Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

Big Brother Or Best Friend?

Posted on April 9, 2014 I Written By

Kyle is CoFounder and CEO of Pristine, a VC backed company based in Austin, TX that builds software for Google Glass for healthcare, life sciences, and industrial environments. Pristine has over 30 healthcare customers. Kyle blogs regularly about business, entrepreneurship, technology, and healthcare at kylesamani.com.

The premise of clinical decision support (CDS) is simple and powerful: humans can’t remember everything, so enter data into a computer and let the computer render judgement. So long as the data is accurate and the rules in the computer are valid, the computer will be correct the vast majority of the time.

CDS is commonly implemented in computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems across most order types – labs, drugs, radiology, and more. A simple example: most pediatric drugs require weight-based dosing. When physicians order drugs for pediatric patients using CPOE, the computer should validate the dose of the drug against the patient’s weight to ensure the dose is in the acceptable range. Given that the computer has all of the information necessary to calculate acceptable dose ranges, and the fact that it’s easy to accidently enter the wrong dose into the computer, CDS at the point of ordering delivers clear benefits.

The general notion of CDS – checking to make sure things are being done correctly – is the same fundamental principle behind checklists. In The Checklist Manifesto, Dr. Atul Gawande successfully argues that the challenge in medicine today is not in ignorance, but in execution. Checklists (whether paper or digital) and CDS are realizations of that reality.

CDS in CPOE works because physicians need to enter orders to do their job. But checklists aren’t as fundamentally necessary for any given procedure or action. The checklist can be skipped, and the provider can perform the procedure at hand. Thus, the fundamental problem with checklists are that they insert a layer of friction into workflows: running through the checklist. If checklists could be implemented seamlessly without introducing any additional workflow friction, they would be more widely adopted and adhered to. The basic problem is that people don’t want to go back to the same repetitive formula for tasks they feel comfortable performing. Given the tradeoff between patient safety and efficiency, checklists have only been seriously discussed in high acuity, high risk settings such as surgery and ICUs. It’s simply not practical to implement checklists for low risk procedures. But even in high acuity environments, many organizations continue to struggle implementing checklists.

So…. what if we could make checklists seamless? How could that even be done?

Looking at CPOE CDS as a foundation, there are two fundamental challenges: collecting data, and checking against rules.

Computers can already access EMRs to retrieve all sorts of information about the patient. But computers don’t yet have any ability to collect data about what providers are and aren’t physically doing at the point of are. Without knowing what’s physically happening, computers can’t present alerts based on skipped or incorrect steps of the checklist. The solution would likely be based on a Kinect-like system that can detect movements and actions. Once the computer knows what’s going on, it can cross reference what’s happening against what’s supposed to happen given the context of care delivery and issue alerts accordingly.

What’s described above is an extremely ambitious technical undertaking. It will take many years to get there. There are already a number of companies trying to addressing this in primitive forms: SwipeSense detects if providers clean their hands before seeing patients, and the CHARM system uses Kinect to detect hand movements and ensure surgeries are performed correctly.

These early examples are a harbinger of what’s to come. If preventable mistakes are the biggest killer within hospitals, hospitals need to implement systems to identify and prevent errors before they happen.

Let’s assume that the tech evolves for an omniscient benevolent computer that detects errors and issues warnings. Although this is clearly desirable for patients, what does this mean for providers? Will they become slaves to the computer? Providers already face challenges with CPOE alert fatigue. Just imagine do-anything alert fatigue.

There is an art to telling people that they’re wrong. In order to successfully prevent errors, computers will need to learn that art. Additionally, there must be a cultural shift to support the fact that when the computer speaks up, providers should listen. Many hospitals still struggle today with implementing checklists because of cultural issues. There will need to be a similar cultural shift to enable passive omniscient computers to identify errors and warn providers.

I’m not aware of any omniscient computers that watch people all day and warn them that they’re about to make a mistake. There could be such software for workers in nuclear power plants or other critical jobs in which the cost of being wrong is devastating. If you know of any such software, please leave a comment.

A Hospital Perspective on Meaningful Use from Encore Health Resources

Posted on February 18, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

The following is a guest blog post by Karen Knecht in response to the question I posed in my “State of the Meaningful Use” call to action.

