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!!

Google And Fitbit Partner On Wearables Data Options

Posted on May 7, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Fitbit and Google have announced plans to work together, in a deal intended to “transform the future of digital health and wearables.” While the notion of transforming digital health is hyperbole even for companies the size of Google and Fitbit, the pairing does have plenty of potential.

In a nutshell, Fitbit and Google expect to take on both consumer and enterprise health projects that integrate data from EMRs, wearables and other sources of patient information together. Given the players involved, it’s hard to doubt that at least something neat will emerge from their union.

Among the first things the pair plans to use Google’s new Cloud Healthcare API to connect Fitbit data with EMRs. Of course, readers will know that it’s one thing to say this and another to actually do it, but gross oversimplifications aside, the idea is worth pursuing.

Also, using services such as those offered by Twine Health– a recent Fitbit acquisition — the two companies will work to better manage chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. Twine offers a connected health platform which leverages Fitbit data to offer customized health coaching.

Of course, as part of the deal Fitbit is moving to the Google Cloud Platform, which will supply the expected cloud services and engineering support.

The two say that moving to the Cloud Platform will offer Fitbit advanced security capabilities which will help speed up the growth of Fitbit Health Solutions business. They also expect to make inroads in population health analysis. For its part, Google also notes that it will bring its AI, machine learning capabilities and predictive analytics algorithms to the table.

It might be worth a small caution here. Google makes a point of saying it is “committed” to meeting HIPAA standards, and that most Google Cloud products do already. That “most” qualifier would make me a little bit nervous as a provider, but I know, why worry about these niceties when big deals are afoot. However, fair warning that when someone says general comments like this about meeting HIPAA standards, it probably means they already employ high security standards which are likely better than HIPAA. However, it also means that they probably don’t comply with HIPAA since HIPAA is about more than security and requires a contractual relationship between provider and business associate and the associated liability of being a business associate.

Anyway, to round out all of this good stuff, Fitbit and Google said they expect to “innovate and transform” the future of wearables, pairing Fitbit’s brand, community, data and high-profile devices with Google’s extreme data management and cloud capabilities.

You know folks, it’s not that I don’t think this is interesting. I wouldn’t be writing about if I didn’t. But I do think it’s worth pointing out how little this news announcement says, really.

Yes, I realize that when partnerships begin, they are by definition all big ideas and plans. But when giants like Google, much less Fitbit, have to fall back on words like innovate and transform (yawn!), the whole thing is still pretty speculative. Just sayin’.

Be Skeptical About Health IT Research Reports

Posted on April 26, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Look, I get it. While advice from colleagues is fine, it’s even better to have an objective research organization tell you which vendors dominate the market and which seem to have a lot of fans.

You know some of the headlines, in big bold letters: “Epic has the biggest EMR market share in the US” or “Doctors are very satisfied with eClinicalWorks.” Hey, if nothing else, you can wave the report in your boss’ face if your new system doesn’t work out.

The thing is, are you getting valuable, fair, unbiased feedback from research vendors? Not necessarily.

  • Pay for play: Some research firms are getting paid to promote certain products or organizations in their reports and client notes. The payment can be as subtle as a few introductions to potential customers or a straight up bundle of cash. Sadly, not all analyst firms who engage in this practice will tell you that they do.
  • Lack of experience: While some research reports are written by senior people with a long institutional memory, sometimes they are farmed out to junior staff members with a lot less perspective. I’m not suggesting that the younger people get it wrong, but they simply can’t offer the kind of insight senior people can.
  • Beauty contests: Be warned: sometimes reports are just not about you. It may appear, on the surface, that the research firm is offering you valuable insights, but the truth is that the research isn’t that substantial. In cases like these, the firms simply line up all the vendors in a row and rate them on scales they basically make up in their head.
  • Value of the data: Sure, it’s sort of fun and interesting to know whether Epic has nudged out Cerner or MEDITECH in the battle for US market share. It’s something to share over the health IT water cooler. And it seems to give you a sense of which vendors are offering the most value. But does it really? In most case, it probably isn’t that helpful to track market share unless you hold stock in one of these companies.

