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 EHR for FREE!

Some Methods For Improving EMR Alerts

Posted on June 25, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

A new study appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association has made some points that may turn out to be helpful in designing those pesky but helpful alerts for clinicians.

Making alerts useful and appropriate is no small matter. As we reported on a couple of years ago, even then EMR alert fatigue has become a major source of possible medical errors. In fact, a Pediatrics study published around that time found that clinicians were ignoring or overriding many alerts in an effort to stay focused.

Despite warnings from researchers and important industry voices like The Joint Commission, little has changed since then. But the issue can’t be ignored forever, as it’s a car crash waiting to happen.

The JAMIA study may offer some help, however. While it focuses on making drug-drug interaction warnings more usable, the principles it offers can serve as a model for designing other alerts as well.

For what it’s worth, the strategies I’m about to present came from a DDI Clinical Decision Support conference attended by experts from ONC, health IT vendors, academia and healthcare organizations.

While the experts offered several recommendations applying specifically to DDI alerts, their suggestions for presenting such alerts seem to apply to a wide range of notifications available across virtually all EMRs. These suggestions include:

  • Consistent use of color and visual cues: Like road signs, alerts should come in a limited and predictable variety of colors and styles, and use only color and symbols for which the meaning is clear to all clinicians.
  • Consistent use of terminology and brevity: Alerts should be consistently phrased and use the same terms across platforms. They should also be presented concisely, with minimal text, allowing for larger font sizes to improve readability.
  • Avoid interruptions wherever possible:  Rather than freezing clinician workflow over actions already taken, save interruptive alerts that require action to proceed for the most serious situation. The system should proactively guide decisions to safer alernatives, taking away the need for interruption.

The research also offers input on where and when to display alerts.

Where to display alert information:  The most critical information should be displayed on the alert’s top-level screen, with links to evidence — rather than long text — to back up the alert justification.

When to display alerts: The group concluded that alerts should be displayed at the point when a decision is being made, rather than jumping on the physician later.

The paper offers a great deal of additional information, and if you’re at all involved in addressing alerting issues or designing the alerts I strongly suggest you review the entire paper.

But even the excerpts above offer a lot to consider. If most alerts met these usability and presentation standards, they might offer more value to clinicians and greater safety to patients.

Doctors, Not Patients, May Be Holding Back mHealth Adoption

Posted on June 24, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Clearly, mHealth technology has achieved impressive momentum among a certain breed of health-conscious, self-monitoring consumer. Still, aside from wearable health bands, few mHealth technologies or apps have achieved a critical level of adoption.

The reason for this, according to a new survey, may lie in doctors’ attitudes toward these tools. According to the study, by market research firm MedPanel, only 15% of physicians are suggesting wearables or health apps as approaches for growing healthier.

It’s not that the tools themselves aren’t useful. According to a separate study by Research Now summarized by HealthData Management, 86% of 500 medical professionals said mHealth apps gave them a better understanding of a patient’s medical condition, and 76% said that they felt that apps were helping patients manage chronic illnesses. Also, HDM reported that 46% believed that apps could make patient transitions from hospital to home care simpler.

While doctors could do more to promote the use of mHealth technology — and patients might benefit if they did — the onus is not completely on doctors. MedPanel president Jason LaBonte told HDM that vendors are positioning wearables and apps as “a fad” by seeing them as solely consumer-driven markets. (Not only does this turn doctors off, it also makes it less likely that consumers would think of asking their doctor about mHealth tool usage, I’d submit.)

But doctors aren’t just concerned about mHealth’s image. They also aren’t satisfied with current products, though that would change rapidly if there were a way to integrate mobile health data into EMR platforms directly. Sure, platforms like HealthKit exist, but it seems like doctors want something more immediate and simple.

Doctors also told MedPanel that mHealth devices need to be easier to use and generate data that has greater use in clinical practice.  Moreover, physicians wanted to see these products generate data that could help them meet practice manager and payer requirements, something that few if any of the current roster of mHealth tools can do (to my knowledge).