If MU were gone (ie. no more EHR incentive money or penalties), which parts of MU would you remove from your EHR immediately and which parts would you keep?

Karen Knecht
Karen Knecht
Chief Innovation Officer at Encore Health Resources

It’s an interesting question you’ve posed on MU, and I think you have generated some great discussion on this topic, such as last week’s response by Dr. Sherling from the perspective of an eligible provider.

My colleagues and I would like to provide an eligible hospital perspective.  The industry is now three-plus years down the path of implementing “certified EHRs.”  There was a need to kick-start the digitization of healthcare in this country and create a common infrastructure to drive change, and MU has done that.  For example, establishing standards for data capture is critical for unified reporting and analysis.  Would the industry establish and adopt these standards without a program like MU?

But working with many large healthcare organizations representing several hundred individual hospitals in their MU programs, there are clearly many lessons learned and opportunities to improve for the future, even if the MU program were to go away.

Overall, there are no MU objectives that we would discount as having no value.  However, there are some that have served their time and others that are ahead of their time.

For the parts to continue, we see a high level of value in the CPOE, Barcoded Medication Administration, Medication Reconciliation and Clinical Decision Support objectives, as they are making tangible contributions to patient care.  However, we would recommend timeline delay due to additional capital outlay as well as complexity of workflow.  This would give more time for deeper and broader adoption.

For the parts to no longer measure in the same way, we would start by simplifying and removing the objectives that are topped out: the ones that are already hardwired in most organizations such as Vital Signs, Demographics, and Smoking Status.  This is no different than the current process for removing quality measures from reporting requirements once they have been well adopted — and HITPC is in agreement about this.  In their meeting last week where they discussed proposed Stage 3 measures, they were saying much the same thing.  Even if you stop measuring these things explicitly, they will continue to be electronically documented.

Second, we could see removing objectives that are now standard for “certified” EHRs.  For example, the time and effort to document the Drug Formulary, Drug-Drug, and Drug-Allergy checking functionality, for the sole purpose of meeting the MU objective, is not well spent.  Another example is the lab results stored as discrete values, which are part and parcel of any lab system in existence.

Other objectives that are causing great concern among many hospitals are the ones dealing with providing and exchanging information electronically.  It would be helpful to reconsider the expectations for these objectives, since many are finding out that implementing a patient portal without a sound patient engagement strategy is not going to be enough to ensure that 5% of patients will actually access their records.  Hospitals should have a portal and secure messaging capability, but it doesn’t seem realistic to put thresholds on patient utilization.  As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

Additionally, the requirement for Direct exchange to transmit summary of care is cumbersome and actually a step backwards for those entities who are part of an HIE and are currently exchanging data among members.  For most others, it is really only practical to implement with a physician ambulatory partner.  The sad fact is that nursing homes, SNF’s, and other entities where hospitals commonly transfer patients are not included in the EHR incentive program and do not have the technology necessary to participate in a direct exchange in a meaningful way.

And finally, we think all aspects of electronic quality measures should be rethought.  We love the idea of calculating these measures electronically, but they need to be appropriately validated and re-addressed in the context of the poor data collection that is occurring.  Perhaps CMS should consider another voluntary incentive program for facilities that have fully implemented all their clinical documentation.  Given the change that is proposed to the physician quality reporting programs as a result of the SGR fix, perhaps a similar refinement of the IQR and VBP programs along with MU should be considered.

See other responses to this question here and please reach out to us if you’re interested in providing a response to the question.

Starting the Health IT Ball Rolling

Posted on April 4, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Early on in my EHR implementation experience I had an enlightening moment. In the clinic I was working at, we decided to just do a partial implementation of the EHR software in order for us to replace the scheduling and billing side of our current processes. The clinic was using some old scantron like billing technology that needed to be replaced quickly. So, instead of leaving behind the paper charts, we decided to start by just implementing part of the EHR to start.

As part of this partial EHR implementation we had the clinicians entering the diagnosis and charge capture into a note in the EHR. After a couple weeks of doing this, I was sitting with one of the providers and she said, “John, why can’t I just enter my note right here where it says subjective and objective instead of in the paper chart?” After hearing this, I went to the director’s office and told her what I’d heard. We realized it was a tremendous opportunity for us to finish the full EHR implementation.

