As most of you know, I don’t often point out individual vendors all that much. However, on occasion I get something sent to me that I think could add to the conversation around various EHR software. I got one of those emails from long time reader, Carl Bergman. He chose to no longer be a Practice Fusion consultant and wanted to share the issues he had with the current Practice Fusion EHR product.
I haven’t had the time lately to be able to dig into Carl’s comments myself, so that I could make an assessment of his comments about the Practice Fusion EHR. However, in the interest of sharing both sides of the story I asked Practice Fusion to comment on Carl’s thoughts on their EHR software. So, below you’ll find Carl and Practice Fusions comments.
As with most things in life, take everything you read in this post with a grain of salt and evaluate what each side says for yourself. Either way, I think it could start a helpful discussion for those considering the Practice Fusion EHR.
Letter sent from Carl Bergman to Practice Fusion:
I have been a certified Practice Fusion Consultant for several months. I’m writing to ask that you remove me as a PF consultant.
I have given this decision a great deal of thought, but I do not believe that I can market PF in good conscious. This is not due in any way to how I have been treated, nor is it any reflection on the support that PF offers to its consultants, which is considerable.
Rather, it is based on what I believe are important, missing product features. This lack of features makes it impossible for me to recommend PF to any of the leads that you have generously shared with me. (Please note, I have not and will not approach any of those leads due to your referral.)
I was initially attracted to PF due to its web basis, ease of use and, simple set up and good support. However, as I went through PF I saw that it was lacking in four important areas: Workflow, Billing, Security and Reporting.
Workflow. Each patient in a medical practice presents a different set of circumstances, attributes and issues. These require that the practice be able to respond in a concerted and orchestrated way. PF lacks this ability. Specifically:
Appointment Type. PF has six fixed appointment types, New, Recurring, etc. They may not be changed, deactivated or added to. Appointment duration is set separately for each appointment. An appointment’s specifics are kept in a note.
Appointments are key to a practice’s workflow. For example, PF has a wellness appointment type. However, there is no ability to link the appointment type to look for outstanding labs before the appointment is set. Nor can appointment type reserve a room or assign a tech to take vitals, etc., as part of an exam. As a result, a practice is left to its own, non traceable, ad hoc methods for preparing for and carrying out the exam.
Shared Task List. When a practitioners decides on a course of treatment, this can set a number of things in motion:
• Recurring Appointments
Each of these also is an assignment to someone else to carry out a portion of the plan. While PF has lists for a patient and individual task lists for each person, it does not have an overall view of pending tasks so a manager can see bottlenecks or assign workloads.
Security. PF has four fixed levels of security: Staff, Nurse, NP/PA and PA. Users are assigned to one or more of these levels and optionally as administrators. As with appointment types, the categories may not have their attributes modified or may new ones be added.
I found a definition of the categories in the Support Forum/Getting Started, which defines different user’s edit rights. It is silent about how, if at all, access is limited. Apparently, any user may view all parts of a record. Allowing any user to view anything in an EMR is a dangerous policy because it allows confidential information, such as an AIDS test result, to be known by those who have no need to know it.
Billing. PF includes elements, such as insurance plans, copays, etc., that are usually associated with practice management and billing systems, so it is surprising that it does not include billing as well. Instead, it integrates with third party billing systems, such as Karo.
I have long been biased against systems that tie an EMR from one vendor with billing from another. No matter how well designed, the attempt to integrate two different data structures just doesn’t work well. While PF states that is it fully integrated with Karo, an on line subscription based billing system, but neither site has much detail on the integration much less a data model. I think a user should also know what, if any, terms, relationship, contract, etc., exist between PF and Karo or other billing services.
Aside from detracting from the free nature of PF, the question of the degree of integration is major. For example, who is responsible for the interface’s operation PF or Karo?
Is a demographic change in either reflected in the other? From what I read in the PF Community Forum, the answer is no. I would like to know whose reporting module, if either, can access the combined data from the two systems?
Also, if I use Karo, does that mean I have to set up a separate security system. To look at billing do I have to go from PF and log into Karo?
Reporting. A major advantage of an EMR over a manual system is not only the ability to find and retrieve a specific record, but also the ability to find and report on a selected set as well. For example, if the FDA notifies physicians that they should review all cases of Crone’s disease that are more than three years old who are on a specific dose of a particular antibiotic, PF could not do this.
PF’s reports are limited to searching and reporting on specific topics. In this, it compares unfavorably to a host of other EMRs on the market. If it did have a well developed reporting function, it could make up for some of its lack of workflow abilities, but it does not. This lack of reporting ability when combined with the lack of an internal billing function is a deal killer.
I regard each of the issues that I’ve listed to be a major problem any one of which would cause me to be skeptical of a product. Taken as a whole, and I am aware of the wide adoption of PF, I find that I cannot recommend PF as an EMR.
And Practice Fusion’s response:
Here’s some notes back. In general, Carl doesn’t seem to have a very deep understanding of the product. A failure on our part, perhaps, but these answers are easily given from our support team:
- Appointment type: EHR accounts come with six default appointment types, but any Admin level user is free to create their own to match their workflow. This setting is under the “admin” tab in the EHR.
- Task list: Each practice manages the passing back and forth of tasks a little bit differently. Most use the secure message feature to send follow-up, billing, lab messages, etc. A practice manager could review these messages or, more easily, could use the Live Activity Feed to see where there are bottlenecks. Since most of our practices are small (under 10 doctors) this doesn’t seem to be a big issue.
- Security: Each user has just one level of permission inside the EHR. Their individual login dictates the level of access they have. It is certainly not true than any user has the same access rights to any record. Plus, our activity feed gives an added level of transparency where you can see exactly who has accessed what, any actions they’ve taken, etc. That’s a unique Practice Fusion feature. However, it is a great suggestion to add more customization to these edit levels, that’s a popular request from our users as well and we have it on our development roadmap.
- Billing: We have the opposite bias from Carl here. We believe that being billing agnostic gives Practice Fusion users a great deal more flexibility in how they choose to manage their billing and an easier transition to EHR since they don’t have to change their billing process at the same time. Kareo is just one option that we provide our users, they are free to use whichever biller then would like. Their low-cost, integrated billing software is popular with our users. The integration today is fairly light, but we are working on ways to make it a more robust connection.
- Reporting: Practice Fusion does have some basic reporting features built in to the EHR today. For example, the reporting feature has assisted doctors with managing the Darvocet recall and with identifying H1N1 high-risk patients. The Crohn’s (note the spelling) disease example he gives would actually be fairly easy to run within PF. You would just do a report on ICD-9 code 555.9 with the date range set and then filter the resulting patients based on prescription (or run a second Rx report and merge). I don’t have any Crohn’s patients in my test account, so I ran a report on chronic migraine instead, below. However, we are in the process of upgrading the reporting feature for both Meaningful Use and our own planned enhancements.
There you have it. I’ll let you be the judge for yourself. Plus, I’m interested to hear what other Practice Fusion users have to say about the various opinions stated in this post. One thing that Practice Fusion has going for them is they at least don’t charge anything for their EHR. So, it’s not like a doctor using it can complain that they didn’t get what they paid for.
I have a feeling that this conversation will continue in the comments. See you there.
Full Disclosure: Practice Fusion is an advertiser on EMR and EHR. Although, I’d provide the same opportunity to any EHR vendor that would like to respond to comments I get about them.