T3: at risk of sounding like total cynic: most EMR vendors haven’t had financial need to do true UX work including user wants/needs #hcsm
— Nick Dawson (@nickdawson) May 6, 2013
I don’t think Nick was being a cynic with this comment. He’s right. Nothing has pushed EHR vendors to do a good UX and I don’t see that changing any time soon. The #EHRBacklash hasn’t reached a critical mass (yet?). As a side note, I recorded a video chat with Nick Dawson this week as well. He’s a smart man.
Here it is, the new Flagler Hospital EMR video: youtube.com/watch?v=WFCkDt… #iconnect2013 @imethodsinc @heatherhaugen @allscripts #LETSDOTHIS
— Bill Rieger (@pvbrieger) May 1, 2013
Kudos to Flagler Hospital for celebrating their EHR in a fun way for their staff. It’s interesting to see their list of EHR benefits in thew video as well. Although, the dancing is absolutely the best part of the video. Nice work Flagler and a great follow up to your EHR launch video.
What Does an Antiquated EMR (Electronic Record System) Look Like-images of what I used to write bit.ly/bhr7jA
— MedicalQuack (@MedicalQuack) April 16, 2013
I’ll admit that this tweet is quite nostalgic for me. The Medical Quack is one of the first people I met in my online EMR world. I still remember an early Skype video chat we did just after Skype video came out. We were both surprised that it actually worked. It was almost midnight and for some reason we were both up doing EMR related stuff. It was amazing for me to consider one lady on her own trying to develop an EMR. My how far we’ve both come since then. It’s great to see the screenshots from her original EMR. Too bad I didn’t have my EHR screenshots website back then.
I really liked that video! Kudos to its producers and the staff @ Flagler
Hopefully the new requirements for Summative Usability Evaluations for Stage 2 Meaningful Use funding will spur some UX work.
We are typically doing some formative evaluations, but are excited to have a format and a requirement for Summative testing.
My guess is the the EHR Summative tests — at least initially — will work in a manner analogous to section 508 compliance. For accessibility (S 508) vendors that want any chance at getting federal or state clients would file a VPAT — Voluntary Product Accessibility Template — that outlined the accessibility features in their product. File a VPAT and you comply with Section 508.
For EHRs the requirement seems to be a Summative report in the NIST 7742 CCIF format ( see http://1.usa.gov/gAZFDt ) File one of those and you are in compliance–and hopefully get your MU funding!
Lucky for us that we’ve been working with the NIST CIF format for 15+ years!