It was quite an interesting realization to have them driving us to implement more of the features. I think we see this phenomenon in other areas as well.

I was talking with the hospital CTO of Intermountain, Fred Holston, about their new mobile CPOE app they built together with MModal. I asked if he was concerned about adoption of the CPOE app. It seemed that it was possible that they built an app that doctors would just choose not to use. Fred made some suggestions about why he thought this wouldn’t be an issue, but then he offered an even more valuable insight. Fred suggested that their bigger concern wasn’t whether doctors would use the CPOE mobile app. Instead, they were more concerned that once they rolled out the CPOE mobile app that doctors would start asking for a whole laundry list of other features and applications that were similar to it. Were they ready for that onslaught of requests?

Yesterday, I got a demo of the latest version of the Sfax secure faxing software (Full Disclosure: Sfax is an advertiser on this site.). During the demo, I asked about another possible feature and a really good comment was made, “Once you roll out new features, people start asking for even more features.” We then had a nice discussion about how the product development process is never done.

In some cases, the desire for more features can lead to really unhappy users. If we’d not finished the full EHR implementation quickly, no doubt those providers would have hated the product. If Intermountain doesn’t add more of the requested capabilities to their CPOE mobile app, then their users will be unhappy that the app can’t do more. If Sfax doesn’t continue to add features to their product their users will grow unhappy with the service.

However, the opposite is also true. This desire to use technology in new ways can be a real driver of adoption. We didn’t have to sale the providers on the finishing the full EHR implementation. They’d already sold themselves. Sometimes you just have to get the ball rolling when it comes to health IT. Once the ball is rolling, just be ready to keep up with with the new ideas that start coming as people see new possibilities.

They Do Listen: Stage 2 Proposal Includes Some Changes to Stage 1 – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on April 9, 2012 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

Included in the Proposed Rule for Meaningful Use Stage 2 are several modifications to the requirements for Meaningful Use Stage 1—likely in response to a barrage of comments from providers. 

The MU Stage 1 measure requiring a test of the ability to exchange clinical data would be removed effective 2013. Apparently, the concept of a test created a great deal of confusion. This change, however, should not be interpreted as reduced interest in interoperability. In fact, Stage 2 is all about the sharing of data. The measure would be replaced in Stage 2 by numerous other measures that require the sharing of clinical information—both between providers and with patients. 

The “all 3 vital signs dilemma”, (described in a previous Meaningful Use Monday post), would be resolved by a change to the vital signs measure. Separating height and weight from blood pressure, the revised measure would allow a provider to meet the threshold for recording height and weight, while claiming an exclusion for blood pressure, (or vice-versa). This is good news for specialists like orthopaedists who may routinely document height and weight but who rarely document blood pressure unless it is relevant to a specific patient’s problem. This change would be available as an option in 2013, and formalized in 2014. (The vital signs measure would also increase the minimum age requiring blood pressure documentation from 2-year olds to 3-year olds.) 

Many providers reported a problem in meeting the CPOE measure because of the way the calculation was defined—particularly those providers whose treatment does not frequently include prescribing medication. Now, providers would be able to define the denominator as the number of medications ordered, rather than the “number of unique patients with at least one medication in the patient’s medication list”, (since that list often includes medications downloaded from Surescripts and prescribed by other providers.) There is already a CMS FAQ (#10369) that allows providers to use this alternate definition even in 2012.

The government is listening, so make your voice heard. Use your experience in Meaningful Use Stage 1 to influence Meaningful Use Stage 2. Submit your comments on the Proposed Rule for Stage 2.

Some of the Thinking Behind Meaningful Use Stage 2 – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on August 29, 2011 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

A great deal of work, discussion, and debate by the HIT Policy Committee and its Workgroup members went into developing the recommendations for meaningful use Stage 2 (discussed in the last two Meaningful Use Monday posts). Meetings were frequent and lengthy, but I tried to listen in on most of them to gain some insights into the thinking behind the decisions being made and the future direction of meaningful use. 

