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!!

Switching EHRs, The Trends And What To Consider

Posted on September 8, 2016 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 Winyen Wu, Technology and Health Trend Blogger and Enthusiast at Stericycle Communication Solutions as part of the Communication Solutions Series of blog posts. Follow and engage with them on Twitter: @StericycleComms
Winyen Wu - Stericycle
In recent years, there has been a trend in providers switching Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems: according to Software Advice, the number of buyers replacing EHR software has increased 59% since 2014. In a survey by KLAS, 27% of medical practices are looking to replace their EHR while another 12% would like to but cannot due to financial or organizational constraints. By 2016, almost 50% of large hospitals will replace their current EHR. This indicates that the current EHR products on the market are not meeting the needs of physicians.

What are the reasons for switching EHRs?

  • Complexity and poor usability: Many physicians find that it takes too many clicks to find the screen that they need, or that it is too time consuming to fill out all the checkboxes and forms required
  • Poor technical support: Some physicians may be experiencing unresponsive or low quality support from their EHR vendor
  • Consolidation of multiple EHRs: After consolidating practices, an organization will choose to use only one EHR as opposed to having multiple systems in place
  • Outgrowing functionality or inadequate systems: Some current EHRs may meet stage 1 criteria for meaningful use, but will not meet stage 2 criteria, which demand more from an EHR system.

Which companies are gaining and losing customers?

  • Epic and Cerner are the top programs in terms of functionality according to a survey by KLAS; cloud-based programs Athenahealth and eClinicalWorks are also popular
  • Companies that are getting replaced include GE Healthcare, Allscripts, NextGen Healthcare, and McKesson; 40-50% of their customers reported potential plans to move

What are providers looking for in choosing an EHR?

  • Ability to meet Meaningful Use standards/criteria: In September 2013, 861 EHR vendors met stage 1 requirements of meaningful use while only 512 met stage 2 criteria for certification, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. Because stage 2 criteria for meaningful is more demanding, EHRs systems are required to have more sophisticated analytics, standardization, and linkages with patient portals.
  • Interoperability: able to integrate workflows and exchange information with other products
  • Company reliability: Physicians are looking for vendors who are likely to be around in 20 years. Potential buyers may be deterred from switching to a company if there are factors like an impending merger/acquisition, senior management issues, declining market share, or internal staff system training issues.

Is it worth it?
In a survey conducted by Family Practice Management of physicians who switched EHRs since 2010, 59% said their new EHRs had added functionality, and 57% said that their new system allowed them to meet meaningful use criteria, but 43% said they were glad they switched systems and only 39% were happy with their new EHR.

5 Things to consider when planning to switch EHRs

  1. Certifications and Compliance: Do your research. Does your new vendor have customers who have achieved the level of certification your organization hopes to achieve? Does this new vendor continually invest in the system to make updates with changing regulations?
  2. Customer Service: Don’t be shy. Ask to speak to at least 3 current customers in your specialty and around your size. Ask the tough questions regarding level of service the vendor provides.
  3. Interoperability: Don’t be left unconnected. Ensure your new vendor is committed to interoperability and has concreate examples of integration with other EHR vendors and lab services.
  4. Reliability and Longevity: Don’t be left out to dry. Do digging into the vendor’s financials, leadership changes and staffing updates. If they appear to be slimming down and not growing this is a sign that this product is not a main focus of the company and could be phased out or sold.
  5. Integration with Current Services: Don’t wait until it’s too late. Reach out to your current providers (like appointment reminders) and ensure they integrate with your new system and set up a plan for integrating the two well in advance.

The Communication Solutions Series of blog posts is sponsored by Stericycle Communication Solutions, a leading provider of high quality telephone answering, appointment scheduling, and automated communication services. Stericycle Communication Solutions combines a human touch with innovative technology to deliver best-in-class communication services.  Connect with Stericycle Communication Solutions on social media:  @StericycleComms

Has Electronic Health Record Replacement Failed?

