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!!

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.

IT Leaders Question Allscripts Acquisition of McKesson EIS

Posted on August 31, 2017 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.

Not long ago, I shared the results of a poll featured on HISTalk on the potential benefits of the Allscripts acquisition of McKesson EIS. The poll asked readers “Who will benefit most from the proposed acquisition of McKesson EIS by Allscripts?”

Roughly equal numbers of respondents said Allscripts customers would benefit (29%) and McKesson customers (27%). However, a new research report from Reaction Data suggests that many of their peers doubt that things will work out for McKesson customers or even do much to build Allscripts’ market position.

A number of health IT leaders quoted in the report say they’re fearful that McKesson solutions will get short shrift under Allscripts management. Others suggest that both vendors are behind the curve, especially McKesson, and that Allscripts is unlikely to spend enough money on it to catch up to current standards.

Their comments included the following observations:

  • I don’t see Allscripts as a major player in this space anymore and the acquisition will likely further stress the enterprise. Perhaps in combination they can cobble together a suite of tools, but integration will likely be clunky at best for some time.” – CIO
  • I do not see that McKesson brings anything beneficial to Allscripts, other than more users. McKesson’s products are very different from Allscripts’ current products and so will further dilute their efforts to bring quality product forward.” –CFO
  • McKesson is behind. Does not look like a smart choice moving forward.” –Director of IT
  • Just like Cerner buying Siemens, we were told they would support it and yada yada, here we are on Cerner after having to drop much more cash than we should have been required to.”—CIO

it’s worth noting, for the record, that all the feedback on the acquisition wasn’t negative. Positive comments included the following:

  • Combining Paragon, as the only true integrated, Microsoft SQL-based, hospital and ambulatory HIS on the market, with a solid vendor that focuses exclusively on HIT, is a win-win for the healthcare industry.” – CIO
  • “McKesson was losing and continues to lose ground on EHR systems to Epic and Cerner. They are withering on the vine. This acquisition will help them solidify their position in the market.”– Vice President of Finance

Still, most health IT leaders seemed to think the deal wouldn’t help either party that much. In particular, they were skeptical that McKesson’s high-profile Paragon solution was salvageable. “Paragon…is antiquated,” wrote one manager of information technology. “It will take a big bag of money and a lot of time to fix that.”

To summarize, while HIT execs conceded that the merger might buy Allscripts some customers and time, they felt it wasn’t likely to benefit their organizations. In fact, some argued that the deal could actually undercut the future of their McKesson systems: “Allscripts may focus on their own EMR and how those products I have with McKesson will interact with them rather than on McKesson products as a whole,” worried one director of information technology.

On top of everything else, the previous analysis by HISTalk doesn’t inspire much confidence that the acquisition will work on a corporate level. The analysis asserts that EMR vendors should be judged by the number of 250+ bed hospitals they have as customers, and points out that Allscripts controls only 6% of that market. (Epic, in contrast, has 20%, the article notes, citing HIMSS Analytics data.)

If I’m reading this right, it seems that Allscripts will take two mediocre and/or unfashionable solution sets and try to crossbreed them into a more popular set of tools, in the process scaring whatever loyal customers they have left. All sarcasm aside, I’d like to ask: Has this ever worked before?

Nurses Still Unhappy With EHRs

Posted on August 21, 2017 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 new research report looking at nurses’ perceptions of EHRs suggests that despite countless iterations, many still don’t meet the needs of one of their key user groups. While the statistics included in the report are of some value, the open text responses nurses shared tell a particularly important story of what they’re facing of late.

The study, which was conducted by Reaction Data, draws on responses from 245 nurses and nurse leaders, 85% of whom work for a hospital and 15% a medical practice. Categories in which the participants fell broke out as follows:

* Nurses                                          49%
* CNOs                                            18%
* Nurse Managers                           14%
* Directors of Nursing                     12%
* Nurse Practitioners                       2%
* Informatics Nurse                         2%
* VP of Nursing                               2%
* Director, Clinical Informatics        1%

As with most other research houses, Reaction gets the party started by offering a list of vendors’ market share. I take all of these assessments with a grain of salt, but for what it’s worth their data ranks Epic and Meditech at the top, with a 20% market share each, followed by Cerner at 18%, Allscripts with 8% and McKesson with 6%.

The report summary I’ve used to write this item doesn’t share its stats on how the nurses’ ranked specific platforms and how likely they were to recommend those platforms. However, it does note that 63% of respondents said their organization wasn’t actively looking at replacing their EHR, while just 17% said that their employer was actively looking. (Twenty percent said they didn’t know.)

Where the rubber really hit the road, though, was in the comments section. When asked what the EHR needed to improve to support them, nurses had some serious complaints to air:

  • “Many aspects, too many to list. Unfortunately we ‘customized’ many programs, so they don’t necessarily speak to each other…” —Nurse Manager
  • “When we purchased this system 4 years ago, we were told that everything would be unified on one platform within 2 years, but this did not happen and will not happen.” –CNO
  • “Horrible and is a patient safety risk!” –RN
  • “Coordination of care. Very fragmented documentation.” –CNO

So let’s see: We’ve got incompatible modules, questionable execution, safety risks and basic patient care support problems. While the vendors aren’t responsible for customers’ integration problems, I’d find this report disheartening if I were on their team. It seems to me that they ought to step up and address issues like these. I wonder if they see these things as their responsibility?

In the meantime, I’d like to offer a quick postscript. The report’s introduction makes a point of noting – rightly, I think – that the inclusion of a high percentage of non-manager nurses makes the study results far more valuable. Apparently, not everyone agrees.

In fact, some of the vendors the firm met with said flat out that they only want to know what executives have to say – and that other users’ views didn’t matter to them.

Wow. I won’t respond any further than to promise that I’ll stomp all over that premise in a separate column. Stay tuned.