When it comes to physician awareness of specific products, only a few seem to have stood out from the crowd. MedPanel found that while 82% of doctors surveyed were aware of the Apple Watch, even more were familiar with Fitbit.

Meanwhile, the Microsoft Band scored highest of all wearables for satisfaction with ease of use and generating useful data. Given the fluid state of physicians’ loyalties in this area, Microsoft may not be able to maintain its lead, but it is interesting that it won out this time over usability champ Apple.

Is Meaningful Use For Mental Health Providers On The Way?

Posted on June 10, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

If you look at the policy statements issued by ONC, it sounds as though the organization is a big fan of putting behavioral health IT on the same footing as other aspects of care. As the agency itself points out, 46% of Americans will have a mental health disorder over the course of their lifetime, and 26% of Americans aged 18 and older live with a mental health disorder in any given year, which makes it imperative to address such issues systematically.

But as things stand, behavioral health IT initiatives aren’t likely to go far. True, ONC has encouraged behavioral health stakeholders on integrating their data with primary care data, stressed the value of using EMRs for consent management, supported the development of behavioral health clinical quality measures and even offered vendor guidelines on creating certified EMR tech for providers ineligible for Meaningful Use. But ONC hasn’t actually suggested that these folks deserve to be integrated into the MU program. And not too surprisingly, given their ineligibility for incentive checks, few mental health providers have invested in EMRs.

However, a couple of House lawmakers who seem pretty committed to changing the status quo are on the case. Last week, Reps. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) have reintroduced a bill which would include a new set of behavioral health and substance abuse providers on the list of those eligible for Meaningful Use incentives.

The bill, “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” would make clinical psychologists and licensed social workers eligible to get MU payments. What’s more, it would make mental health treatment facilities, psychiatric hospitals and substance abuse mistreatment facilities eligible for incentives.

Supporters like the Behavioral Health IT Coalition say such an expansion could provide many benefits, including integration of psych and mental health in primary care, improved ability of hospital EDs to triage patients and reduction of adverse drug-to-drug interactions and needless duplicative tests. Also, with interoperable healthcare data on the national agenda, one would think that bringing a very large and important sector into the digital fold would be an obvious move.

So as I see it, making it possible for behavioral health and other medical providers can share data is simply a no-brainer.  But that can’t happen until these providers implement EMRs. And as previous experience has demonstrated, that’s not going to happen until some version of Meaningful Use incentives are available to them.

I imagine that the bill has faltered largely over the cost of implementing it. While I haven’t seen an estimate of what it would cost to expand eligibility to these new parties, I admit it’s likely to be very substantial. But right now the U.S. health system is bearing the cost of poorly coordinated care administered to about one-quarter of all U.S. adults over age 18. That’s got to be worse.

Industry Tries To Steamroll Physician Complaints About EMR Impact On Patient Face Time

Posted on June 9, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Some doctors — and a goodly number of consumers, too — argue that the use of EMRs inevitably impairs the relationship between doctors and patients. After all, it’s just common sense that forcing a doctor to glue herself to the keyboard during an encounter undercuts that doctor’s ability to assess the patient, critics say.

Of course, EMR vendors don’t necessarily agree. And some researchers don’t share that view either. But having reviewed some comments by a firm studying physician EMR use, and the argument an EMR vendor made that screen-itis doesn’t worry docs, it seems to me that the “lack of face time” complaint remains an important one.

Consider how some analysts are approaching the issue. While admitting that one-third to one-half of the time doctors spend with patients is spent using an EMR, and that physicians have been complaining about this extensively over the past several years, doctors are at least using these systems more efficiently, reports James Avallone, Director of Physician Research, who spoke with EHRIntelligence.com.

What’s important is that doctors are getting adjusted to using EMRs, Avallone suggests:

Whether [time spent with EMRs] is too much or too little, it’s difficult for us to say from our perspective…It’s certainly something that physicians are getting used to as it becomes more ingrained in their day-to-day behaviors. They’ve had more time to streamline workflow and that’s something that we’re seeing in terms of how these devices are being used at the point of care.