Posted on June 23, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Justin Campbell, Vice President, Galen Healthcare.
Justin Campbell
A recent Black Book survey of hospital executives and IT employees who have replaced their Electronic Health Record system in the past three years paints a grim picture. Respondents report higher than expected costs, layoffs, declining revenues, disenfranchised clinicians and serious misgivings about the benefits of switching systems. Specifically:

  • 14% of all hospitals that replaced their original EHR since 2011 were losing inpatient revenue at a pace that wouldn’t support the total cost of their replacement EHR
  • 87% of hospitals facing financial challenges now regret the decision to change systems
  • 63% of executive level respondents admitted they feared losing their jobs as a result of the EHR replacement process
  • 66% of system users believe that interoperability and patient data exchange functionality have declined

Surely, this was not the outcome expected when hospitals rushed to replace paper records in response to Congressional incentives (and penalties) included in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

But the disappointment reflected in this survey only sheds light on part of the story. The majority of hospitals depicted here were already in financial difficulty. It is understandable that they felt impelled to make a significant change and to do so as quickly as possible. But installing an electronic record system, or replacing one that is antiquated, requires much more than a decision to do so. We should not be surprised that a complex undertaking like this would be burdened by complicated and confusing challenges, chief among which turned out to be “usability” and acceptance.

Another Black Book report, this one from 2013, revealed:

  • 66% of doctors using EHR systems did not do so willingly
  • 87% of those unwilling to use the system claimed usability as their primary complaint
  • 84% of physician groups chose their EHR to reach meaningful use incentives
  • 92% of practices described their EHR as “clunky” and/or difficult to use

None of this should surprise us but we need to ask: was usability really the key driver for EHR replacement? Is usability alone accountable for lost revenue, employment anxiety and buyers’ remorse? Surely organizations would not have dumped millions into failed EHR implementations only to rip-and-replace them due to usability problems and provider dissatisfaction. Indeed, despite the persistence of functional obstacles such as outdated technology, hospitals continue to make new EMR purchases. Maybe the “reason for the rip-and-replace approach by some hospitals is to reach interoperability between inpatient and outpatient data,” wrote Dr. Donald Voltz, MD in EMR and EHR.

Interoperability is linked to another one of the main drivers of EHR replacement: the mission to support value-based care, that is, to improve the delivery of care by streamlining operations and facilitating the exchange of health information between a hospital’s own providers and the caregivers at other hospitals or health facilities. This can be almost impossible to achieve if hospitals have legacy systems that include multiple and non-communicative EHRs.

As explained by Chief Nurse Executive Gail Carlson, in an article for Modern Healthcare, “Interoperability between EHRs has become crucial for their successful integration of operations – and sometimes requires dumping legacy systems that can’t talk to each other.

Many hospitals have numerous ancillary services, each with their own programs. The EHRs are often “best of breed.” That means they employ highly specialized software that provides excellent service in specific areas such as emergency departments, obstetrics or lab work. But communication between these departments is compromised because they display data differently.

In order to judge EHR replacement outcomes objectively, one needs to not just examine the near-term financials and sentiment (admittedly, replacement causes disruption and is not easy), but to also take a holistic view of the impact to the system’s portfolio by way of simplification and future positioning for value-based care. The majority of the negative sentiment and disappointing outcomes may actually stem from the migration and new system implementation process in and of itself. Many groups likely underestimated the scope of the undertaking and compromised new system adoption through a lackluster migration.

Not everyone plunged into the replacement frenzy. Some pursued a solution such as dBMotion to foster care for patients via intercommunications across all care venues. In fact, Allscripts acquired dBMotion to solve for interoperability between its inpatient solution (Eclipsys SCM) and its outpatient EMR offering (Touchworks). dBMotion provides a solution for those organizations with different inpatient and outpatient vendors, offering semantic interoperability, vocabulary management, EMPI and ultimately facilitating a true community-based record.

Yet others chose to optimize what they had, driven by financial constraints. There is a thin line separating EHR replacement from EHR optimization. This is especially true for those HCOs that are neither large enough nor sufficiently funded to be able to afford a replacement; they are instead forced to squeeze out the most value they can from their current investment.

The optimization path is much more pronounced with MEDITECH clients, where a large percentage of their base remains on the legacy MAGIC and C/S platforms.

