I’ve been really intrigued lately by the changing media landscape. Things like Blogs and Twitter are providing opportunities for basically anyone to be able to share a message with the world. Certainly, many of the blogs don’t get read and a tweet on Twitter falls off people’s radar very quickly. However, some of the better or more interesting ones rise to the top and provide an interesting and sometimes dissenting voice to the conversation. Personally, I think this type of open discussion around topics is valuable and beneficial as long as people maintain a certain level of respect and decency.

My question to you then, is what would you say to a Healthcare IT audience?

As I considered on this difficult question myself, I decided the message that I would want to deliver: You can resist all you want, but the future of healthcare will require IT.

Pretty much every day, someone comes on this site to talk about the benefits and challenges associated with EMR and EHR in their office. As I’ve listened to the various challenges that people have posted, I’m sympathetic to them. However, almost all of those I’ve heard boil down to poor EMR selection or poor EMR implementation.

To me, the EMR selection is the absolute most important part of the EMR implementation process. Far too many doctors and clinics don’t take the time and effort that’s required to really go through a proper EMR selection process. I’m very sympathetic to them for a lot of reasons (ie. It’s not their job or interest, there are 300 EHR vendors, there aren’t great resources for differentiating EHR, there are a lot of perverse incentives, etc). However, it’s worth the cost to do it right. Otherwise, you should wait until you can do it right.

However, I believe that EMR is still only one small part of how healthcare IT is going to impact healthcare. Just last night I was at a local event and someone who use to work in the casino industry has been working for the past year or so on an app that helps improve doctor to doctor communication. Fascinating stuff.

Personally, I see us just at the very begging of a revolution in healthcare IT. IT is going to start invading every part of healthcare and will pretty much be impossible to avoid.

Certainly there will be some (possibly many) who continue to resist the adoption of technology in their clinic. However, I’m seeing more of a shift by patients and doctors that are interested in finding more ways to integrate technology into their healthcare. Most of the doctors aren’t sure what to do next, but they’re looking.

I can certainly understand and appreciate those that say that the current EMR and healthcare IT offerings aren’t up to snuff. The fact is that many of them aren’t. However, that doesn’t change my belief that IT is still going to change how healthcare is provided. It just may mean that healthcare will be changed by an IT offering that most of us don’t know about today.

My greatest wish would be that we could close the case on whether healthcare IT is important and/or it can change healthcare. Instead, let’s put our energy into finding the ways that it can change healthcare IT for good. All of us focused on using healthcare IT and EMR for good in healthcare would produce some amazing results.

I can’t remember exactly where I saw someone talk about the “WIIFM” (What’s in it for Me) principle, but it really is an important principle that when understood can have an amazing impact for good. This post isn’t about whether you should live a life asking WIIFM. I’ll leave that question to people much smarter than me. Instead, I want to look at how applying the WIIFM principle to others can help those working on a successful EHR implementation.

In most cases I’m talking about, the WIIFM should be changed to “What’s in it for Them?” Understanding the answer to this question can help you as an EMR consultant, an EMR vendor or even a practice manager or doctor that’s trying to work through an EMR implementation.

One of the first things I cover in my e-Book on EMR selection (It’s free, check it out) is the idea of getting buy in from those that will be affected by the EHR implementation (that’s usually everyone). One of the best ways to get EHR buy in from people is to understand the WIIFM. It’s not fool proof, but it’s one good strategy for getting people on the same bus, going the same direction.

Let me tell you that there’s always a way to find a WIIFM in an EHR implementation. This list of EMR and EHR benefits is a great place to start. However, many of those benefits can be extrapolated in ways that will show what’s in it for every person in the clinic.

Let’s say for example, that your goal for implementing an EHR is to increase clinic revenue by freeing up chart storage space so you have an extra exam room for another provider. You can then talk about what that new revenue can be used for to improve the clinic. Maybe it could include bonus checks or other incentives. These become tangible things that staff can use to better understand WIIFM in an EHR implementation.

I’m sure many of the nay sayers out there are thinking, but an EHR doesn’t provide those benefits. That’s why it’s so important that you define which benefits your clinic is striving to achieve before you select or implement an EHR. The list of benefits you use to show WIIFM ends up being your goals for your EHR implementation. They can be used to define your EHR selection process. They can be included in the EHR contract so you have some assurance or protection if the EHR vendor can’t deliver on their sales promises. Not to mention, after the EHR implementation you have a way to measure if it was a success or not based upon those goals.