Another attempt to minimize the impact of EMRs on patient encounters comes from ambulatory EMR vendor NueMD. In a recent blog post, the editor quoted a study suggesting that other issues were far more important to doctors:

According to a 2013 study published in Health Affairs, only 25.8 percent of physicians reported that EHRs were threatening the doctor-patient relationship. Administrative burdens like the ICD-10 transition and HIPAA compliance regulations, on the other hand, were noted by more than 41 percent of those surveyed.

It’s certainly true that doctors worry about HIPAA and ICD-10 compliance, and that they could threaten the patient relationship, but only to the extent that they affect the practice overall. Meanwhile, if one in four respondents to the Health Affairs study said that EMRs were a threat to patient relationships, that should be taken quite seriously.

Of course, both of the entities quoted in this story are entitled to their perspective. And yes, there are clearly benefits to physician use of EMRs, especially once they become adjusted to the interface and workflow.

But if this quick sample of opinions is any indication, the healthcare industry as a whole seems to be blowing past physicians’ (and patients’) well-grounded concerns about the role EMR documentation plays in patient visits.

Someday, a new form factor for EMRs will arise — maybe augmented or virtual reality encounters, for example — which will alleviate the eyes-on-the-screen problem. Until then, I’d submit, it’s best to tackle the issue head on, not brush it off.

Wearables Trendsetters Don’t Offer Much Value

Posted on June 1, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Today I was looking over my Twitter feed and this tweet popped up:

The referenced article appeared on the corporate site of Qmed, a supplier to the medical device industry. I found this interesting, as it’s pretty obvious that wearables and other mHealth toys will evolve into medical-grade devices over time.

But the choices the article made for hottest wearable firms, while worth a look, demonstrate pretty clearly that few wearables makers can point to any real, meaningful healthcare benefit they offer. (That’s obviously not Qmed’s fault — none of this is aimed at the editor who pulled this piece together — but it’s still a significant point.)

Some of the wearables listed are half-hearted medical device plays, others are fashionable eye candy for upscale geeks, and still others are tadpoles evolving from some other industry into a healthcare mode. Here’s some examples from the list, and why I’m skeptical that they deserve a high five:

* The list includes Apple courtesy of  its Apple Watch.  Right now nobody seems to know quite how the Apple Watch, or any smartwatch for that matter, serves anyone except gadget geeks with extra cash. How, exactly, will having a smartwatch improve your health or life, other than giving you bragging rights over non-owners?

* There’s Fitbit, which is undeniably the wearables success story to beat all others. But just because something is cool doesn’t mean it’s accomplishing anything meaningful. At least where healthcare is concerned, I fail to see how its cursory monitoring add-ons (such as automatic sleep monitoring and heart rate tracking) move the healthcare puck down the ice.

* The list also includes Misfit, whose $850K success on Indiegogo has vaulted it into the ranks of hipster coolness. Admittedly, its Shine is a lovely piece of wearables jewelry, and the Flash is cool, but again, should healthcare leaders really care?

* I admit to a certain interest in Caeden, a Rock Health wearables firm which apparently started out making headphones. The Qmed article reports that the company, which got $1.6M in funding this year, is creating a screenless leather wristband which does health monitoring. But I’m critical of the “screenless” aspect of this product; after all, isn’t one of the main goals of monitoring to engage patients in the process?

I could go on, but you probably get the point I’m trying to make. While the devices listed above might have their place in the consumer health device food chain, it’s not clear how they can actually make patients do better or feel better.

I do have to offer kudos to one company on the list, however. Chrono Therapeutics has an intriguing product to offer which could actually save lungs and lives. The company, which took in $32M in financing last year, has created a slick-looking wearable device that delivers doses of nicotine when a smoker’s cravings hit, and tracks the doses administrated. Now that could be a game change for consumers trying to beat nicotine addiction. (Heck, maybe it could help with other types of addiction too.)

I only hope other wearables manufacturers pick a spot, as Chrono Therapeutics has, and figure out how to do more than be cool, look good or sell to trendies.