Denni McColm, a hospital CIO, told healthsystemCIO why many MEDITECH clients are watching and waiting before they commit to a more advanced platform:

“We’re on MEDITECH’s Client/Server version, which is not their older version and not their newest version, and we have it implemented really everywhere that MEDITECH serves. So we have the hospital systems, home care, long-term care, emergency services, surgical center — all the way across the continuum. We plan to go to their latest version sometime in the next few years to get the ambulatory interface for the providers. It should be very efficient — reduced clicks, it’s mobile friendly, and our docs are anxious to move to it,” but we’ll decide when the time is right, she says.

What can we discern from these different approaches and studies?  It’s too early to be sure of the final score. One thing is certain though: the migrations and archival underpinnings of system replacement are essential. They allow the replacement to deliver on the promise of improved usability, enhanced interoperability and take us closer to the goal of value-based care.

About Justin Campbell
Justin is Vice President, Strategy, at Galen Healthcare Solutions. He is responsible for market intelligence, segmentation, business and market development and competitive strategy. Justin has been consulting in Health IT for over 10 years, guiding clients in the implementation, integration and optimization of clinical systems. He has been on the front lines of system replacement and data migration and is passionate about advancing interoperability in healthcare and harnessing analytical insights to realize improvements in patient care. Justin can be found on Twitter at @TJustinCampbell

HIMSS15: Adoption Still a Problem for Organizations Swapping EHRs – Breakaway Thinking

Posted on May 20, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Todd Stansfield, Instructional Writer from The Breakaway Group (A Xerox Company). Check out all of the blog posts in the Breakaway Thinking series.
Todd Stansfield

Each year the Health Information and Management Systems Society’s (HIMSS) annual conference is the Super Bowl of health IT. No other conference boasts more attendees ranging from health IT innovators and collaborators to pioneers. This year 40,000 plus participants descended on Chicago, all eager to learn about the new direction, trends, and solutions of the industry.

As always, buzzwords were aplenty—interoperability, care coordination, patient experience, and value-based care, to mention a few. During her keynote address on April 16, Karen DeSalvo, National Coordinator for the ONC, called the current state of health IT the “tipping point.” In 2011 the ONC released its four-year strategic plan focused on implementing and adopting electronic health records (EHRs). Now, DeSalvo says the industry is changed and ready to move beyond EHRs to technologies that will create “true interoperability.”

Enlightening conversations were happening among the crowded booths, hallways, and meeting rooms between organizations looking to ‘rip and replace’ their current EHR for a new one. While some organizations are struggling to unlock data across disparate systems, others are looking to upgrade their current system for one compatible with ICD-10, Meaningful Use, analytics solutions, or a combination of these. Still others are looking to replace systems they dislike for lack of functionality, vendor relationships, etc. In many cases, replacing an EHR is needed to ensure interoperability is at the very least viable. This buzz at HIMSS is a strong indicator that EHRs are still an important and essential part of health IT, and perhaps some organizations have not reached the tipping point.

In addition to the many challenges these organizations are facing—from data portability, an issue John Lynn wrote about in August 2012, to the cost of replacing the system—leaders are agonizing over the resistance they are facing from clinician end users. How can these organizations force clinicians to give up systems they once resisted, then embraced and worked so hard to adopt? How can leadership inspire the same level of engagement needed for adoption? The challenge is similar to transitioning from paper to an EHR, only more significant. Whereas the reasons for switching from paper were straightforward—patient safety, efficiency, interoperability, etc.—they are not so clear when switching applications.

Clinicians are also making harsher comparisons between applications—from every drop-down list, to icon, to keyboard shortcut. These comparisons are occurring at drastically different phases in the adoption lifecycle. Consider the example of an end user needing to document a progress note. In the old EHR, this user knew how to copy forward previous documentation, but in the new system she doesn’t know if this functionality even exists. Already the end user is viewing the new system as cumbersome and inefficient compared to the old application. Multiply this comparison by each of the various tasks she completes throughout her day, and the end user is strongly questioning her organization’s decision to make the change.

This highlights an important point: Swapping one EHR for another will take more planning, effort, and strategy than a first-ever implementation. The methods for achieving adoption are the same, but the degree to which they are employed is not. Leadership will not only have to re-engage end users and facilitate buy-in, they will have to address the loss of efficiency and optimization by replacing the old application.