Test the WIIFM principle. Not from an arrogant Me Me Me approach. Instead, step into the other people’s shoes and ask WIIFM. This approach can really help improve any EHR Implementation if applied correctly.

I know I’ve written about ERP and EMR before, but the more I think about the EMR selection and implementation process, the more I see the same issues that are experienced with an ERP implementation.

The one issue that is a bit different about EMR versus ERP is that there are only a small handful of ERP vendors to choose from. However, we have 300-600 to choose from in the EMR world. That’s an important and challenging difference.

However, the similarities to ERP are many. One of the most striking is how the EMR like the ERP is something that’s going to be used and have an effect on the entire organization. As such, the need to manage the participation of multiple stakeholders is so key.

The key to a successful ERP implementation is to have a great project leader.  Someone who is great at working with various departments. They are great listeners who hear and understand each departments needs. Then, they have to be great at making the case for each depaartment’s needs.

The same is true for EMR. You need an EMR implementation champion who is great at listening to all areas of the clinic: nurses, doctors, front desk, billing, medical records, etc. Sometimes this can be done well by a physician lead, but is more likely to be a practice manager, IT support (if they have project management skills), or an outside consultant. 

It’s easy to underestimate the challenge of “herding sheep.” Done right, it can work very well. Done wrong and your clinic is likely going to have the opportunity to try again after the failed EMR implementation.

There are other comparisons worth considering, but this one was striking me today. I’ll be interested to hear stories and experiences from those who have implemented an EMR. Did you have a strong leader to help pacify the different stakeholders in your clinic? 

I’ve had some interesting reactions to my post about the various characteristics of a Jabba the Hutt EHR Vendor. One of the more interesting conversations happened by email with a reader named Richard. Yes, I have lots of interesting back channel discussions.

After a lengthy email exchange, I asked Richard if I could post our discussion on the blog so you could participate as well. He agreed and even commented, “I look forward to an expansion of our discussion.” So, here you go (or at least scroll to the bottom for a short summary of my feelings).

The conversation started with this email that Richard sent me:

I understand your reluctance to name names in your article, BUT… this is exactly what is needed.

I’ve taken a few days to ruminate over what I was going to suggest and I’d like to hear your thoughts on this if you have time.

With your readership, I suspect there are plenty of users and observers of current packages and lots of opinions. Why not set up something like a Wiki-EMR site to provide a resource that will allow everyone to provide input into the details making “Jabba” and “Han Solo” EMR systems and see where it goes? Maybe it could eliminate some of the BS surrounding some of these systems and help others who are trying to sort out there own future needs. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who want, need and are willing to provide information on the state and future of EMR and what is BS and what isn’t. I certainly would. Let me know your (or your readers) thoughts.

Richard

Here was my response:

Hi Richard,
Yes, this is something I’ve thought a lot about. The key question for me is how to publish some sort of “authenticated” information. Most systems are so easily gamed and/or abused that they basically have no worth. I haven’t figured out a scalable way to be able to provide information that is actual data and not provided with undue influence.

As I read your email, I wondered if some sort of combination of LinkedIn might be the key. At least then any review that’s done would be tied to an individual. Although, by doing so, you’d then discourage many of the most interesting reviews and feedback because their name would be explicitly tied to the review.

Along these same lines I’ve wondered how I could provide a “Meaningful EHR Certification” that wasn’t based on a pass/fail system that has no value. Instead it was a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data that would actually be of value to the reader. Scaling that up is the challenge I have with that idea. Not to mention figuring out the right financial model for it.

So, as you can see I’m with you on wanting more specific information out there, but not sure how to overcome the abuse and the scale that you need for it to be valuable.

As a side note, I do have a wiki page: http://emrandhipaa.com/wiki/Main_Page and it even has an EMR and EHR Matrix of companies. Although I closed registrations since spammers were getting into it.

Richard then provided this response:

It seems to me that user editing must be do-able if Wikipedia has found a way. Additionally, I think that unvarnished truth through comments creditable or not (but differentiateable ) would be a place for insiders or knowledgeable users and IT pros to vent. I realize that it is open to abuse, but a user moderated (or whatever Wikipedia uses) forum will turn upon such miscreants and their abuse might well backfire. I realize it is quite a project, but I’ll bet there are a handful of your readers, if not many more, that would gladly help put something this critical in place. If this can be pulled off, it might create “the world’s foremost authority” * in EMR.

