Moti­on Hum­bel (18.3650): Incre­a­sing pati­ent safe­ty with elec­tro­nic docu­men­ta­ti­on and elec­tro­nic exch­an­ge of medi­cal data

Moti­on Hum­bel (18.3650): Incre­a­sing pati­ent safe­ty with elec­tro­nic docu­men­ta­ti­on and elec­tro­nic exch­an­ge of medi­cal data

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to sub­mit a legal basis to Par­lia­ment that pro­vi­des for both the medi­cal pati­ent docu­men­ta­ti­on to be kept elec­tro­ni­cal­ly in a struc­tu­red form and for docu­ments rele­vant to tre­at­ment, such as pre­scrip­ti­ons, refer­rals and exami­na­ti­on reports, to be trans­mit­ted elec­tro­ni­cal­ly in a struc­tu­red form.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

The report of the expert group “Cost con­tain­ment mea­su­res to reli­e­ve the bur­den on com­pul­so­ry health care insu­rance” pro­vi­des for the aboli­ti­on of the dou­ble vol­un­t­a­ri­ness with regard to the use of the elec­tro­nic pati­ent dos­sier with mea­su­re 38. Regard­less of whe­ther the EPD beco­mes man­da­to­ry for phy­si­ci­ans or not, for ser­vice pro­vi­ders the obli­ga­ti­on must be crea­ted, Keep pati­ent docu­men­ta­ti­on elec­tro­ni­cal­ly and exch­an­ge data rele­vant to tre­at­ment elec­tro­ni­cal­ly. For coding and struc­tu­ring, inter­na­tio­nal com­mon stan­dards are to be applied as far as possible.

The obli­ga­ti­on to main­tain elec­tro­nic pati­ent docu­men­ta­ti­on rela­tes sole­ly to the main­ten­an­ce of an elec­tro­nic medi­cal histo­ry in a so-cal­led pri­ma­ry system such as a prac­ti­ce infor­ma­ti­on system. It forms the basis for coor­di­na­ted care and crea­tes the tech­ni­cal pre­re­qui­si­te for elec­tro­nic net­wor­king of the out­pa­ti­ent sec­tor. It crea­tes the pos­si­bi­li­ty for the EPD to be used at all.

Swit­ching from hand­writ­ten to elec­tro­nic data increa­ses the effi­ci­en­cy and qua­li­ty of ser­vice deli­very, con­tri­bu­tes to pati­ent safe­ty, and curbs costs. Inef­fi­ci­en­ci­es such as dupli­ca­te recor­ding of the same data, queries in the case of ille­gi­ble hand­wri­ting or resul­ting medi­ca­ti­on errors can be avo­ided. The right of pati­ents to recei­ve a copy of their medi­cal histo­ry can also be gua­ran­teed more easi­ly. With the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the moti­on, the goal of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of the Health 2020 Stra­tegy to avo­id medi­ca­ti­on errors and to ensu­re pati­ent safe­ty can be achieved.

Elec­tro­nic medi­cal records as well as the elec­tro­nic exch­an­ge of rele­vant pati­ent data con­tri­bu­te to qua­li­ty assu­rance, which is requi­red by KVG Artic­le 58 and will be enforced in a bin­ding man­ner with the KVG revi­si­on “Qua­li­ty and Efficiency”.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 5.9.18

Com­pared to other count­ries, the Swiss heal­th­ca­re system is only digi­ti­zed to a limi­t­ed ext­ent. This applies in par­ti­cu­lar to the out­pa­ti­ent medi­cal sec­tor. Only 35 per­cent of medi­cal prac­ti­ces keep tre­at­ment docu­men­ta­ti­on com­ple­te­ly elec­tro­ni­cal­ly. This is pro­ble­ma­tic inso­far as digi­tizati­on in the out­pa­ti­ent envi­ron­ment is sup­po­sed to con­tri­bu­te to incre­a­sing the qua­li­ty of tre­at­ment. In a stu­dy published in 2015 for Switz­er­land, 57 per­cent of all phy­si­ci­ans docu­men­ting elec­tro­ni­cal­ly said that the qua­li­ty of their work increa­sed when the prac­ti­ce was digi­ti­zed (Sima Dja­la­li et al, Undi­rec­ted health IT imple­men­ta­ti­on in ambu­la­to­ry care favors paper-based work­arounds and limits health data exch­an­ge, in Inter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Medi­cal Infor­ma­tics, 2015). Other count­ries requi­red phy­si­ci­ans to digi­tal­ly docu­ment care years ago (e.g.: Swe­den, Cana­da). An eva­lua­ti­on stu­dy of the bene­fits of digi­tal health infor­ma­ti­on from Cana­da shows posi­ti­ve impacts in terms of qua­li­ty, access, and pro­duc­ti­vi­ty (Gart­ner: Con­nec­ted Health Infor­ma­ti­on in Cana­da: A Bene­fits Eva­lua­ti­on Stu­dy, Report Pre­pared for Cana­da Health Info­way, April 2018).

The objec­ti­ve of the moti­on is in line with the health poli­cy prio­ri­ties of the Fede­ral Coun­cil to pro­mo­te the qua­li­ty of ser­vices and care by streng­thening eHe­alth in par­ti­cu­lar (Stra­tegy Health 2020 of Janu­ary 23, 2013). The joint stra­tegy of the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on and the can­tons, eHe­alth Switz­er­land 2.0 of March 1, 2018, is deri­ved from the Health 2020 stra­tegy, which in par­ti­cu­lar pro­mo­tes the intro­duc­tion and acti­ve pro­mo­ti­on of the elec­tro­nic pati­ent record. The can­tons are thus actively invol­ved in the ongo­ing work in the area of digi­ta­lizati­on of the heal­th­ca­re system.

The duty of care of medi­cal pro­fes­sio­nals under Artic­le 40 let­ter a of the Fede­ral Act of 23 June 2006 on the Uni­ver­si­ty Medi­cal Pro­fes­si­ons (MedBG; SR 811.11) also inclu­des the duty to docu­ment and keep a medi­cal histo­ry. It ser­ves to pro­tect pati­ents and is moti­va­ted by public health con­side­ra­ti­ons. Health poli­ce regu­la­ti­ons are the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the can­tons based on the con­sti­tu­tio­nal divi­si­on of com­pe­ten­ces (Art. 3 Fede­ral Con­sti­tu­ti­on of 18 April 1999 of the Swiss Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on; SR 101). Accor­din­gly, the can­tons have alre­a­dy regu­la­ted tre­at­ment docu­men­ta­ti­on on various occa­si­ons. It is the­r­e­fo­re up to the can­tons to trans­po­se the digi­ta­lizati­on pro­mo­ted in the eHe­alth Switz­er­land 2.0 stra­tegy into their own law.

In terms of health insu­rance law, the­se thrusts can be achie­ved with the bill on the Par­ti­al revi­si­on of the Fede­ral Health Insu­rance Act con­cer­ning the licen­sing of ser­vice pro­vi­ders (18.047), which is curr­ent­ly being dis­cus­sed in par­lia­ment. In future, the Fede­ral Coun­cil is to impo­se requi­re­ments in the out­pa­ti­ent sec­tor, par­ti­cu­lar­ly with regard to qua­li­ty and effi­ci­en­cy. One pos­si­ble ele­ment of qua­li­ty manage­ment could be the elec­tro­nic medi­cal history.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be