For what it’s worth, I’ve written several in-depth research reports of my own, and I feel pretty good about the industry analysis I did. But thankfully, none of the publishers suggested that I was the Oracle of truth. I simply gathered up a pile the facts and tried to fit them together.

In saying all this, I’m not suggesting that health IT industry research is a waste of time. If a report offers context, input from your peers and no-nonsense answers to questions you have, it may well be worth the price. But don’t let one of these firms sell you a bunch of hot air.

 

Why Physician Practices Need a MIPS Expert on Staff

Posted on April 16, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Marina Verdara, Sr. Training Specialist for CMS Incentive Programs, Kareo.

Healthcare providers go to school to learn how to care for patients, and that’s what they do best. However, billing processes, performance-based payment adjustments, and payment incentives are typically not included in this education. Being responsible for today’s regulatory complexities and workload may not have been what providers envisioned for their career. And it’s taking a toll. Nearly half of physician practices spend more than $40,000 per full-time physician per year on complying with Medicare payment and incentive programs, according to an MGMA survey. These costs factor in loss of physician productivity and staff training needs, along with IT expenses.

Independent practices must find a way to streamline the CMS incentive program reporting process. One important way to do this is by designating a “MIPS expert” among your staff. This could be your lead clinician or another manager who has oversight of patient encounter documentation.  While 2017 reporting is done, now is the time to specify the MIPS expert so they can ensure compliance throughout all of 2018.  Don’t wait until 2018 is done to specify your MIPS expert.

MIPS Recap

In 2015, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new goals for value-based payments in Medicare that changed your practice’s payment structure. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) introduced a system where providers receive payment based on the value and quality of services provided, not the volume. These changes repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate Formula, streamlined multiple quality reporting programs into MIPS, and provided incentive payments for participation in Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs).

HHS made these changes as the first steps to creating a Medicare for healthier people. Their goals are to create a Medicare system that will be here for generations to come while also providing open, flexible, and user-centered health information.

Navigating The System

This sounds like a great plan, right? But, how do you keep up with the frequent MIPS changes and alerts while maintaining a successful private practice?

You need a MIPS expert.

You wouldn’t leave your busy practice in the hands of a mechanic, and you shouldn’t leave your billing and incentive payments in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand MACRA and MIPS. You need an internal staff member who is your MIPS champion. This is the person who can partner with your EHR vendor to ensure that the eligible providers in your practice earn the highest incentive available, as well as avoid any negative penalties. In my role of training practices on implementing a streamlined CMS reporting system, I can tell you that practices with a designated MIPS expert are much more successful and efficient in their MIPS reporting process—and these are the practices that are earning the highest possible score.

Invest in the education and training of your internal MIPS expert so you can be confident that your practice is among the highest earners.

3 Reasons You Need a MIPS Expert at Your Practice

1. A MIPS expert will help maximize your payments. MIPS is all about streamlining your practice to become more efficient in how you diagnose and improve patient outcomes. When you do this well and report your data, you increase your chances of earning a positive payment adjustment.  

Participating in MIPS earns you a payment adjustment according to evidence-based and practice-specific quality data. The better the quality of your data, the better your chances of earning a positive payment adjustment.  

Your MIPS expert will understand the details of the MIPS program. They should be familiar with the activities and measures that are most meaningful to your practice. Your MIPS expert can help your eligible clinicians select measures that best apply to the specialty to prove their performance and maximize their payments.

2. A MIPS expert will be your education partner. This staff member should stay educated and informed of the latest regulatory details. Here at Kareo, we notify eligible clinicians and the designated MIPS expert of ongoing education opportunities. These are offered on a set schedule and as needed with new changes to MACRA and MIPS.

3. A MIPS expert will mobilize your practice staff and clinicians. To successfully meet MIPS requirements, the entire practice needs to be engaged. The MIPS expert can partner up with your EHR vendor to ensure that eligible clinicians in your practice understand the MIPS requirements and know how to navigate through the system. In this process, your practice can identify areas where any given workflow should be modified to earn the highest possible score and receive maximum payment for the great care they deliver.

