One of the more interesting dynamics in the EMR and EHR world has to do with large versus small EHR companies. I guess we’ve always loved a big versus small story ever since David slew the Giant Goliath. Plus, there’s something American that causes most of us to really root for the underdog. I don’t know what it is, but unless my team is playing I’m most often hoping that the underdog spoils the party and does something surprising. Maybe this is why so many of us love to pit the big EHR vendors against the small EHR vendors.

Personally I don’t have any particular preference for or against larger or small EHR vendors. I care more about choosing the right EHR vendor for the right situation. In some cases those are small EHR vendors and in some cases those are large EHR vendors. I only discriminate against EHR vendors who don’t perform. Many of those that don’t perform I call Jabba the Hutt EHRs. If you haven’t read my Jabba the Hutt EHR posts, you should.

Although, what prompted this post was a comment I read recently from a doctor who uses a large EHR vendor. I won’t say which EHR or who made this comment since it doesn’t matter to learn from the comment. They basically made this suggestion:I recommended a large EHR so that it can connect everything. Then he said that the large EHR vendor decreased productivity.

Certainly I realize this is only one person discussing why doctors should go with a large EHR vendor, but if I’m a large EHR vendor I’d be really upset if this is my message. And while this is one example, I’ve certainly heard it other times before.

Think about this message from a physician’s perspective. I can either go with an EHR product that decreases my productivity (Translation: I make less money) or with an EHR product that can connect everything (Translation: That’s nice, but does it save me time or make me more money?)

All the connections in the world are great, but if you hurt a clinical processes business in the process then that’s going to be a real problem. I’m a huge EHR software advocate. I think every doctor should use EHR. However, if EHR vendors continue to do EHR implementations that have a long term negative impact on EHR productivity, then physicians will continue to resist EHR software in their offices.

The good news is that I’m seeing more and more EHR vendors focused on maintaining and improving the productivity of an office during and after an EHR implementation. I hope that trend continues and that all EHR vendors become fanatical at maximizing the efficiency of a practice during and post EHR implementation.

John over at Chilmark Research has a really good find on his blog. He quotes the new head of ONC, David Blumenthal, from an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) where Blumenthal talks about the certified EHR requirement in the HITECH act. Here’s the quote:

ONCHIT currently contracts with a private organization, the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology, to certify EHRs as having the basic capabilities the federal government believes they need. But many certified EHRs are neither user-friendly nor designed to meet HITECH’s ambitious goal of improving quality and efficiency in the health care system. Tightening the certification process is a critical early challenge for ONCHIT.

I find it really interesting how two people can take the same quote different directions. Chilmark Research gives a nice little rant about how you can’t certify usability, quality and efficiency in an EHR. I agree with him on most points and I definitely agree that the market is much better at these three items than some government certification body.

However, I don’t feel like this was what Blumenthal meant in the above quote. I don’t think Blumenthal was trying to say that the certification would need to certify user-friendly, quality and efficient EHR software. Instead, I see the above quote meaning that the current CCHIT certification isn’t good enough, because it has certified a bunch of unusable EHR (a topic we’ve talked about many times before). Sounds to me that Blumenthal is making a case for why the government shouldn’t use the CCHIT certification. At least not in its current form. Essentially Blumenthal is saying that CCHIT isn’t good enough to meet the goals of HITECH.

This seems like a ray of hope for myself and others who think that selecting CCHIT certification as the certified EHR requirement of the HITECH act is the worst decision the government could make. Albeit still just a ray.

What Blumenthal means about “tightening the certification process” is up for debate. He could mean something like what John from Chilmark research describes. Basically some convoluted method of measuring usability, quality and efficiency of an EHR system. Or it could mean that the certification process will need to be tightened so that unneeded requirements are removed and it gets cut down to what will help an EHR achieve the ambitious goals of the HITECH act.

Of course, in the end the certified EHR criteria will probably land somewhere in between. However, this quote did give me some hope that Blumenthal realizes the impact that it will have on EHR adoption if many of the currently unusable certified EHR gain wide adoption thanks to the $18 billion in EHR stimulus money.

I do think John from Chilmark Research does make a nice conclusion to his post:

Suggesting that we tighten the certification process is heading in the wrong direction. Instead, we need to actually relax the certification process to encourage innovation in the HIT market allowing developers to create solutions that will truly provide value to their users while concurrently meeting the broader objectives of delivering better care and better outcomes. Creating light certification criteria and focusing more on what outcomes we wish to see occur as a result of broad HIT adoption is where Blumenthal and his staff need to focus their energies.