I don’t know much at all about this, but I have a feeling that so much is riding on all of this and that there is a vacuum of useful, meaningful and understandable information that is needed to make this whole thing work. I know there must be something prescient sounding I could offer here, but it might be just indigestion that’s giving me this feeling. John, there must be some other smart guys around; try to round up some and see what they think.

Then I offered this response which shows I’ve been on Wikipedia far too much:

I’ve been rolling around something like this since I first started blogging about EMR. Wikipedia’s a bad comparison because it tries to formulate 1 truth instead of a series of opinions about something. Plus, Wikipedia relies on the masses of people (we don’t have enough mass) and even they get to a point where they regularly lock pages after abuse happens. Wikipedia’s a crazy community once you get into it. There are flame wars and battles on Wikipedia that rage in the background that most people don’t realize are happening.

Travel and hotel sites are a better comparison actually. Since reviews of hotels are more similar to a review of an EMR. The hotel owner wants to put the best reviews on there and can plant good reviews amongst many other ways to game the ratings and review systems. I read an interesting story about how Trip Advisor tried to deal with this. Unfortunately, it put on the image of successfully battling it, but didn’t do that well. Matters much less when you’re talking about a hotel versus an EMR.

I agree that it could become the authority on EMR software if it’s done right. Although, for me to do it, I have to find a model that’s authentic, honest, reliable, scalable and that makes sense economically. At least until I sell off a company for a few million. Then, maybe I can cut out the economical requirement.

Then Richard commented:

I didn’t realize that abuse was that rampant and that a fix was so difficult. I think I see some of the problems. You almost need a cadre of “fair witnesses” to explore the opinions and observations of users and provide incorruptible analysis. Not a promising outlook.

I’d be happy to assist this enterprise in any way I can, but don’t think I would bring anything very useful to the table. I feel you may be the right person to bring something like this to fruition, but the resources needed may be out of reach. It’s too bad there isn’t a Consumer Reports -like group out there for something like this. Maybe some group has enough vested in the outcome of shake-out to fund independent assessment and provide a forum for users.

I know very little about the technology involved in EMR, I am more aware of the medical business and needs for improvement in record and information management. Additionally, if cost containment can’t be managed and a “best practices” can’t be incorporated into every patient’s care then our society may be doomed economically (even morally). You’re doing something valuable, so keep it up, there must be a way to sort out the players and the technology so we can get on with the real need which is getting something useful and beneficial installed for quality patient care. Even getting this discussion broadened is worthwhile.

Well, there you go. If you made it through that, then you must really care about EHR and healthcare IT like I do.

In summary, I think it’s quite clear that it’s an incredible challenge for those searching for EHR software to find reliable information. The need for good EHR vendor information is extraordinary and no one has cornered that market…yet? There is no “consumer reports” for EHR software.

I haven’t yet identified a model that’s authentic, honest, reliable, scalable and that makes sense economically to deliver said “consumer reports for EHR software.” (or maybe I’m just too lazy, scared, busy, etc to try)

I do think that this site and the other members of the Healthcare Scene blog network provide a valuable independent resource for those selecting and implementing an EMR. My free EHR selection e-book was one effort to help providers in the EHR selection process in a very targeted way.

Are there other things that I (we) could do to help even more? I’m sure. If you have ideas, I’m interested to hear. You see my off the top of my head criteria above.

If nothing else, we can reach Richard’s goal of “broadening the discussion”

This is the second in a series of EMR and EHR interviews that will be done on EMR and HIPAA and EMR and EHR. The full EMR interview with Dr. Muir can be found on the new EHR and EMR interviews website. The following is a summary of that interview written by Kathy Bongiovi.

If you’re a doctor, nurse, practice manager, EHR consultant, CEO or executive of an EHR vendor, etc with EMR experience that’s interested in being interviewed, let us know on our http://www.emrandehr.com/contact-us/“>Contact Us page.

Dr. Peter Muir of Springfield Center for Family Medicine was interviewed recently concerning his acquisition of the maximum Medicare Incentive for showing Meaningful Use of a Certified EHR. The Ohio based primary care practice has been using NextGen Ambulatory since 2003 and NextGen Management since 2006.