Resources for Your MIPS Expert

As we mentioned above, MIPS experts at independent practices must stay up to date on all MIPS alerts and resources available to you through the Quality Payment Program. They should take time to educate themselves, understand changes, and read all alerts provided by Medicare or by their EHR vendors.

Your MIPS expert should be able to find an education partner using one or both of these paths:   

  1. Your Regional Extension Center: Contact them to ask questions and get connected with a MIPS education partner.
  2. Your Electronic Health Record company: As an example, Kareo has MIPS training specialists who can partner with your MIPS expert to help maximize payments, stay up to date on the latest changes, and provide support. We have training sessions and ideas for implementation of new workflow processes.  

Don’t be intimidated by the complexity of MIPS. Take time to designate a MIPS expert on your staff and get them connected to their education partner today.

About Marina Verdara
Marina is a Sr. Training Specialist guiding Kareo customers to higher levels of success with their CMS Incentive Program reporting, including MIPS and Meaningful Use. Marina has over seven years of experience working directly with several hundred small practice clinicians on a variety of projects specializing on CMS Incentive programs such as Meaningful Use, PQRS, and MACRA. Kareo is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene.

Hospital Recycling Bins May Contain Sensitive PHI

Posted on April 6, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

A group of Canadian researchers studying hospitals information security practices found that hospital recycling bins contained a substantial amount of PHI.

The researchers, who summarized their findings in a letter published in JAMA, spent two years collecting materials from the recycling bins at five teaching hospitals in Toronto. The “recycling audit,” which took place November 2014 and May 2016, included­­­­ data for inpatient and outpatient care settings, emergency departments, physician offices and ICUs.

When they did their audit, the researchers found more than 2,600 items which contained personally identifiable information, including 1,885 items related to medical care. The majority of the items containing PHI (65%) had been created by medical groups.

Their audit also found that the most common locations at which they found particularly sensitive patient-identifiable information for physician offices (65%) and inpatient wards (19%).

The most commonly-found items included patient-identifiable information included clinical notes, medical reports (30%), followed by labels and patient identifiers (14%). Other items which contained PHI included diagnostic test results, prescriptions, handwritten notes, requests and communications, and scheduling materials.

According to the researchers, each of the five hospitals they audited had policies in place to protect PHI, along with secure shredding containers for packaging up private information. That being said, they guessed that as the hospitals transitioned to EHRs, they were discarding a high volume of paper records and losing control of how they were handled.

I don’t know what the EHR adoption rate is in Canada, but nearly all U.S. hospitals already have an EHR in place, so on first glance, it might appear that this couldn’t happen here. After all, once a hospital has digitized records, one would think the only way hospitals would expose PHI would be when someone deliberately steals data.

But the truth is, a great deal of hospital business still gets done on paper, and it seems likely that one could find a significant number of documents with PHI on them in U.S. recycling bins. (If someone was willing to do the dirty work, there might be a meaningful amount of PHI found in regular garbage cans as well.)

What I take away from this is that hospitals need to have stiffer policies in place to protect against paper-based security breaches. It may be time for hospital administrators to pay closer attention to this problem.

“I Don’t Want to Be Portal’d” – The Need for Untethered Patient Portals

Posted on March 23, 2018 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.

Always great when people who work in healthcare IT bumped into it in their own personal lives. That’s what makes this tweet from Steven Posnak so interesting:

For those not familiar with Steven Posnak, he’s the Director of the Office of Standards and Technology at ONC. He’s very familiar with these challenges on a policy level and now he’s gotten a first hand look on a personal level. I think most patients understand the idea of being portal’d.

One great thing about Steven Posnak’s tweet was that it inspired Arien Malec to share this tweetstorm about the need for an untethered patient portal:

This is some great analysis of why we have tethered portals today. I don’t see EHR vendors ever fully committing to an untethered portal and public API for all portal functions. Can you see it happening? I can’t. The future of healthcare portals is tethered portals, until we leapfrog way past it.