Committee members struggled with striking the right balance between aggressively pressuring providers so that adoption would be accelerated, on the one hand, and maintaining a realistic and practical view of their capabilities, on the other. Some committee members were adamant about staying on track to reach the Stage 3 end goals within the predetermined 2015 time frame, (i.e. remaining on the escalator, as the progression is often referred to), while others recognized that overburdening providers could lead to program failure, i.e., discouraging adoption by imposing unreasonable expectations that would cause providers to doubt their ability to earn the incentives and abandon the effort altogether. The debate led to an open question: does everything have to be accomplished under the umbrella of meaningful use?

 An issue that I think could have used more discussion is how to make meaningful use relevant for specialists—a subject raised frequently by Committee member Gayle Harrell. There was general agreement about the importance of having all types of physicians participate in the incentive program, and testimony from a variety of specialists was solicited. Other than suggesting a large number of new clinical quality measures, however, the basic recommendations are still predominantly primary-care focused. 

Lastly, there was a prevailing sense of frustration over the fact that the calendar did not allow time for an analysis of the experience of Stage 1 before requiring the definition of Stage 2.

More on Stage 2: Clinical Quality Measure Reporting – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on August 22, 2011 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

In addition to the Meaningful Use Stage 2 recommendations discussed in last week’s Meaningful Use Monday, the HIT Policy Committee proposed a new framework for the reporting of clinical quality measures that was designed by its specifically-tasked Quality Measure Workgroup. The recommended concept is depicted in the graphic below—the intention is to broaden the scope of reporting to address a wider spectrum of factors affecting care and to accommodate all types of physicians.

Providers would report on some number of the core measures, (between 5 and all 8 or 9 is the recommendation), and at least one measure from each of the 6 menu “domains”. The core quality measure set would include all of the core and alternate core measures from Stage 1 and an additional 2 measures related to care coordination. Interestingly, there was no mention of establishing required thresholds to be met on any of the quality measures.

The intention is that all physicians (including specialists) will find measures relevant to their specialty in the core set as well as in each of the domains. This seems like a tall order from a practical perspective, given the primary-care focus of the Stage 1 quality measures, (particularly true of the core, but also the additional measures.) To accomplish this, the workgroup submitted quite a lengthy “library” of measures to CMS for its consideration—some measures are carried forward from Stage 1, others are recently retooled, and many are still “to be developed”.

We’ll be watching intently to see what CMS does with clinical quality measures, since this is such a fundamental part of meaningful use.

What’s in Store for Meaningful Use Stage 2? – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on August 15, 2011 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

A few weeks ago, the HIT Policy Committee forwarded its Stage 2 meaningful use recommendations to CMS. CMS is expected to issue a Proposed Rule in early 2012 and the Final Rule in mid-2012. 

The first recommendation—intensely debated, but overwhelmingly supported in the end—is to delay the start of Stage 2 until 2014, recognizing the unrealistic time pressure that vendors and providers would face if required to upgrade, implement, and train for the new set of requirements by 2013. 

Most of the proposed changes to the measures themselves are not dramatic in scope. Some measures did not change at all, (e.g., problem list, medication list, etc.) Others, (e.g., ePrescribing, smoking status), would have higher thresholds to meet—not a major obstacle if the higher-than-required performance trend reported among early attesters continues—and some would have a slightly broader scope, (e.g., CPOE would include radiology). 

All menu measures would become core measures, which means that they would be required of all providers. If CMS adopts this recommendation, it will be important to identify exclusion criteria to accommodate physicians for whom particular measures may not be relevant, as they did for specific core measures in Stage 1. 

The changes that are more controversial are those that hold physicians responsible for factors beyond their control, such as requiring that a given percent of patients actually view their electronic health information (Stage 1 only requires that the information be made available), or requiring that a given number of patients send a secure message to the physician/practice. Also interesting is that some of the new measures recommended for Stage 2 are measures that were specifically removed by CMS during the Stage 1 rule-making process, such as advance directives and progress notes.

If you are interested in the specifics associated with the recommendations summarized above, Computer Sciences Corporation’s Update on Stage 2 (PDF) presents a nice review.

Meaningful Use Measures: CPOE – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on April 25, 2011 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

CPOE (Computerized Provider Order Entry), is the direct entering of orders into a computer (or mobile device), so that the order is documented in a digital, structured, and computable format.

Meaningful Use Core Measure: CPOE
More than 30% of unique patients with at least one medication in their medication list seen by the EP have at least one medication order entered using CPOE.
Exclusion: providers who write fewer than 100 prescriptions during the reporting period.