Leadership should start by clearly outlining the reasons for change, a long-term strategy, as well frustrations end users can expect. They should establish a strong governance and support structure to ensure end users adhere to policies, procedures, and best practices for using the application. The organizations that will succeed will provide end users with role-based education complete with hands-on experience completing best practice workflows in the application. Education should include competency tests that assess end users’ ability to complete key components of their workflow. Additionally, organizations must capture and track performance measurements to ensure optimized use of the system and identify areas of need. And because adoption recedes after application upgrades and workflow enhancements, all efforts should be sustained and modified as needed.

While HIMSS15 brought to the stage a wealth of new ideas, solutions, and visions for the future of health IT, the struggle to adopt an EHR has not completely gone away. Many organizations are grappling with their current EHR and choosing to replace it in hopes of meeting the triple aim of improving care, costs, and population health. For these organizations to be prepared for true interoperability, they must overcome challenges unseen in paper to electronic implementations. And if done successfully, only then will our industry uniformly reach the tipping point, a point where we can begin to put buzzwords into practice.

Xerox is a sponsor of the Breakaway Thinking series of blog posts.

Thinking About Future EHR Switching When Purchasing EHR Software

Posted on February 24, 2015 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.

When we start purchasing our EHR, many times we don’t spend enough time thinking about what happens when we reach the end of life for the software we’re purchasing. I was particularly reminded of this when writing my post about the legacy EHR ticking time bombs. During our EHR or other healthcare IT software purchase, we don’t think about 5, 10, 15 years down the road when we might want to switch systems. What happens at the end of a system’s life is not our concern during an EHR purchase, but it should be.

A lot of people like to talk about EHR data portability. This is a very important subject when you’re looking to sunset an old system. However, if you haven’t put the right items in your EHR contract, it becomes a major issue for you to get that data out of the EHR. If you haven’t read the section on EHR contracts in my now somewhat dated EMR selection e-Book, take some time to read it over and check out your EHR contract.

When you can’t get the data out of your EHR, then you’re stuck in a situation that I described in my legacy EHR ticking time bomb post. You limp your legacy EHR system along and have issues with updates, fear the lost of the system completely, and much more. It’s just an ugly situation.

It’s nice to think that an EHR system will just work forever, but technology changes. It’s just the reality of life. I’m interested to see if the concept of an EHR vendor neutral archive will really take off. That would be one major way to combat this. However, I think many are afraid of this option because it’s tough to preserve the granular data elements in the EHR. Plus, it takes a forward thinking CIO to be able to make the investment in it. Although I’ve met some that are doing just this.

What has your organization done to prepare for the day that you’ll sunset your EHR or other healthcare IT systems? Is this a concern for you? Or are you like some CIOs who figure that it will be someone else’s problem?

The Devil You Know

Posted on November 25, 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.

I’d recently heard a practice manager talking about their EHR and Practice Management system. We talked about the EHR they’d selected and what they thought of the setup, and then I asked which practice management (PM) system they were using. They responded that they’d been using the same PM system for so long, they didn’t have any desire to change it. Then they dropped the bomb:

“There are a lot of things we hate about our PM system, but we kind of look at it as the devil we know.”

I see this happen really often when it comes to EHR and PM systems. In fact, it happens everywhere in the world of technology. Sometimes we don’t have any desire to change because we know the system we have and it works. Does it have its pain points? Yes. Do they drive us nuts? Yes! But at least we know about them and know how to deal with them.

There’s a real fear by many to switch to a new software where they have to learn about new “devils” for which they don’t know how to handle. I’m often reminded of the concept that “change isn’t always better.” So, in many situations, it’s better to not change. Maybe what you have isn’t very good, but if you’re not careful you could change to something even worse. That’s a real healthy fear.

That said, the fear can go too far. I’m reminded of when I had my first Android phone. I’d gone pretty cheap and gotten this really inexpensive phone. It worked, but was really slow. Plus, the battery barely lasted and it had plenty of devils I had to deal with whenever I used it. Luckily, I didn’t use it that much since I mostly work from home. However, when I was stuck in the depths of a massive exhibit hall at HIMSS and couldn’t get connectivity or I was waiting on the phone to do something, it was absolutely annoying.