HIMSS Study Shows IT Pay Gaps Persist Between Genders, Races

Posted on March 14, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

It would be nice to think that, in a profession focusing on hard, measurable skills, that given the same experience level and skill set, HIT staffers would make more or less the same salaries. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case, according to data from the latest health IT compensation study by HIMSS.

Researchers found that as of previous years, race and gender seem to play a significant role in how much a health IT professional is paid. According to the study, females make 18% less than their male peers, and minorities make 12% less than non-minorities on average across all positions and number of years in a given position.

As the level of responsibility grows, the gap in pay seems to increase as well. The study found that women in executive roles actually face a larger salary gap versus their male counterparts than women at other levels in their organization. Moreover, that gap is growing. Meanwhile, minority females are particularly hard-hit, with the lowest average salaries of the four combinations of gender and racial groups studied, HIMSS reports.

Overall, respondents working in digital health reported being moderately satisfied with the current base salaries, while non-white respondents tended to be less satisfied than respondents who defined themselves as white.

Oddly, despite the substantial pay gap between them and their male peers, females in digital health appeared to be just as satisfied with their pay as their male peers. HIMSS researchers speculate that the reason women are satisfied with lower pay is that they simply don’t know they’re being under compensated. (Given my experience as a professional female, I’d also speculate that some women simply get tired of fighting to close the pay gap and make peace with what they’ve got.)

Having summed all of this up, HIMSS researchers made a few recommendations as to how health organizations can address pay gaps, such as accepting that these gaps exist, educating managers and why gender and racial equality is good for business and adopting strategies that help to reduce such disparities. The researchers also suggest making tools available that can help all health IT professionals understand what they’re worth and negotiate fair pay agreements.

As for me, I’d go a bit further. I’d argue that professionals whose gender and/or minority status have impacted their pay should speak out. It’s all well and good to have provider organizations recognize that their pay structure may not be fair and take action. But ultimately, drawing attention to these gaps both within and outside of the healthcare industry may have the biggest long-term effect.

New Study Suggests That HIEs Deliver Value by Aggregating Patient Data

Posted on March 5, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Historically, I’ve been pretty skeptical about the benefits that HIEs offer, not because the concept was flawed, but that the execution was uncertain. Toss in the fact that few have figured out how to be self-supporting financially, and you have a very shaky business model on your hands. But maybe, at long last, we’re discovering better uses for the vast amount of data HIEs have been trading.

New research by one exchange suggests that some of the key value they offer is aggregating patient data from multiple providers into a longitudinal view of patients. The research, completed by the Kansas Health Information Network and Diameter Health suggests that the Qualified Clinical Data Registries promoted by MACRA/QPP could be a winning approach.

To conduct the research, the partners extracted data from the KHIN exchange on primary care practices in which more than 50,000 patients visited toward 214 care sites in 2016 and 2017. This is certainly interesting, as most of the multi-site studies I’ve seen on this scale are done within a single provider’s network. It’s also notable that the data is relatively fresh, rather than relying on, say, Medicare data which is often several years older.

According to KHIN, using interoperable interfaces to providers and collecting near real-time clinical data makes prompt quality measure calculation possible. According to KHIN executive director Laura McCrary, Ed.D., this marks a significant change from current methods. “This [approach is in stark contrast to the current model which computes quality measures from only the data in the provider’s EHR,” she notes.

FWIW, the two research partners will be delivering a presentation on the research study at the HIMSS18 conference on Friday, March 9, from 12 to 1 PM. I’m betting it will offer some interesting insights.

But even if you can’t make it to this presentation, it’s still worth noting that it emphasizes the increasing importance of the longitudinal patient record. Eventually, under value-based care, it will become critical to have access not only to a single provider’s EHR data, but rather a fuller data set which also includes connected health/wearables data, data from payer claims, overarching population health data and more. And obviously, HIEs play a major role in making this happen.

Like other pundits, I’d go so far to say that without developing this kind of robust longitudinal patient record, which includes virtually every source of relevant patient data, health systems and providers won’t be able to manage patients well enough to meet their individual patient or population health goals.