The Dawn of The Community EMR

Posted on May 29, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

While many healthcare stakeholders would like to see clinical data shared freely, the models we have in place simply can’t get this done.

Take private HIEs, for example. Some of them have been quite successful at fostering data sharing between different parts of a health system, but the higher clinical functions aren’t integrated — just the data.

Another dead end comes when a health system uses a single EMR across its entire line of properties. That may integrate clinical workflow to some degree, but far too often, the different instances of the EMR can’t share data directly.

If healthcare is to transform itself, a new platform will be necessary which can be both the data-sharing and clinical tool needed for every healthcare player in a community. Consider the vision laid out by Forbes contributor Dave Chase:

Just as the previous wars impacted which countries would lead the world in prosperity, the “war” we are in will dictate the communities that get the lion’s share of the jobs (and thus prosperity). Smart economic development directors and mayors will stake their claim to be the place where healthcare gets reinvented.

In Chase’s column, he notes that companies like IBM have begun to base their decisions about where to locate new technology centers partly on how efficiently, effectively and affordably care can be delivered in that community. For example, the tech giant recently decided to locate 4,000 new jobs in Dubuque, Iowa after concluding that the region offered the best value for their healthcare dollar.

To compete with the Dubuques of the world, Chase says, communities will need to pool their existing healthcare spending — ideally $1B or more — and use it to transform how their entire region delivers care.

While Chase doesn’t mention this, one element which will be critical in building smart healthcare communities is an EMR that works as both a workflow and care coordination tool AND a platform for sharing data. I can’t imagine how entire communities can rebuild their care without sharing a single tool like this.

A few years ago I wrote about how the next generation of  EMRs would probably be architected as a platform with a stack of apps built over it that suit individual organizations. The idea doesn’t seem to have gained a lot of traction in the U.S. since 2012, but the approach is very much alive outside the country, with vendors like Australia’s Ocean Informatics selling this type of technology to government entities around the world. And maybe it can bring cities and regions together too.

For the short term, getting a community of providers to go all in on such an architecture doesn’t seem too likely. Instead, they’ll cling to ACO models which offer at least an illusion of independence. But when communities that offer good healthcare value start to steal their patients and corporate customers, they may think again.

EMRs Should Include Telemedicine Capabilities

Posted on May 22, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

The volume of telemedicine visits is growing at a staggering pace, and they seem to have nowhere to go but up. In fact, a study released by Deloitte last August predicted that there would be 75 million virtual visits in 2014 and that there was room for 300 million visits a year going forward.

These telemedicine visits are generating a flood of medical data, some in familiar text formats and some in voice and video form. But since the entire encounter takes place outside of any EMR environment, huge volumes of such data are being left on the table.

Given the growing importance of telemedicine, the time has come for telemedicine providers to begin integrating virtual visit results into EMRs.  This might involve adopting specialized EMRs designed to capture video and voice, or EMR vendors might go with the times and develop ways of categorizing and integrating the full spectrum of telemedical contacts.

And as virtual visit data becomes increasingly important, providers and health plans will begin to demand that they get copies of telemedical encounter data.  It may not be clear yet how a provider or payer can effectively leverage video or voice content, which they’ve never had to do before, but if enough care is taking place in virtual environments they’ll have to figure out how to do so.

Ultimately, both enterprise and ambulatory EMRs will include technology allowing providers to search video, voice and text records from virtual consults.  These newest-gen EMRs may include software which can identify critical words spoken during a telemedical visit, such as “pain,” or “chest” which could be correlated with specific conditions.

It may be years before data gathered during virtual visits will stand on equal footing with traditional text-based EMR data and digital laboratory results.  As things stand today, telemedicine consults are used as a cheaper form of urgent care, and like an urgent care visit, the results are not usually considered a critical part of the patient’s long-term history.

But the more time patients spend getting their treatment from digital doctors on a screen, the more important the mass of medical data generated becomes. Now is the time to develop data structures and tools allowing clinicians and facilities to mine virtual visit data.  We’re entering a new era of medicine, one in which patients get better even when they can’t make it to a doctor’s office, so it’s critical that we develop the tools to learn from such encounters.

