More docs gravitating to cloud-based EHRs

May 15, 2012 — 2:41pm ET | By Marla Durben Hirsch via FierceEMR.com

Physician practices are turning to Software as a Service (SaaS) electronic health record systems--and have several good options to choose from, according to a new report from Orem, Utah-based healthcare research firm KLAS.

The study, in which more than 290 providers using SaaS ambulatory EHR systems were interviewed, reported that SaaS EHRs are becoming increasingly popular. "These systems appeal to small organizations that want low maintenance, a quick go live, and small up-front investment," the report noted. "Providers must also be comfortable with clinical and patient data being stored off-site and limited flexibility in the system."

• EHR response time, such as the loading time between clicks
• Customer support, such as frequent updating and enhancements
• Product quality/usability
• "Bang for the buck", i.e. attractive pricing

The top ranked SaaS vendor/product was CureMD EMR, followed closely by Practice Fusion, athenahealth athenaClinics, MIE WebChart EMR, MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics Care 360 EMR, and Sevocity EMR.

One downside to SaaS EHR products, according to the report, is that many of them do not also offer practice management solutions. Of the top six products, only CureMD and athena sell practice management products in tandem with their EHR systems.

The report corroborates trends in hospitals, which also are embracing cloud computing for their EHR and HIE use.  Gartner recently predicted that cloud computing will take center stage by 2014.

Read more: More docs gravitating to cloud-based EHRs - FierceEMR http://www.fierceemr.com/story/more-docs-gravitating-cloud-based-ehrs/2012-05-15?utm_campaign=twitter-Share-NL#ixzz1v9ZesuL2
Subscribe: http://www.fierceemr.com/signup?sourceform=Viral-Tynt-FierceEMR-FierceEMR

amednews: Small medical practices greatly at risk for data breaches :: Jan. 16, 2012 ... American Medical News

from amednews: Small medical practices greatly at risk for data breaches :: Jan. 16, 2012 ... American Medical News:

Data breach experts are issuing a warning to small practices -- don't be the vulnerable target that data thieves assume you are.

The Top Cyber Security Trends for 2012, as compiled by Kroll's Cyber Security and Information Assurance, reported that small practices are more susceptible to security vulnerabilities because they are "the path of least resistance." Many rely on outdated technology. Basic security protections, such as proper use of encryption, often are overlooked as practices focus on meeting regulatory requirements, such as those related to meaningful use. (See correction)

• Links
• See correction
• See related content

Small practices often lack the technical sophistication to know what tools to put in place to avoid attacks, said Jason Straight, managing director of Kroll's Cyber Security and Information Assurance unit. Or they have the right tools, but the tools are not implemented or monitored correctly, he said. One example is having incorrectly installed data encryption.

Large organizations have become more "hardened," meaning they spend more money to safeguard their data, said Beth Givens, founder and director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an education and advocacy group that has tracked publicly reported data-breach trends across all industries since 2005. "It only stands to reason [that data thieves] would go after small practices," she said.

Breach experts have long said medical data are among the most valuable because of the depth of the information. To thieves, small organizations are often the easiest source of this data because they lack the sophisticated security measures used by their larger counterparts. Because nearly three-quarters of practices are one- or two-doctor operations, there are simply more of them to target compared with large organizations. The advice given to practices is to take steps to ensure they aren't the victims of a breach.

The costs of a breach

Three of the six most significant data breaches in 2011 occurred at health care organizations, resulting in 11 million patient records being put at risk, according to a year in review report published in December 2011 by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Givens said medical data are valuable to thieves because of "the triple whammy" -- sensitive medical information, financial data and other identifying data that can be used for identity theft.

3 of the 6 biggest data breaches of 2011 were at health care organizations, putting 11 million patient records at risk.

When a breach occurs, the practices are faced with the cost of notifying all of the affected patients and usually paying for identity theft and credit monitoring for them. The per-patient costs associated with a breach have risen to more than $200 in 2011 for notification and loss of income, according to the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research center based in Traverse City, Mich.