The devils of that phone finally got to me and I upgraded to the Samsung S3. It was night and day difference. I must admit that I really didn’t know what I was missing. In many ways that was good, because it helped me to appreciate the upgrade. However, I’d kind of gotten complacent and was fine dealing with the “devils” I knew. (Side Note: Thanks to a few cracked screens from my wife and children, I’m now on the Samsung S5 and it’s awesome. The battery life itself is so compelling.)

Unfortunately, there’s no science to when to stick with the devils you know and when to upgrade. Without incentives, penalties or other regulations, there’s almost never a financial justification to upgrade software. It’s almost always cheaper to limp along with the old technology. However, there’s an extremely important sanity portion of the upgrade decision that is key.

I’ve personally found the time to upgrade and switch is when you know that the upgrade will solve the “sanity” issues you’re experiencing. If the upgrade won’t solve those issues, then it’s better to stick with the devil you know.

The Medication List Said, “Raised toilet seat daily”

Posted on September 25, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Lisa Pike, CEO of Versio.
???????????????????????????????
With over a third of healthcare organizations switching to a new EHR in 2014, there is a lot of data movement going on. With the vast amount of effort it took to create that data, it’s a valuable asset to the organization. It can mean life or death; it can keep a hospital out of the courtroom; and it can mean the difference between a smooth-running organization and an operational nightmare.

But when that important data needs to be converted and moved to a new EHR, you realize just how complex it really is.

During a recent conversion of legacy data over to a new EHR, we came across this entry in the Medication List:  Raised toilet seat, daily.

Uh, come again??

How about this one?  “Dignity Plus XXL [adult diapers]; take one by mouth daily.”  What does the patient have, potty mouth?

Now, while we may snicker at the visual, it’s really no joke. These are actual entries encountered in source systems during clinical data migration projects. Some entries are comical; some are just odd; and some are downright frightening. But all of them are a conversion nightmare when you are migrating data.

Patient clinical data is unlike any other kind of data, for many reasons. It’s massive. It requires near-perfect accuracy. It’s also extremely complex, especially when you are not just migrating, but also converting from one system “language” to another.

Automated conversion is a common choice for healthcare organizations when moving data from legacy systems to newly adopted EHRs. It can be a great choice for some of the data, but not all. If your source says “hypertension, uncontrolled,” but your target system only has “uncontrolled hypertension,” that’s a simple enough inconsistency to overcome, but how would you predict every non-standard or incorrect entry you will encounter?

Here are some more actual examples. If you’re considering automated conversion, consider how your software would tangle up over these:

SOURCE SYSTEM SAYS COMMENTS
346.71D  Chm gr wo ara w nt wo st ???
levothyroxine 100 mg Should be mcg. Yikes!
Proventil Target system has 20 choices
NKDA (vomiting) NKDA= no known drug allergies.
Having no allergies causes vomiting?
Massage Therapy, take one by mouth twice weekly ???
Tylenol suppositories; take 1 by mouth daily Maybe not life-threatening, but certainly unpleasant
PMD
(Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease)
Should have been PMDD
(premenstrual dysphoric disorder)
Allergy:  Reglan 5 mg Is patient allergic only to that dosage, or should this have been in the med list?
Confusing allergies and meds can be deadly.
Height 60 Centimeters or inches? Convert carefully!

 

These just scratch the surface of the myriad complexities, entry errors, and inconsistencies that exist in medical records across the industry. No matter how diligent your staff is, I guarantee your charts contain entries like these!

When an automated conversion program encounters data it can’t convert, it falls out as an “exception.” If the exception can’t be resolved, the data is simply left behind. Even with admirable effort, almost no one in the industry can capture more than 80% of the data. Some report as low as 50%.

How safe would you feel if your doctor didn’t know about 20% of your allergies? What if one of those left behind was the one that could kill you? What if a medication left behind was one you absolutely shouldn’t take with a new medication your doctor prescribed? Consider the woman whose aneurysm history was omitted during a conversion to a new EHR, so her specialist was unaware of it. She later died during a procedure when her aneurysm burst. I would say her family considered that data left behind pretty important, as did the treating physician, who could be found liable.

Liable, you say?

That’s right. The specialist could be found liable for the information in the legacy record because it was available….even if it was archived in an old EHR or paper chart.