If HIEs can help us get there, more power to them.

How Not to Handle EHR Certification Problems

Posted on February 26, 2018 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.

Today I was thinking back on how differently EHR vendors have handled EHR Certification problems. First, take a look at the $155 million whistleblower lawsuit that eCW (eClinicalWorks) suffered thanks to improper EHR certification (amidst other things). They had to have known what they were doing and didn’t come clean.

$155 million is just the first price they had to pay. Since then, providers have filed a class action lawsuit against eCW and the family of a patient also filed a lawsuit against eCW. This a painful and expensive experience for eCW.

Anne Zieger reported in August last year that the eCW settlement hadn’t led to customer defections (yet?), but we’ll see how that plays out over time. It makes me wonder if the eCW founder, Girish Navani, still feels the same about never selling your EHR company. Maybe these lawsuits have made him wish he’d taken a buy out offer after all, but I digress.

Today I remembered a situation where another EHR vendor had issues with how their certified EHR attested to meaningful use data. It was back in 2011, so I’m pretty sure many of you have forgotten it. Plus, I expect many of you have forgotten it because the EHR vendor in this case took ownership of the error and fixed it. Of course, this EHR vendor hasn’t fared quite as well as eCW in the marketplace. However, their choice to hide their certification issue would have no doubt made their market position even worse.

The clear message I see in these two stories is something we see often in the US. If you own up to mistakes and do your best to make them right, humans are surprisingly forgiving. However, if you hide it, then the damage can often be much worse than the crime.

I also loved this question I asked back in 2011 about the meaningful use and EHR certification program which are still relevant today when it comes to these complex programs:

“If a large EHR vendor that’s intimately involved in the meaningful use rule creation process can mess up some of the meaningful use guidelines, how many other EHR vendors are going to do the same?”

I didn’t know about eCW’s issues back in 2011, but I obviously could see how easily the eCW issues could happen. Has anything changed with EHR certification and now MACRA and MIPS to make us think that this has gotten any better? Should we be asking, whose the next EHR vendor that will have issues? Will it be because of deliberate skirting of the law or just overly complex, unclear, and changing government requirements?

Yes, you can believe that I’m with those organizations that have called for an end to EHR certification. I’ve been against it since I first heard about it and still don’t see how it’s provided any value since. Pro-EMR I am. Pro-EMR Certification I am not.

Practical Health IT Innovation Conference

Posted on February 15, 2018 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.

For those regular readers, you’ve probably been seeing some of the promotion we’ve been doing for a new healthcare IT conference called Health IT Expo. Yes, this is our first time hosting a healthcare IT Conference of our own, but we are in our 5th year organizing the Healthcare IT Marketing and PR Conference. While we attend and enjoy attending ~30 healthcare IT conferences per year, we think there’s something missing in these conferences that we can address at Health IT Expo.

Hundreds of people over the years have suggested that we should host our own healthcare IT conference. I’d always resisted doing so because I didn’t want to just create another me too conference. In many ways, it felt like there were enough conferences. However, having attended hundreds of conference over the years, I realized that something really big was missing at these conferences: practical innovation.

Most healthcare IT conferences are short on practical innovation and long on useless platitudes.

Last month I wrote that Health IT Expo was the Anti Moonshot Conference. Not that there’s anything wrong with people working on moonshot ideas. That’s a lot of fun and really exciting. However, if you’re a healthcare IT professional that’s overwhelmed by operational minutiea, listening to moonshot ideas ends up leaving you empty and longing for practical innovations that can improve your work life.

Long story short, we’ll be focusing the conference on the following 5 areas of healthcare IT innovation to start:

  • Security and Privacy
  • Analytics
  • Communication and Patient Engagement
  • IT Dev Ops
  • Operational Alignment and Support

We want to take everything we’ve learned attending conferences and organizing one for 5 years and make Health IT Expo a one of a kind experience for those working in these 5 areas.