Many breaches also bring to light deficient IT systems that the practice must replace immediately. In addition, the practices could face fines from the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Although breaches at large medical organizations often get more media attention because of the sheer number of records involved, that shouldn't be an indication that small practice owners are in the clear, experts say.

It's hard to put an exact number on small practice breaches because breaches generally are categorized by industry and not broken down by practice size, Givens said. There's also a good chance many of the breaches in small practices aren't reported because they don't fall under the state or federal reporting requirements. For example, California doesn't require the reporting of paper breaches, and HHS doesn't require the reporting of breaches affecting fewer than 500 people.

A query of the HHS breach database and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse's database shows dozens of cases involving individual physicians and small medical practices that were victims of cyber attacks in 2011. Cases include the hacking of network servers, office burglaries, inside data thefts, and incidents caused by information technology problems that may have been malicious attacks or errors that resulted in data exposure. Givens said she is sure there are "a lot more breaches than are posted on our website."

[Continue Reading]

101 Tips to Make Your EMR and EHR More Useful – EHR Tips 1-5

101 Tips to Make Your EMR and EHR More Useful – EHR Tips 1-5

Written by: John (from http://www.emrandehr.com/)

Time for the next entry covering Shawn Riley’s list of 101 Tips to Make your EMR and EHR More Useful. I can’t believe that this is the last post in the series. I think it’s been a good series chalk full of good tips for those looking at implementing an EHR in their office. I’d love to hear what people thought and if they’d like me to do more series like this one. Now for the final 5 EMR tips.

5. Automatic trending helps all over the place – A picture is worth a thousand words and this is never more true than when we’re talking about trending. Make sure your EHR software can quickly take a set of results and/or data points and graph them over time.

4. Keep training over and over – Are you ever done learning software? The answer for those using an EMR is no. Part of this has to do with the vast volume of options that are available in EMR software. However, the training doesn’t necessarily have to come from formal training sessions. Much of the training can also come by facilitating interaction and discussion about how your users use the software. By talking to each other, they can often learn from their peers better ways to use the software.

3. Infrastructure is key to performance – I love when people say “My EMR is Slow” cause it’s such a general statement that could have so many possible meanings. Regardless of the cause of slowness, the EMR is going to get the blame. For those wanting to dig in to the EMR slowness issue, you can read my pretty comprehensive post about causes of EMR slowness. I think you’ll also enjoy some of the responses to that EMR slowness post.

Infrastructure really matters when someone is using an EMR all day every day. There’s no better way to kill someone’s desire to use an EMR than to have it be slow (regardless of who’s responsible).

2. Quit pulling charts as soon as possible – I think this tip should be done with some caution. In certain specialties the past chart history matters much more than in others. Although, it’s worth carefully considering how often you really look through the past paper chart in a visit. You might be surprised how rare it is that you really need the past paper chart. If that’s the case, consider only pulling the chart when it’s needed. If you only find yourself looking through the past paper chart for 2 or 3 key items, then just have someone get those 2 or 3 items put into the EMR ahead of time. Then, it will save you having to switch back and forth. Plus, then it’s there for the next time the patient visits.

1. Crap process + Technology = Fast Crap – Perfect way to end 101 EMR and EHR Tips! I like to describe technology as the great magnifier. The challenge is that it will magnify both the good and bad elements of your processes. Fix the process before you apply the technology.

If you want to see my analysis of the other 101 EMR and EHR tips, you can find them all at the following link: 101 EMR and EHR tips analysis.

Point of No Return?

May 12, 2008 By Annie Macios, For The Record, Vol. 20 No. 10 P. 14

A pair of studies raises concerns about the viability of implementing mobile, point-of-care solutions.

As healthcare documentation becomes more automated and streamlined, technology enters into the equation across the continuum of care—including at the point of care. Mobile documentation at the point of care can do wonders for workflow and documentation; however, its implementation is not without challenges.