You can begin to see the enormity of the problem and the potentially dangerous ramifications. Certainly every patient deserves an accurate record, and healthcare providers’ effectiveness, if not their very livelihood, depends on it. But maintaining the integrity of the data, especially during an EHR conversion, is no trivial task. Unfortunately, too many healthcare organizations underestimate it, and clearly it deserves more attention.

There is good news, however. With a well-planned conversion, using a system that combines robust technology with human expertise, it is possible to achieve 100% data capture with 99.8% accuracy. We’ve done it with well over a million patient chartsIt isn’t easy, but the results are worth it. Patients and doctors deserve no less.

Lisa Pike is the CEO of Versio, a healthcare technology company specializing in legacy data migration, with a proven track record of 100% data capture and 99.8% quality. We call it “No Data Left Behind.” For more information on Versio’s services or to schedule an introductory conversation, please visit us at www.MyVersio.com or email sales@myversio.com.

Brief EHR Notes, 40% EHR Replacement, and $23 Billion EHR Market

Posted on May 4, 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.


It’s amazing how this has shifted. When I first started blogging about EMR, it was all about the lengthy note to justify the higher billing. We’re still dealing with the impact of that choice. I’m still not convinced that everyone believes a brief EHR note is the best. They all want to read brief EHR notes, but when they’re billing I don’t think they all agree. We need a change from the payers to solve this problem.


I have no idea how someone comes up with a percentage of EHR replacement. Although, you can be sure that there will be a bunch of EHR switching in the years to come. What is interesting is that ERP systems have been going through this process for a long time. I wonder what we could learn from the ERP switching process that will apply to EHR.


I always find the EHR market number interesting. $23 billion in EHR spending. Where are we at in EHR stimulus spending? As I recall we’re somewhere around $13 billion $22.9 billion.

Meaningful Use Program a Success…Depending on How You Measure Success

Posted on January 22, 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 new National Coordinator of Health IT, Karen Desalvo, MD, published a blog post on The Health Care blog that proclaims that the “EHR Incentive Program Is on Track.” Of course, many would argue that it’s her job to be a cheerleader for healthcare IT, but I think this post is an important look at the measures that ONC and HHS have of what they consider a success.

If the goal of the EHR incentive money is just to get doctors and hospitals using EHR software, then indeed it’s been a big success. EHR adoption is through the roof at every level (although, I think they’d like it higher in the ambulatory space). This can’t be argued. The $36 billion in EHR incentive money got healthcare on board with EHR software.

If EHR use is your measure of success, then the HITECH act was a success. However, the goal of the HITECH act wasn’t just EHR adoption. If it was, then we wouldn’t have meaningful use. The goal was for doctors to adopt an EHR and then meaningfully use it. Of course, the jury is still out on whether doctors will follow through on meaningful use stage 2. I’m personally predicting a major fall out from those who attested to MU stage 1 and those that choose to sit out MU stage 2. Certainly Dr. Desalvo argues that this won’t be the case.

Either way, let’s assume that the majority of doctors do attest to meaningful use stage 2. Should we call the HITECH act a success? More pointedly, does meaningful use produce the results we want?

As someone who follows the EHR industry day in and day out, I think the jury’s still out on this. I’ve said many times that I fear the EHR incentive money might have incentivized doctors to adopt the wrong EHR software. The current and future EHR switching will likely prove this out. Although, we’ll see if organizations can get it right the second time.

However, choosing the right EHR is only half of the battle. Even the best tool used inappropriately won’t yield the desired results. There’s a strong case to make that meaningful use forces a doctor to use an EHR inappropriately. Every person at ONC calls this blasphemous and every doctor is likely to agree that meaningful use causes more work and does little to improve care.

I recently heard someone argue that they had “no sympathy for doctors having to accurately, legibly, and cohesively document what is happening.” I think it’s a real challenge to say that meaningful use equates the more accurate, legible, and cohesive documentation. In fact, many of the meaningful use hoops serve to make the documentation more illegible and difficult to read. Not to mention the issue of making the physician less efficient and therefore more likely to cut corners.