Allscripts (MDRX) At Important Moment In Its History

Posted on May 21, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Allscripts has announced plans to move more of its software development and operations to India, while cutting 250 jobs in the U.S., or about 3.5% of its 7,200-member workforce.  While this is significant enough as it is, it’s an even more important leading indicator of how Allscripts may perform going forward. Here’s how I think things will net out.

Making a “rebalancing”:  The company has called the changes a “rebalancing” of staff which will allow it to respond more effectively and efficiently to shifts in its software design and product dev plans.

But the decision didn’t happen in a vacuum, either. Allscripts recently reported taking a $10.1 million loss for the first quarter ending March 31. That’s down from a loss of $20.7 million for Q1 2014, but the company still appears to be struggling. Allscripts’ overall revenue dropped 2% to $334.6 million for the quarter ending March 31, compared with Q1 of 2014.

What’s next? What should providers draw from these numbers, and Allscripts’ plan to shift more development work offshore? Let’s consider some highlights from the vendor’s recent past:

* Despite some recent sales gains, the vendor occupies a difficult place in the EMR vendor market — neither powerful enough to take on enterprise leaders like Epic and Cerner directly, nor agile enough to compete in the flexibility-focused ambulatory space against relentless competitors like athenahealth.

* According to an analysis of Meaningful Use data by Modern Healthcare, Allscripts is second only to Epic when it comes to vendors of complete EMRs whose customers have qualified for incentives. This suggests that Allscripts is capable of being an effective provider business partner.

* On the other hand, some providers still distrust Allscripts since the company discontinued sales of and support for its MyWay EMR in 2012. What’s more, a current class action lawsuit is underway against Allscripts, alleging that MyWay was defective and that using it harmed providers’ business.

* Partnering with HP and Computer Sciences Corp., Allscripts is competing to be chosen as the new EMR for the U.S. Department of Defense’s Military Health System, and is still in the running for the $11 billion contract. But so are Epic and Cerner.

The bottom line: Taken together, these data points suggest that Allscripts is at a critical point in its history.

For one thing, cutting domestic staff and shifting dev operations to India is probably a make or break decision; if the change doesn’t work out, Allscripts probably won’t have time to pull back and successfully reorient its development team to current trends.

Allscripts is also at a key point when it comes to growing place in the brutal ambulatory EMR market. With players like athenahealth nipping at its heels from behind, and Epic and Cerner more or less controlling the enterprise market, Allscripts has to be very sure who it wants to be — and I’m not sure it is.

Then when I consider that Allscripts is still in the red after a year of effort, despite being at a peak level for sales, that tears it.  I’m forced to conclude that the awkwardly-positioned vendor will have to make more changes over the next year or two if it hopes to be agile enough to stay afloat. I believe Allscripts can do it, but it will take a lot of political will to make it happen. We’ll just have to see if it has that will.

Meaningful Use Stage 3 Success Could Rely On Vendors

Posted on May 20, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Today I was reading a report on the Health IT Policy Committee’s review of pending Meaningful Use Stage 3 rules — which would ordinarily be as about as exciting as watching rocks erode — when something leapt out at me which I wanted to share with you, dear readers.

The overview, brought to us courtesy of Medical Practice Insider, noted that proposed plans for the Stage 3 rule would allow providers to attest in 2017, though attesting wouldn’t be mandatory until 2018. What this means, editor Frank Irving notes, is that it would be up to EMR vendors to be ready for providers wishing to attest a year early.

The folks overseeing this discussion, the Advanced Health Models and Meaningful Use Workgroup, seem (wisely) to have had their doubts that vendors could be relied upon to meet the 2017 deadline. At the session, workgroup members proposed a couple of alternative ways of addressing this timeline. One was to make the 2017 deadline go away, requiring instead that EMRs have full 2015 certification by 2018. Another was to allow optional attestation in 2017, but if need be, with 2014 EMR certification.