Two recent reports by the Spyglass Consulting Group—“Healthcare Without Bounds: Point of Care Computing for Nursing” and “Healthcare Without Bounds: Point of Care Computing for Physicians”—highlight the current state of mobile computing in hospitals and ambulatory care. They present the findings of an end-user market study focused on the adoption of point-of-care computing by physicians and nurses across the United States.

The reports uncover strong opinions gleaned from more than 200 in-depth interviews regarding the opportunities and challenges for adopting computing solutions at the point of care. It also identifies the market drivers, trends, opportunities, and challenges in using mobile computing devices.

According to the survey, clinicians believe the right point-of-care computing device depends on physical location, urgency of the situation, tasks to be performed, complexity of the required applications, and, most importantly, personal preferences. Gregg Malkary, founder and managing director for Spyglass Consulting Group, says there is really no ideal device for point-of-care computing thanks to these variables.

Smartphones/PDAs
While viewed by physicians as an ideal device for communicating, managing personal and clinical workflows, and accessing stand-alone, reference-based tools, smartphones are used by fewer than 14% of the physicians interviewed to access single-function clinical applications for managing patient data, prescribing medications electronically, and capturing patient billing charges.

There is a big push for physicians to use smartphones and PDAs for accessing clinical applications, but the study shows that doctors are not using it in this way because screen size presents a problem. “If given a choice between a 2- X 2-inch screen or a full-size terminal, they’ll choose the full-size screen,” says Malkary. For that reason, he says smartphones/PDAs currently have limited clinical utility but great potential.

Tablet PC
Tablet PC use varies based on the environment. “For the hospital-based clinician, it is too heavy and its battery life is only two to three hours for what is often a 10- to 12-hour workday,” says Malkary. Tablet PC applications resemble DOS applications, and with wireless networks there are often dead zones because of poor handoffs within the hospital. According to the report, more than 90% of nurses are reluctant to use the tablet PC for bedside nursing.

In an ambulatory environment, however, tablet PCs are more prevalent and have more widespread adoption because there is limited geography. Malkary says the tablet PC is more convenient in this setting because there are usually no more than 30 steps between offices rather than the five or six miles that hospital-based clinicians may encounter during an average shift. Financials also come into play in ambulatory settings, where doctors are more financially motivated to use tablet PCs because they pay for them themselves, according to Malkary.

Mobile Clinical Carts
Patient safety concerns have driven 56% of the healthcare organizations represented in the Spyglass Consulting survey to implement departmental initiatives that include mobile computer carts. Ideally, these carts enable nurses to generate structured clinical documentation, automate safety checks and procedures through bar code technology, access information on demand, automate the collection of vital sign data, facilitate real-time communication among all care team members, and practice evidence-based nursing.

Mobile clinical carts, also known as computers on wheels (COWs), are the workhorse of hospital-based nursing. Unfortunately, while the cart is mobile, it is usually left in the hallway due to space limitations in hospital rooms. Another reason for COWs’ lack of use at the site of care is that it is not yet required by hospital administration. However, “That will change as medication administration moves to bar coding,” says Malkary.
According to the survey, rather than COWs, nurses prefer to use a fixed station for documentation. “If they can find a terminal every 10 yards, they will use those instead,” says Malkary. He also notes that nurses often do their documentation on paper first and then input the report afterward.

Wall-Mounted PCs
According to the survey, these devices are gradually replacing COWs as a more useful point-of-care computing tool. Ironically, COWs have helped establish wall-mounted PCs. “The good thing about the COWs is that they let you know where to put a fixed station,” says Malkary.

Putting Them Into Practice
While smartphones, tablet PCs, mobile clinical carts, and wall-mounted PCs offer opportunities for point-of-care computing, the pitfalls associated with these devices sometimes overshadow the benefits. Malkary says better communication can help overcome many barriers. “Facilities have to develop a better solution and get the clinicians involved in the process. IT makes recommendations on the technology, but they also need to understand the clinical workflow,” he says.

