times leading to a condensed time line for the creation and testing of those changes. Both will potentially impact the stability of a given system.

From an organizational change perspective, the two most common deterrents to effective change management are 1) lack of effective, overt executive sponsorship and 2) conflicting messages either in type or decree. All of these issues are evident in KPHC in some degree or another.

I still believe the major problem here is communication and the major communication problem is a lack of some measure of centralization and control of the release of information.

I disagree in principle with the manner in which we are conducting our testing; I am not referring to our team but rather the totality of entities involved in requesting, testing, and promoting code into a production environment. I realize this is not news that I disagree and I will continue to raise this as a concern as long as I believe it continues to be problematic. My analysis is attached

In a nutshell, all the ways in which a software implementation could go wrong I believe went wrong (WAY wrong) with Health Connect.

Saying this out loud is a “bold” thing to do but there is much much more that can (and should) be said.

But, if you believed that someone just stood by and watched your baby die would you maybe, just maybe, have an “agenda”. Well, based on that logic, I have an agenda with Kaiser Permanente. More, hopefully, yet to come . . .

You took the words right out of my mouth.

It doesn’t seem possible that they could win considering the outcome of the CMS investigation, but in the Kaiser alternate universe where they routinely falsify documentation to back up their cases, I guess anything could happen. JMO

We’re all waiting for karma to kick in, and when it finally does it will be a beautiful thing.