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!!

ZDoggMD Sings 7 Years (A Life In Medicine) – The Path to Health 3.0

Posted on August 5, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Rather than try to explain this ZDoggMD video, I thought this comment from Riley Mcnamara on ZDoggMD’s latest video described it best:

I’m dealing with a lot of crap right now in the clinic, we’re over booked with patients, EHR headaches, and a never ending stream of useless bureaucracy. It’s been one of those weeks that made me question if I can do this. This made me feel better even if it’s just for a little bit! It’s not easy, but I’d never dream of doing anything else! Thanks man!

There truly is a battle going on for the future of healthcare and it’s a battle worth fighting. Thanks for the excellent work ZDoggMD! Shout out to as well. Check out the video below:

E-Patient Update: Don’t Give Patients Needless Paperwork

Posted on July 6, 2016 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.

Recently, I had an initial appointment with a primary care practice. As I expected, I had a lot of paperwork to fill out, including not only routine administrative items like consent to bill my insurer and HIPAA policies, but also several pages of medical history.

While nobody likes filling out forms, I have no problem with doing so, as I realize that these documents are very important to building a relationship with a medical practice. However, I was very annoyed by what happened later, when I was ushered back into the clinical suite.

Despite my having filled out the extensive checklist of medical history items, I was asked every single one of the questions featured on the form verbally by a med tech who saw me ahead of my clinical appointment. And I mean Every. Single. One. I was polite and patient as I could be, particularly given that it wasn’t the poor tech’s fault, but I was simmering nonetheless, for a couple of reasons.

First, on a practical level, it was infuriating to have filled out a long clinical interview form for what seemed to be absolutely no reason. This is in part because, as some readers may remember, I have Parkinson’s disease, and filling out forms can be difficult and even painful. But even if my writing hand was unimpaired I would’ve been rather irked by what seemed to be pointless duplication.

Not only that, as it turns out the practice seems to have had access to my medication list — perhaps from claims data? — and could have spared me the particularly grueling job of writing out all the medications I currently take. Given my background in HIT, I was forced to wonder whether even the checkbox lists of past illnesses, surgeries and the like were even necessary.

After all, if the group is sophisticated enough to access my medications list, perhaps it could have accessed my other medical records as well. In fact, as it turned out, the primary care group is owned by the dominant local health system which has been providing most of my care for 20 years. So the clinicians almost certainly had a shot at downloading my current medical data in some form.

Even if the medical group had no access to any historical data on my care, I can’t imagine why administrators would require me to fill out a medical history form if the tech was going to ask me every question on the form. My hunch is that it may be some wrongheaded attempt at liability management, providing the practice with some form of cover if somebody failed to collect an accurate history during the interview. But other than that I can’t imagine what was going on there.

The reality is, physician practices that are transitioning into EMR use, or adopting a new EMR, may end up requiring their staff to do double data entry to one extent or another as practice leaders figure things out. But asking patients to do so shows an alarming lack of consideration for my time and effort. Perhaps the practice has forgotten that I’m not on the payroll?

More on Stage 2: Clinical Quality Measure Reporting – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on August 22, 2011 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

In addition to the Meaningful Use Stage 2 recommendations discussed in last week’s Meaningful Use Monday, the HIT Policy Committee proposed a new framework for the reporting of clinical quality measures that was designed by its specifically-tasked Quality Measure Workgroup. The recommended concept is depicted in the graphic below—the intention is to broaden the scope of reporting to address a wider spectrum of factors affecting care and to accommodate all types of physicians.

Providers would report on some number of the core measures, (between 5 and all 8 or 9 is the recommendation), and at least one measure from each of the 6 menu “domains”. The core quality measure set would include all of the core and alternate core measures from Stage 1 and an additional 2 measures related to care coordination. Interestingly, there was no mention of establishing required thresholds to be met on any of the quality measures.

The intention is that all physicians (including specialists) will find measures relevant to their specialty in the core set as well as in each of the domains. This seems like a tall order from a practical perspective, given the primary-care focus of the Stage 1 quality measures, (particularly true of the core, but also the additional measures.) To accomplish this, the workgroup submitted quite a lengthy “library” of measures to CMS for its consideration—some measures are carried forward from Stage 1, others are recently retooled, and many are still “to be developed”.

We’ll be watching intently to see what CMS does with clinical quality measures, since this is such a fundamental part of meaningful use.