Malkary says getting clinicians involved in the decision making for such devices will improve the chances of implementing a user-accepted solution and, ultimately, improve workflow, patient care, and patient safety.

The physician survey suggests that widespread adoption of these devices depends on how practitioners perceive their use. When looking to increase the adoption of point-of-care computing technology, Malkary says the investment a facility is able to make, as well as the return on investment, are important factors to consider. “In looking at the investment perspective, you have to ensure the technology will deliver an automated hardware, software, infrastructure, and workflow solution,” he says. “If you only automate the current system that you have, that helps, but you have to automate across the board for the adoption to be more widespread. It all comes down to eliminating inefficient processes.”

Malkary says the point-of-care device selected at a particular facility depends on the investment an organization can make. With IT investments, facilities usually start with an electronic medical record (EMR) and a digital infrastructure. EMR deployment usually takes a significant amount of capital and includes many subsystems, leaving little left in the budget for items such as point-of-care computing technology. “But the requirements of doing documentation at the point of care need to be automated, and it takes a lot of deployments and experimentation to get to a point where it works most efficiently,” says Malkary. By coming up with standardized solutions that work facilitywide, the adoption of these devices can potentially increase, he adds.

Communication overload can interfere with practitioners’ ability to get the clinical information they want when they want it. “The devices offer a lot of support tools for doctors, but they [physicians] also get flooded with a lot of alerts and reminders to respond to. If physicians click off an alert in an effort to go straight to the clinical data, then they have added liability should some medical situation arise from that alert,” says Malkary.

Citing inefficient processes as a common difficulty of effectively employing mobile computing, Malkary finds that a facility’s technical infrastructure is often inadequate to support work from point-of-care devices. “Security is a big impediment, especially when a physician might need to know 10 or more user names and passwords because security is made so stringent. A doctor might have to log in 80 to 90 times a day, which is an unrealistic expectation,” he says.

Infection Risk
According to the survey, 65% of physicians say they fear infection if they use mobile computing devices at the point of care, a 160% increase from 2005.

“Point-of-care computing devices are a large vector of contamination, and hand washing is the key to reducing the risk of infection. It’s a real infection control risk, but it’s not always been seen as a risk,” says Malkary. He notes that perceptions are changing now that Medicare is no longer paying for medical mistakes such as infection caused within the hospital.

Success Stories
While the news from the Spyglass surveys is not encouraging, the deployment of mobile computing technology is working at some facilities. Medstar Health in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C., region and Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital in Parkersburg, W.Va., are examples of how point-of-care computing devices can be successfully deployed in healthcare facilities big and small.

MedStar Health, the largest healthcare system in its region, introduced mobile devices to its physicians in 1998 and has experienced success with the technology since then. Included on Hospitals & Health Networks’ list of the top 100 most wired hospitals for four consecutive years, MedStar is a nonprofit, integrated system that includes a community-based network of eight hospitals with more than 5,000 physicians.

Used at five of the system’s eight hospitals, PatientKeeper, which is deployed on Palm Treo smartphones, helps physicians collect and input charges at the point of care. As any healthcare administrator knows, being paid appropriately and in a timely manner is an integral part of keeping a healthcare facility running smoothly—a fact that physicians are also keenly aware of. “We are able to provide the hospitalist physicians with patient billing demographics through an interface, and it provides a much more efficient and effective way of capturing inpatient charges,” says Suzanne Carter, Medstar’s vice president of information systems customer service.

Staci Parks, the project leader for the PatientKeeper initiative, says physicians responded positively to the technology, which allows them to view and act on information. Its applications give physicians the power to access patients’ electronic records, write prescriptions, enter charges for services, document patient encounters, and send messages securely to other caregivers in a single, integrated environment available at the point of care.