Dr. Muir stated that their practice chose NextGen EHR because the company focused on clinical offices. Dr. Muir and NextGen EHR share the philosophy of always searching for ways to improve the product. Dr. Muir not only believes in this philosophy but also attended a development think tank along these lines at NextGen’s headquarters. He was also drawn to NextGen because he wanted the capability of customizing his templates.

Having demographics, scheduling, clinical and billing information all on one database has had a huge impact on Muir’s practice. He feels that having a centralized database “makes reporting much easier and more comprehensive than those EHRs with separate databases or separate vendors”. The doctor admitted the conversion from paper charts to EHR was stressful for the first year but well worth it in the long run.

Since Muir’s office has been using EHRs (since 2003), there have been relatively few changes needed for Meaningful Use and any required upgrades to the system came as part of the standard NextGen maintenance fees. There was data that had to be added which was not normally collected by his practice as it had little relevance to his patients but from the patients’ perspective, there was no change in the attention patients received from Springfield Center.

The family practitioner Muir credits the CMS web site and NextGen Healthcare for not only the upgrades to their EHR software but also for their pathway documents and webinars which helped them show meaningful use. He also credits GBS of Youngstown, Ohio (his NextGen vendor for hardware, software) who also helped them implement security upgrades in 2010 in anticipation of the process.

Additionally, being a part of the ONC Meaningful Use Vanguard Program was a benefit to Dr. Muir because “it provides recognition which may allow a greater input in system design and operation.” Muir is concerned, though, that the Program’s flow of information may be difficult if multiple database silos remain in service and a lack of standardization isn’t addressed.

Especially with respect to Meaningful Use Stages 2 and 3, the doctor believes it is critical to have professional health providers utilizing some form of regional system – versus individual systems – in order to have a seamless flow of information. Muir has begun such a system within his own state of Ohio.

The doctor was intricately involved in starting CCHIE (Collaborating Communities Health Information Exchange) in Springfield, Ohio. CCHIE chose HealthBridge as their data engine and together they have partnered with other healthcare providers to provide electronic access to patients’ lab and radiology results as well as to admissions, discharges and transfer information. They have added regions in Southern Indiana and two regions in Northern Kentucky.

Dr. Muir’s advice to fellow doctors is that unless they are planning to retire within the next couple of years they should not delay in the implementation of an EHR. The longer they wait, the more difficult and time consuming the transition will be because, with time, the activities of daily practice will be much broader and more demanding. Additionally, he suggests providers select a system that does not just meet Meaningful Use requirements. His advice is to “select a system that assists you in providing better medical care”.

Read the full transcript of Dr. Muir’s interview.

One of my favorite EMR people, Matt Chase from Medtuity, wrote this interesting comment over on EMR Update.

Times are achanging. I think a recent install is a good example. The group purchased a decently well-known EMR and it failed. So they went with a second well-known EMR and it failed. Both were certified. Both had a very active sales team. The second one flew in some upper level sales people from the coast when there was talk of deinstall.

After spending half of the national debt and a looming closure of the practice, they called in a consultant. He made his recommendation. They did their demo and they asked the really hard questions– show me how to create new clinical content, show me how to create a new template, edit an existing one, how to fax a single encounter to another practitioner, then multiple encounters but not all encounters of a patient, track any lab value over time, send a reminder to a staff member, assign faxes and scans, etc, etc. Their list was very long. They did not want to hear promises and they did not want a canned demo. They wanted to see the software perform the steps that were lacking (but promised present) in their previous software.

The underlying theme here is that practices believe that certification is truly a functional seal of approval. It is not. Secondly, because certification exists and so many EMRs (>450) are certified, it implies a mature product offering– like buying a hard drive or a computer. You can expect certain functionality to be present simply because the maturity of the market would have eliminated the company. Unfortunately, just the opposite is true.
…
Just this week I learned that a very large practice in our town is out shopping another EMR. Yes, they have a certified one, but they certainly aren’t paperless.

Functionality will become the watchword of EMR, not certification.

That’s some interesting projections. I remember one EMR vendor telling me that a large portion of their sales were to existing EMR users. In fact, I think they said that there favorite implementations were existing users that were switching to their EMR. I also love the observation of how much better an organization is at selecting an EMR the second time they do it.

It has become more and more apparent that the way an EMR vendor implements the meaningful use requirements is going to be critically important to a doctor’s successful adoption of the meaningful use criteria which is of course essential to get the $44,000 in EMR stimulus money.

