Is A Cerner Installation A “Downgrade” From Epic? Ask This Guy

Posted on January 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.

I don’t know if I’ve ever quoted a letter to the editor in a column for this publication, but I have to this time. I thought it had an interesting story to tell.

The letter, written by a patient at the Banner University of Arizona Medical Center in Tucson, offers a scathing critique what he sees “degradation of services” taking place after the institution switched from an Epic to a Cerner EHR, a change he refers to as a downgrade throughout the letter.

Since the “downgrade,” said the patient, John Kimbell, appointments take much longer. “Three weeks after the downgrade, my 30-minute appointment took three hours and 40 minutes,” he complains.

His other concerns include:

  • Data exchange problems: “My local doctor has TWICE sent results of a scan to my oncologist, and they never arrived.”
  • Privacy issues: With the automated paging system gone, “nurses call out names in the waiting areas in each clinic,” Kimbell notes.
  • Useless information: After Kimbell’s most recent appointment, he says, he was “handed out a 13-page printout that gave 12 pages information I didn’t need.” Before the Epic to Cerner switch, he reports, he was able to access this information online.
  • Communication issues: Kimbell says he never gets telephone call reminders of appointments anymore.

As Kimbell sees it, the quality of care has slipped significantly since Epic was switched out for a Cerner system. “All the cancer patients I have known while a patient there are in need of better care than Banner now provides,” he writes.

It’s important to note here that the Epic-to-Cerner switch-off took place in October last year, which means that the tech and administrative staff haven’t had much time to work out problems with the new installation. It may be the case that the concerns Kimbell had in late December won’t be an issue in a couple of months.

On the other hand, I do think it’s possible that as the letter implies, UMC owner Banner Health may have had reasons to push the Cerner install into the facility, most particularly if all of its other properties already operate using Cerner.

Regardless, if everything is as Kimbell describes, let’s hope it all gets back in order soon.  From the looks of things, UMC seems to offer a renowned cancer treatment program. Let’s hope that a quality program isn’t undermined by IT concerns.