The most noticeable benefit has been capturing a more effective charge cost, mitigating the problems associated with misplaced paperwork, and the lapse in time between the point of care and documentation. Benefits are also realized on the administrative side, where the practice management staff know instantly which patients the doctors have seen. “The entire process has been sped up,” says Parks, who adds that the initiative will expand to additional facilities within the system and into surgical specialty areas.

Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, a 375-bed facility that is also listed among the top 100 most wired hospitals, as well as one of the top 25 most wireless facilities, adopted mobile computing carts approximately six years ago. Within the last 16 months, after a long discovery process and a one-month trial with multiple carts, Camden-Clark adopted Artromick mobile computing carts to replace more bulky, cumbersome equipment that wasn’t being used as much as it otherwise might be.

Nursing informatics analyst Kerry Cottrell works with the nursing staff on a daily basis and has seen firsthand the improved workflow and time savings the new mobile computing carts have offered the hospital. Among the benefits Cottrell reports are the ability to use the carts at the bedside, the additional area for charting that is decentralized from the nursing station, and the capability to provide readily accessible information in a timely manner.

“It improves efficiency by allowing one-time documentation at bedside rather than once at bedside then again at the nursing station. The nurses are using them pretty extensively—a lot more than ever before,” says Cottrell, adding that it saves time for nurses, who can quickly access information over the wireless network and no longer have to save their charting until a computer is available at the nursing station. The new mobile computing carts are so efficient, in fact, that the old ones are no longer at the facility, says Cottrell.

Besides being easy to use, Cottrell says the carts are ergonomically efficient and adjustable, easy to move and control, and have a better, more easily rechargeable battery life than those on previous carts, all adding to the overall acceptance and successful implementation of the technology.

— Annie Macios is a freelance writer based in Doylestown, Pa.

SaaS EHR Down Time vs. In House EHR Down Time

Posted: 09 Aug 2011 03:26 PM PDT on www.emrandehr.com

As part of my continuing series of posts about EHR Down time (see my previous Cost of EHR Down Time and Reasons Your EHR Will Go Down posts), I thought it would be interesting to look at how a SaaS EHR down time is different from an in house EHR down time.

I’ll use the list of reasons your EHR go down as my discussion points for how it’s different with a SaaS EHR versus an in house EHR. On each point, I’ll see if either approach has an advantage over the other.

Power Outage – Certainly a power outage will impact both types of EHR implementations. If your computer or router doesn’t have power, then it doesn’t matter where your EHR is hosted. However, many clinics use laptops which can run for quite a while without being plugged in. Plus, a small UPS for your network equipment is pretty cheap and easy to implement.

However, a good UPS for your own server will cost a bit more to implement. Plus, the UPS won’t likely last very long. Most UPS are there to give you enough time to power down your system properly or to handle a short power outage. Of course, in this case we’re talking about a small clinic implementation. I have done an EMR implementation where we had some nice UPS and even a backup generator. However, this is the exception.

Conclusion: Slight Advantage for the SaaS EHR

Hard Drive Failure – Certainly the failure of a hard drive in your desktop machine will affect both types of EHR install equally. So, that part is a wash. However, the hard drive failure on your local server is much more of an issue than a SaaS EHR vendor. At least, I’ve never heard of a hard drive failure causing an issue for any SaaS software vendor of any type. Both in house and SaaS EHR implementations can implement redundant hard drives, but SaaS EHR vendors have to implement redundant servers.

Conclusion: Advantage SaaS EHR

Power Supply Failure – This one is similar to the Hard Drive failure. I know a lot of EHR vendors that have their clinics buy an in house server that doesn’t have redundant power supplies. I can’t imagine a SaaS EHR vendor buying a server without redundant power supplies even if the redundancy is across servers.

Conclusion: Advantage SaaS EHR

Network Cable – Cables can get pulled out of switches just as easily as servers. So, I conclude that it will affect SaaS EHR and in house EHR the same.

Conclusion: Tie

Switch/Router – Loss of a switch/router will cause either a SaaS EHR or in house EHR to go down.