I think it’s easy for doctors and practice managers that aren’t as familiar with the various EMR software and with the details of the EMR stimulus to get confused. On face, it seems that the effort to get the EMR stimulus money shouldn’t be affected by which EMR software you choose as long as it is an ONC-ATCB certified EMR. However, this is just categorically WRONG!

The EHR certification is meant to tell you that it CAN meet the meaningful use guidelines. It doesn’t tell you how easily it is to meet the meaningful use guidelines. It doesn’t tell you how well they integrated the meaningful use guidelines into your regular workflow. It doesn’t tell you how well it lets you delegate the meaningful use tasks to other staff members so you can optimize the doctors time. So, yes, EHR certification should mean it’s possible to show meaningful use. EHR certification does not make any claims to how effective that EHR software will actually accomplish the task.

Here’s a simple analogy:
If I wanted to dig a hole for a footing on a house, I could probably use a spoon to dig the hole. It would take forever to actually dig the hole, but a spoon could work. It would suck to use a spoon to dig the hole and quite honestly I’d probably give up before I finished, but with enough blood sweat and tears I could get the hole dug.

Of course, if I had a shovel, digging the hole would be much easier. I could get it done with just a bit of hard work. It would obviously go a lot faster than a spoon. Now, if I had a backhoe, digging the hole would basically be academic. Achieving the goal would be simple to accomplish, because the tool was designed perfectly to achieve it.

It’s worth asking yourself whether the EMR you use or the EMR you choose is a golden spoon or a powerful backhoe when it comes to achieving meaningful use. Maybe both can achieve the goal of meaningful use, but is it just made to look nice and shiny or was it really designed to make achieving meaningful use as painless as possible?

Thanks to Randall Oates from SOAPware and Evan Steele from SRSsoft for inspiring this post.

I was talking with Randall recently about SOAPware’s approach to EHR certification and meaningful use. He told me that SOAPware could have thrown something together quickly and been easily certified against the EHR certification criteria when it first opened. However, he didn’t like that approach. Instead he wanted SOAPware to take its time and make sure that the criteria were implemented in a usable and useful way.

Evan just posted a blog post about not all meaningful use EMR being equal. Here’s one portion of what he said that prompted this post:

Demonstrating meaningful use will still demand additional work, and certified—or to-be-certified—EMRs are not alike in how they facilitate doing this. It is critical for physicians to understand and evaluate the differences among EMRs in terms of how they deliver meaningful use capability and the impact on the time it takes to meet the requirements with each.

Evan also offers a few suggestions on things you might ask your EMR vendor:
*How easy is it to enter the required data? (This is particularly important as requirements become more demanding in future stages of the program.)
*What changes will you have to make to the way you see patients?
*How will you document the care you provide?
*Does the system effectively allow delegation of tasks to staff members to minimize the time physicians must spend doing data entry?
*Does the vendor’s software platform enable keeping up with evolving requirements?

There you go! Now you have a list of questions you can ask SRSsoft (and other EMR vendors) when you’re evaluating them.

I’d love to hear other ways people are evaluating an EMR vendor’s implementation of meaningful use. Not to mention ways that EMR vendor’s have implemented meaningful use that differentiates themselves from other EMR vendors.

I think that many of you have heard of my e-Book on EMR selection. I’d been selling the e-Book for a while now with some ok results. However, as I thought about it, I wanted to get the information contained in the e-Book out to A LOT more people than were getting it as of now.

On that note, I just made downloading of my e-Book on EMR selection called “Selecting the Right EMR” a free download. You can read more about it and download it on my EMR Selection e-Book page or click the book image at the bottom of this post and it will download a PDF file.

Feel free to distribute the PDF file to all of your friends, colleagues etc. I want to get the information on selecting the right EMR out to as many people as possible. I just ask that you link back to EMRandHIPAA.com if you promote the free e-Book somewhere. Also, if you found something useful in the e-Book I have put a donation button on the page, but there’s no requirement to contribute. Although, all contributions are appreciated.

Now that many more of you will be able to see this e-Book on EMR selection, I welcome your comments on ways that it could be better. I really hope that it helps many doctors in their EMR selection process.

Selecting the Right EMR – $149.99 FREE Download
If you find this e-Book beneficial to your EMR selection, please consider making a donation to support the creation of future e-Books.