CPOE is one of the measures that elicited quite an animated response from the provider community. When initially proposed, this measure required 80% of all orders to be directly entered by the provider. To overcome objections to the scope of the requirement and the burden it would impose, CMS ultimately limited the measure to medication orders and reduced the threshold to 30%. (The proposal for Stage 2 reinstitutes lab and radiology orders, but the requirements have not yet been finalized.)

There was also a great deal of conversation about who has to enter the order into the EHR—does it have to be the authorizing physician him/herself? This is the only measure in the Final Rule in which CMS addresses who can perform the function, identifying “…any licensed healthcare professional who can enter orders into the medical record per state, local and professional guidelines.” While some providers are unsure about where these specific guidelines can be found, CMS does provide further guidance, stating that CPOE should be done by someone who can exercise clinical judgment and take action based on the alerts and/or clinical decision support information that the order might generate.

Because for now CPOE is limited to medication orders, it is accomplished either in the course of ePrescribing or by using the same workflow but not transmitting the prescription electronically, (e.g., when prescribing controlled substances or prescribing for patients who request a printed prescription.) All of these prescriptions count in the numerator of this meaningful use measure because they are entered into the EHR.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

Benefits of CPOE in an EMR

Posted on December 18, 2009 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In my previous post about the benefits of inter operable EMR software, Russ Reese left the following comment about the benefits of CPOE and whether CPOE will make it into the ARRA EMR stimulus requirements or not. Plus, he ends with an interesting thought about the EMR stimulus program. I thought it was interesting and more people should read it and comment.

Here is a link to a study that showed some positive results for EMR use – http://jamia.bmj.com/content/17/1/78.full

“Conclusions: A basic CPOE system in a community setting was associated with a significant reduction in medication errors of most types and severity levels.”

Note, this study is about CPOE which is not featured in all EMRs and I think that HIMMS has even been trying to get HHS to back off on making CPOE required for the stimulus $.

But here is real data that shows real benefits. This study is about error rates and not dollars – but if errors are reduced then lawsuits are reduced and hopefully malpractice insurance premiums follow.

IMO, we never needed the tax payer funded stimulus to begin with. Malpractice insurance companies should offer radically reduced rates to physicians that use CPOE and that would be all the “stimulus” that is needed to move doctors toward EHR.

More Comments from Marc Probst’s Talk on EMR

Posted on September 30, 2009 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

If you’ve had enough of my posts from a talk Marc Probst gave, then you’ll be glad to know this is the last one. There’s no hiding my respect for Marc and hearing him in person did nothing but elevate that respect for him. Some of the comments below will feel a bit random, but I thought they were interesting enough to share with you all.

Meaningful Use and Certified EHR Overlap
I asked Marc about the challenge of reconciling the overlap between the certified EHR criteria modeled after the meaningful use matrix and meaningful use itself. It seemed that they were measuring basically the same thing. Marc’s response was, “That’s a battle I lost.” Then, Marc muttered under his breathe something about certifying the software versus the users. Basically, he was in agreement and under the same confusion I’ve had in regards to the value of certifying the software related to MU versus you actually meaningful using your EMR.

Challenge for Hospital Systems
At one point Marc talked about the challenge of a hospital to adopt an EHR if they haven’t started this already. He started listing off things like a data center and encryption. The data center for a hospital is a significant challenge that takes time. I’ve been a part of the design, creation and building of a couple of data centers and infrastructure like this takes time to implement. I still believe it’s premature to purchase an EHR, but I don’t think it’s premature to plan for things like network infrastructure, data centers, etc.

Certification and Procurring the Right EMR
I had to smile when Marc, co-chair of the EHR certification workgroup, said point blank, “EHR certification is not about procuring the right EHR system.” If you’ve read this blog for any length of time you know how I feel about this subject. Glad to hear Marc say it too.

Funding and EHR Adoption
Marc was really honest when he described that IHC had 0 doctors doing CPOE. I was surprised by this since my childhood doctor was from IHC and had an EHR back then. That said, Marc made an interesting point after saying that IHC had 0 doctors doing CPOE. He proceeded to say he didn’t think the reason they hadn’t adopted CPOE yet was because of a lack of funding. It was all the other things that took time to figure out which has delayed adoption.