Conclusion: Tie

Motherboard Failure – An in house server only has one motherboard. If that motherboard fails, you better hope you have a great tech support contract to get a motherboard to you quickly (For example, Dell has a 4 hour support contract which is amazing, but pricey). Certainly a motherboard can fail for a SaaS EHR as well, but since they likely have multiple servers, they can just roll the users over to another server while they replace the motherboard.

Conclusion: Advantage SaaS EHR

EHR Software Issue – This is a hard one to analyze since a software issue like this could happen on either type of EHR install. It really has more to do with the EHR vendor’s development and testing process than it has to do with the way the EHR software is delivered.

You could argue that because the SaaS EHR is all hosted by he company, they will be able to see the issues you’re having first hand and will have tested on the hardware they have in place. A client server/in house EHR install could be on a variety of EHR systems that the EHR vendor didn’t know about and couldn’t test as they developed and deployed the system. So, I could see a slight benefit for the SaaS EHR system.

However, one disadvantage to the SaaS EHR system is that they are hosting it across dozens of servers and so when something goes wrong on a server it’s sometimes hard to figure out what’s going wrong since all the servers are the same. Maybe that’s a bit of a stretch, but we’ve all seen times when certain users of a service are down, but not others.

Conclusion: Maybe a slight advantage to SaaS EHR

Internet Outage – This one is the most clear cut benefit to an in house server. When your internet connection goes down, the in house server keeps plugging along no problem. Loss of your internet connection with a SaaS EHR is terrible. No doubt that’s often the greatest weakness of a SaaS EHR. Although, it can be partially mitigated with multiple internet connections (ie. wired internet and wireless broadband internet).

Conclusion: Advantage In House EHR

I have to admit that I didn’t realize going into this analysis that it was going to be a landslide for the SaaS EHR. Although, that’s quite clear from this analysis. When it comes to EHR down time, the SaaS EHR is much better. Unless, you live in an area where the internet connection is unreliable and slow. Then, you don’t really have much choice since SaaS EHR needs a reliable internet connection.

It’s also worth noting that this article only talks about how EHR down time relates to SaaS EHR versus in house EHR. There are certainly plenty of other arguments that could be made for and against either implementation method such as: speed, privacy, security, cost, etc.

Riding the HIPAA Wave

Posted on ACROSEAS.com by Dr.Charu A Chitalia

Every act or a statute conveys an objective to be achieved. The objective of HIPAA, which stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is to protect patient security and privacy. An act introduced by the U.S Congress in 1996, and augmented April of 2003, HIPAA was predominantly focused on easy portability of patient health information (PHI) for easy health insurance coverage in spite of shifting jobs and locations.

The concept of “portability” brings an increasing thrust on “accountability.” The portability of health information is beneficial to the patient, the physicians who record and refer back to the patient’s history and the insurance companies  which settle the medical claims of the patient. Because HIPAA is used as a resource by three different parties, the risk of information breach is very high. It is a practice-driven policy where extra care needs to be taken during the transfer and storage of information. It is to be noted that for any kind of transfer, the form of the record is vital. The implementation of HIPAA paved the way for electronic versions of the patient health records (PHRs), which required an urgent enforcement of technology based regulations.

Come 2009, the heat was felt and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, part of the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), was signed in the month of February by President Obama and was to come into affect by 2010. This emphasized the need and importance of going paperless when it came to PHRs. This brought in a practical way of implementation of HIPAA and gave it more importance to take affect.

All the three acts — HIPAA, HITECH and ARRA — collaboratively focus on tightening the healthcare screws when it comes to patient information, use of technology and its benefits, and the penalties in cases of non-compliance. It is to be noted that prior to the enactment of HITECH, HIPAA was looked at as a mere set of rules and regulations on paper. The proposed requirements under the HIPAA were so stringent that it wasn’t practical enough to implement. For example, HIPAA requires the exchange of information through a secured encrypted email carrier. However, in reality, the healthcare professionals typically preferred the convenience of the act, rather than the security it provided. The professionals were known to use cell phones and personal laptops, which would not only overlook a secured network, but also force other issues like loss of data, attacks and malicious activities by the hackers and other third-party intruders. Previously, saying that one’s record-keeping method was “HIPAA compliant” may not have been strictly true, even though it’s clear that being so is only good option.