As part of this conference, we also want to extend the innovation that’s shared over the 2 day event well beyond the conference. One of the other major challenges in healthcare IT is that innovations aren’t shared between organizations. Unlike healthcare data, we don’t mind sharing innovations in healthcare IT. However, there hasn’t been a great platform for this sharing.

For example, how does an IT professional at a hospital share a unique way they implemented 1000 new virtual desktops and saved their organization time and money? The sad answer is they don’t. How does a healthcare IT professional learn about a new company that can solve their physician communication problems? In many cases they don’t.

One of our goals is to use Healthcare Scene and this new conference to create a platform for innovation sharing. As a simple example, we’re finalizing resource pages around each of the 5 topics listed above. These pages will list companies that are innovating in each spaceso they’re easy to find. I’ve been blogging for 12 years and published over 12,000 blog posts and even I was surprised by some of the companies we found. We’ll do a future post linking to those pages once they’re published.

At the end of the day, we have one major goal. How can we make healthcare IT professionals lives better so we improve healthcare?

If that goal interests you, take a minute to check out Health IT Expo. If you’re a healthcare IT professional that wants to be part of this community, reach out to us on our contact us page. Share your experience with us and we’ll give you a special discount code to attend the conference where it doesn’t break your budget.

Radiology Centers Poised To Adopt Machine Learning

Posted on February 8, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

As with most other sectors of the healthcare industry, it seems likely that radiology will be transformed by the application of AI technologies. Of course, given the euphoric buzz around AI it’s hard to separate talk from concrete results. Also, it’s not clear who’s going to pay for AI adoption in radiology and where it is best used. But clearly, AI use in healthcare isn’t going away.

This notion is underscored by a new study by Reaction Data suggesting that both technology vendors and radiology leaders believe that widespread use of AI in radiology is imminent. The researchers argue that radiology AI applications are a “have to have” rather than a novel experiment, though survey respondents seem a little less enthusiastic.

The study, which included 133 respondents, focused on the use of machine learning in radiology. Researchers connected with a variety of relevant professionals, including directors of radiology, radiologists, techs, chiefs of radiology and PACS administrators.

It’s worth noting that the survey population was a bit lopsided. For example, 45% of respondents were PACS admins, while the rest of the respondent types represented less than 10%. Also, 90% of respondents were affiliated with hospital radiology centers. Still, the results offer an interesting picture of how participants in the radiology business are looking at machine learning.

When asked how important machine learning was for the future of radiology, one-quarter of respondents said that it was extremely important, and another 59% said it was very or somewhat important. When the data was sorted by job titles, it showed that roughly 90% of imaging directors said that machine learning would prove very important to radiology, followed by just over 75% of radiology chiefs. Radiology managers both came in at around 60%. Clearly, the majority of radiology leaders surveyed see a future here.

About 90% of radiology chiefs were extremely familiar with machine learning, and 75% of techs. A bit counterintuitively, less than 10% of PACS administrators reported being that familiar with this technology, though this does follow from the previous results indicating that only half were enthused about machine learning’s importance. Meanwhile, 75% of techs in roughly 60% of radiologists were extremely familiar with machine learning.

All of this is fine, but adoption is where the rubber meets the road. Reaction Data found that 15% of respondents said they’d been using machine learning for a while and 8% said they’d just gotten started.

Many more centers were preparing to jump in. Twelve percent reported that they were planning on adopting machine learning within the next 12 months, 26% of respondents said they were 1 to 2 years away from adoption and another 24% said they were 3+ years out.  Just 16% said they don’t think they’ll ever use machine learning in their radiology center.

For those who do plan to implement machine learning, top uses include analyzing lung imaging (66%), chest x-rays (62%), breast imaging (62%), bone imaging (41%) and cardiovascular imaging (38%). Meanwhile, among those who are actually using machine learning in radiology, breast imaging is by far the most common use, with 75% of respondents saying they used it in this case.

Clearly, applying the use of machine learning or other AI technologies will be tricky in any sector of medicine. However, if the survey results are any indication, the bulk of radiology centers are prepared to give it a shot.