I don’t know about you, but this whole thing makes me nervous. By “whole thing,” I mean adjusting the rules to deal with the likely resistance vendors will exhibit to keeping their roadmap in synch with federal requirements.

After all, consider the history of EMR vendors’ relationship with providers. As we’ve noted, HHS has paid out about $30B in Meaningful Use incentives under HITECH without insisting that vendors provide interoperability. And what have EMR vendors done?  They’ve avoided developing shared standards for interoperability with an alacrity which amazes the eye.

In fact, some EMR vendors — including top contender Epic Systems — have been slapping providers with fees for data sharing (even if they’ve kind of dropped them for now), at prices which could leave them millions in the hole. If that isn’t dead opposite to what those in public policy hope to see happen, I don’t know what is.

Bottom line, if the good people overseeing Meaningful Use want to see Stage 3 accomplish good things, they’ll need to see to it that the new rules give regulators some leverage when it comes to controlling vendors.

As the whole sad interoperability saga has demonstrated, vendors will not take actions that advance health IT on their own. Unlike in other IT markets, where interoperability and meeting regulatory deadlines have been the signs of a winner, EMR vendors actually have strong incentives to ignore providers’ business imperatives.

With any luck, however, between tougher rules on Stage 3 and public pressure to achieve interoperability, EMR vendors will do the right thing.  They’ve certainly had long enough.

A “Collaborative Consult” Could Greatly Improve EMR Value

Posted on May 19, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Over the past several years, EMRs have taken some steps forward. At least in some cases, analytics have improved, vendors have begun offering cloud or on-premise install versions of their products and user interfaces have even improved.

But one problem with EMRs that seems to be nearly unfixable is the need for providers to stare at an EMR screen, leaving patients to fidget uncomfortably while they wait for a bit of face-to-face contact and discussion. Sure, you’ll see scribes in hospital emergency departments, allowing ED docs to speak to patients without interruption, but in the outpatient settings where patients spend most of their time, the EMR screen is king.

Such a focus on the EMR display isn’t unreasonable, given the importance of the data being entered, but as critics have noted countless times, it does make it more likely that the provider will miss subtle clues as to the patient’s condition, and possibly end up offering lower-quality care than they would have if they had an old-fashioned computerless encounter.

I have long thought, however, that there’s a solution to this problem which would be helpful to both the physician and the patient, one which would literally make sure that patients and doctors are on the same page. I’m speaking of a new group of settings for EMRs designed specifically to let patients collaborate with physicians.

Such an EMR setting, as I envision it, would begin with a section depicting a dummy patient of the appropriate gender.The patient would touch the areas of the body which were causing them problems, while the doctor typed up a narrative version of the problem presentation. The two (patient and doctor) would then zoom in together to more specific descriptions of what the patient’s trouble might be, and the doctor would educate the patient as to what kind of treatment these different conditions might require.

At that point, depending on what condition(s) the doctor chose as requiring further study, lists of potential tests would come up. If a patient wanted to learn what these tests were intended to accomplish, they’d have the liberty to drill down and learn, say, what a CBC measures and why.  The patient would also see, where possible, the data (such as high cholesterol levels) which caused the doctor to seek further insight.

If the patient had a known illness being managed by the physician, such as heart disease, a tour through a 3-D visual model of the heart would also be part of the collaboration, allowing the doctor to educate the patient effectively as to what they were jointly trying to accomplish (such as halting heart muscle thickening).

The final step in this patient-doctor process would come with the system presenting a list of current medications taken by the patient, and if appropriate, new medications that might address any new or recurring symptoms the patient was experiencing.

The final result would come in the form of a PDF, e-mailed to the patient or printed out for their use, offering an overview of their shared journey. The doctor might have to spend a few minutes adding details to their notes after the patient left, but for the most part, the collaborative consult would have met everyone’s needs.

Now you tell me:  Why aren’t we doing this now?  Wouldn’t it make much more sense, and take much more advantage of the powerful desktops, tablets and smartphones we have, than having a provider stare at a screen for most of their visit with a patient?