As we are into another decade and the legions of law are looming over the healthcare industry, it is only advisable to stay put to non-fraudulent practices and monitor every move. Because the eyes of the healthcare police are on us and they wouldn’t blink in today’s age.

Study: Patients believe EMRs bring accuracy to their records

From: www.healthcareitnews.com April 21, 2011 | Healthcare IT News Staff

TAMPA, FL – The majority of patients and physicians have a positive perception of electronic documentation, according to a survey conducted by Sage Healthcare Division, a unit of Sage North America.  

“The adoption of electronic health records has grown in recent years as the U.S. government’s incentive plans and the benefits of these systems are realized by more and more office-based physicians,” said Betty Otter-Nickerson, president of Sage Healthcare Division. “The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics estimates that more than half of office-based physicians have adopted a basic EHR, while more than 10 percent have adopted a fully functional system, such as Sage Intergy EHR. The results of the study will help Sage Healthcare design solutions that maximize the benefit to physicians and their patients.”

The Sage Healthcare Insights study examines the effect of implementing an electronic health record system on both physicians and their patients. The purpose is to understand how the perceptions of physicians who use EHR systems differ or are similar to the perceptions of the patients who recall seeing their physician use the system. According to the study, patients felt more comfortable with physicians that used an EHR system, and more importantly, felt that the information contained in the medical record was more accurate when they physically saw information being entered electronically. “What we learned is patients like to see their verbatim information entered into the record as they said it, not as the doctor interpreted it,” added Otter-Nickerson.

For Key Findings, [Continue Reading] article on www.healthcareitnews.com

If Doctors Bought EMRs Like They Buy Cars…

Written by: Katherine Rourke on www.emrandehr.com

You know, when you think about an EMR purchase, it’s obvious that there’s plenty of technical considerations involved.  But the truth is, when it comes down to it, most doctors will never need to know anything about APIs or coding or middleware before they pick out a system. They just want the EMR to work.

The thing is, they’ve already made a big investment in technology before — maybe lots of times — even though they probably know little or nothing about how the gears really mesh. I’m talking about automobile buying, of course.  I sort of doubt a single doctor has ever sat through a Webinar on the difference between anti-lock and regular brakes, the advantages of added cargo room or the physics of improved gas mileage. But they still buy cars, don’t they?

No, like everyone else, I’m sure your average doctor takes in commercials, makes a few mental notes as to how the promised benefits fit into their world, digests the information a bit and then goes shopping. At that point, they’re briefed on what features the car has, and tell the salesperson whether that works for them.  Ultimately, they buy something that fits their budget, their needs and probably, their self-image too.

Now, an EMR isn’t a fashion statement — while cars most decidedly are — but in other ways, the purchasing process should be similar.

After all, the software they’re choosing should be as utilitarian as an SUV. They should come to the buying process knowing what needs they’re trying to address (in a car, say, the ability to haul big objects, or in an EMR, being able to enter patient notes quickly and clearly). Hopefully, they have a sense of how they’re going to use their EMR on a day-to-day- basis, as they obviously do when they’re car shopping.

And with any luck, they’ll also know what ongoing problems they’re trying to solve, be they managing the flow of laboratory results, making sure they’re reminded to follow up on preventive care, looking at the health of their patient population and so on.

If a practice knows these things, they won’t be blinded by a blizzard of technical terms or worry about whether they’re on version 2.15 of the latest build. They won’t have to spend much time debating over whether a SaaS or client-server solution makes more sense. They’ll just want to get the job done.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to get to that point when a technology comes in looking all scary, complicated and expensive.  But as any one who’s ever bought a new car knows, you can always take the damned thing back.