In response to my previous post about possibly creating an EMR pricing comparison website, I got a really interesting set of comments from a CPA who’s been assisting their clients in their EMR selection process. You might laugh at the idea of a CPA participating in the EMR selection process. Interestingly, the CPA that I use has also been asked by their clients about the EMR stimulus money and so they were grateful they could ask me some questions.

This aside, I found this person’s comments interesting. I think they also illustrate some of the challenges in EMR pricing and some of the thirst for EMR pricing also. I removed some identifying information and some other comments about EMR and HIPAA. Otherwise, the comments are in tact.

I have been pondering trying to do some sort of price comparison myself, and you’re right, they all differ so it’s tough to just do one basic comparison chart. I’ve seen already how some have things all bundled (ie.Athena, and others do it in separate modules can add on – ie. Greenway)

I have featured remote demo’s for clients to listen/view through our firm so they can avoid the vendor pressure… I thought I would try to get info on others for comparison purposes, but in keeping with the theme… it is just not that easy.

There are a few challenging items for comparison purposes, one of them being support and related costs.
The support/training is many times where the wheels fall off the well-intentioned EMR wagons.
You just don’t seem to get an answer or know the true support/training costs until you have already tied the knot with your new EMR system. If you could get more comparative info on that aspect, that would be very helpful – or better yet, come up with an EMR Pre-Nup.

Another toughy is the interfacing costs
From what I hear a [EMR Vendor] system may charge $30k to interface with another EMR vendor.
The vendors call that “not playing nicely”.
So tack on another layer of subjective complexity to your pricing project.

And yet another cost factor I’ve noticed is what EMR system an affiliated hospital is getting preferred pricing on. There is a hospital by us in an arrangement with [EMR Vendor], and of course advising the outside practice physicians to use the same. I am not to thrilled with this idea, I think there are better products that are not spread so thin in so many markets.

I mention the patient portal separately below as some of my clients don’t seem quite ready for that yet.
They view it as another task and feel could attack it once get the EMR running smoothly.
I know they need it for MU [Stage 1 doesn't require this, but future stages probably will], but they seem to want that a little later than sooner.

In any case, I think some possible approaches for a comparative pricing schematic would be to have different scenarios:
a) 1-5 Docs & Midlevel providers /Web Hosted/ EMR only/ PM Interface/ No Patient Portal
b) 1-5 Docs & Midlevel providers /Web Hosted/ EMR only/ PM Interface/ With Patient Portal
c) 1-5 Docs & Midlevel providers /Web Hosted/ EMR & PM Bundled/ No Patient Portal
d) 1-5 Docs & Midlevel providers /Web Hosted/ EMR & PM Bundled/ With Patient Portal
e) 1-5 Docs & Midlevel providers /Web Hosted/ EMR & PM Bundled/ With Revenue Cycle Mgt/ With Patient Portal

I’m currently in Denver attending the AAFP conference. So far I’m really glad that I’ve come to the conference. It’s really fantastic to be surrounded by providers. It’s a stark contrast to HIMSS where you’re mostly surrounded by industry insiders and not that many providers. The practical questions the doctors ask are fascinating.

Of course, the comments they make are also fascinating. The title of this post is a comment one lady made in the David Kibbe session on Meaningful Use:
“I use EMR and so I am MY OWN transcriptionist.”

The problem with this comment is that it just doesn’t have to be true. It could be true depending on which EMR software you selected and how you implemented the EMR. However, that’s a choice you make when you choose and implement an EMR without any transcription.

I’ve actually seen a number of EMR vendors that have some really nice and deep integration between their software and transcription companies. There are even transcription companies that are building their own EMR software which obviously leverages the power of transcription.

Plus, many doctors happily use voice recognition like Dragon Naturally Speaking to still do what essentially amounts to transcription with their EMR.

Add in developments around natural language processing and the idea of preserving the narrative that is so valuable and interesting while capturing the granular data elements is a really interesting area of EMR development.

Of course, one of the problems with this idea is that many people like to use the savings on transcription costs as a way to justify the cost of purchasing and implementing an EMR. Obviously, you’ll need to look for other EMR benefits if you choose to continue transcription.

Just to round out the conversation, there are a wide variety of EMR vendors which each have their own unique style of documentation. Part of the problem is that many people don’t look much past the big “Jabba the Hutt” EMR vendors which are these ugly click interfaces that spit out a huge chunk of text that nobody wants to see. There’s plenty of EMR vendor options out there. Keep looking if you don’t like an EMR vendor’s documentation method.