Comment

Patient Naming Policy

We will not reach complete and accurate interoperability until all of the industry follows the same naming standards. I support AHIMA's Patient Naming Policy to improve interoperability and patient safety.

Patient Naming Policy

I support AHIMA’s Patient Naming Policy to improve patient safety. 

Patient Naming Policy

Accurately determining patient identity is critical for patient safety and hospital operations. I support AHIMA's Naming Policy for accurate capture of patient names to reduce duplicates and overlays and support interoperability. 

Patient Naming Policy

I support AHIMA’s Patient Naming Policy to improve patient safety and also to decrease the financial burden of duplicate tests that are ordered when patient records cannot be assimilated.

Patient Safety

I support AHIMA;s Naming Policy to improve patient safety.

Patient Naming Policy

I support AHIMA’s Patient Naming Policy to improve patient safety.

Patient Naming Policy

I support AHIMA’s Patient Naming Policy to decrease the financial burden of duplicate tests that are ordered when patient records cannot be assimilated.

Patient Name Requiremts

I support AHIMA's Patient Naming Policy to improve patient safety in healthcare by utilizing the legal name as standard practice.

ACLA ISA comment re: Patient Names

Proposed guidance should not conflict with and must not supersede ANSI accredited standards already cited for federal adoption, for example by CMS or ONC that may be included in HL7 V2 standards such as the Meaningful Use Stage 1 citation of HL7® Version 2.5.1: Implementation Guide: Electronic Laboratory Reporting to Public Health (US Realm), Release 1 with Errata and Clarifications and ELR 2.5.1 Clarification Document for EHR Technology Certification.   Perhaps the ISA scope statement could contain a statement that the ISA does not intend to cite conflicting standards and any conflicts should be reported directly to ONC?             The ISA is not exhaustive, but it is expected to be incrementally updated to include a broader range of health IT interoperability needs. When more than one standard or implementation specification is listed it is intended to prompt industry dialogue as to whether one standard or implementation specification is necessary or if the industry can efficiently interoperate more than one. It may also reflect the fact that there is an ongoing transition from the use of one standard towards a new version or even a next-generation approach.    

AHIMA’s Patient Naming Policy

  • I support AHIMA’s Patient Naming Policy to increase the match rate of assimilating patient records resulting in a decreased financial burden of duplicate tests that are ordered when patient’s records fail to be assimilated due to poor match.