In this post, I’m not trying to make the case for or against EHR software. I’ve done a whole series on the benefits of EHR and so I believe that they can provide an amazing benefit to healthcare when implemented properly. My point with this post is that if our government is going to spend $36 billion on EHR software, then I wish they’d spend a little more time making sure that it’s not only implemented, but implemented well.

If they did this, then maybe we could call the HITECH act a real success. As it stands now, we’re using the only metrics we have available: EHR incentive spent and meaningful use attestation. I’d suggest there’s so much more value (both gained and lost) in an EHR implementation than either of those two things measures.

How about we track ways EHR use reduced costs, improved patient care, and saved lives? Maybe they don’t want to track that data because if they do, they won’t like the results. What would they do with meaningful use if they found out it raised costs, hurt patient care and did nothing to save lives? Would anyone want to make the case for why meaningful use should be scraped for something better? I wouldn’t want to as the new ONC chair either.

Open EMR’s Death, Collaborative Health Record, and Improving EMR

Posted on December 29, 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.


It seems a little ironic that an EMR vendor would write about wanting an open source EMR to die. Although, I couldn’t help but read the irony that this person chose not to be involved in the open EMR community because people weren’t getting involved in the community. A good old chicken and egg problem. Instead of contributing to the community so that it would be more vibrant, they chose to go out and develop EVERYTHING. The reality is that this person just wanted to build an EMR business. They didn’t want a real open source EMR community. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to build an EMR business, but it’s very different than contributing to a great open source EMR community and build a business.

As the author mentions, the Open EMR community isn’t going anywhere. In the hospital space, the Vista community isn’t going anywhere either. I will be interested to see how Open EMR handles MU. They did stage 1, but future stages are still a question mark from what I’ve seen. Of course, they could go radical and not worry about meaningful use. It will be interesting to see.


I’ve always loved the idea of the collaborative care record. Unfortunately, I don’t see much movement by the healthcare industry to make it a reality.


A lot of people are going to start asking this question. I believe it will be a couple years before this discussion really goes mainstream in hospitals (possibly post-MU), but it will be an important discussion. Of course, this isn’t a new discussion. It’s always a question of whether it’s best to improve the software you have or rip and replace. In the ambulatory side I predict we’re going to start seeing a lot of ripping and replacing of EHR software.

Does Patient Interaction Lock a Doctor In to an EHR?

Posted on March 28, 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.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about EHR vendor lock in. I think this was prompted by some stories I’ve heard of EHR vendors holding clinics EHR data “hostage” when the clinic chooses to switch EHR software. I heard one case recently that was going to cost the clinic a few hundred thousand dollars to get their EHR data out of their old EHR software. It’s a travesty and an issue that I want to help work to solve this year (more on that in the future).

I think it’s such a failed model for an EHR vendor to try to keep you as their EHR customer by holding your EHR data hostage. There are so many other ways for an EHR vendor to keep you as a customer that it’s such a huge mistake to use EHR data liquidity to keep customers. EHR vendors that choose to do this will likely pay the price long term since doctors love to talk about their EHR with other doctors. If a doctor is locked into an EHR they dislike, then you can be sure that their physician colleagues won’t be selecting that EHR.

There are a whole series of better ways to lock an EHR customer in long term. The best way being providing an amazing EHR product.

I recently considered another way that I think most EHR vendors aren’t using to create a strong relationship with their physician customers. Think about the strength of a company’s relationship with a doctor if a doctor’s patients are all familiar with their connection to the EHR. If a physician-patient interaction occurs regularly through the EHR, then it’s very unlikely that a doctor is going to switch EHR software.

The most obvious patient interaction that occurs is through a patient portal that’s connected to a provider’s EHR. Once a clinic has gotten a large portion of their patients connected to an EHR patient portal, then it makes it really hard for a doctor to consider switching from that EHR. It’s one thing for a doctor to change their workflow because they dislike their EHR. Add in the cost of getting patients to switch from a portal they have been using and I can see many doctors sticking with an EHR because of their patients.

Of course, from a doctor perspective, there’s some value in selecting an EHR that uses a 3rd party patient portal. That way if you choose to switch EHR software, then you can still consider keeping your interaction with patients the same through the same third party patient portal. Although, there’s some advantage to using the patient portal from the EHR vendor as well. It’s not an easy decision.