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!

Adverse Event Reporting and EHRs: The MEDTECH Act’s Effects

Posted on December 18, 2014 I Written By

When Carl Bergman isn't rooting for the Washington Nationals or searching for a Steeler bar, he’s Managing Partner of EHRSelector.com, a free service for matching users and EHRs. For the last dozen years, he’s concentrated on EHR consulting and writing. He spent the 80s and 90s as an itinerant project manger doing his small part for the dot com bubble. Prior to that, Bergman served a ten year stretch in the District of Columbia government as a policy and fiscal analyst.

Medical systems generate adverse event (AE) reports to improve service delivery and public safety.

As I described in my first blog post on Adverse Events, these reports are both a record of what went wrong and a rich source for improving workflow, process and policy. They can nail responsibility not only for bad acts, but also bad actors and can help distinguish between the two. The FDA gathers AE reports to look for important health related patterns, and if needed to trigger recalls, modifications and public alerts.

EHRs generate AEs, but the FDA doesn’t require reporting them. Reporting is only for medical devices defined by the FDA and EHRs aren’t. However, users sometimes report EHR related AEs. Now, there’s proposed legislation that would preclude EHRs as medical devices and stop any consideration of EHR reports.

MEDTECH Act’s Impact

EHRs are benign software systems that need minimal oversight. At least that’s what MEDTECH Act’s congressional sponsors, Senators Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) and Michael Bennett (D- Colorado) think. If they have their way – and much of the EHR industry hopes so – the FDA can forget regulating EHRs and tracking any EHR related AEs.

EHRs and Adverse Events

Currently, if you ask MAUD, the FDA’s device, adverse event tracking system about EHRs, you don’t get much, as you might expect. Up to October, MAUD has 320,000 AEs. Of these about 30 mention an EHR in passing. (There may be many more, but you can’t search for phrases such as “electronic health,” etc.) While the FDA hasn’t defined EHRs as a device, vendors are afraid it may. Their fear is based on this part of the FDA’s device definition standard:

[A]n instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:

…[I]ntended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals…

I think this section clearly covers EHRs. They are intended for diagnostic, cure, mitigation, etc., of disease. Consistent public policy in general and a regard for protecting the public’s health, I think, augers for mandatory reporting of EHR caused AEs.

Why then aren’t EHRs devices that require AE reporting? In a word, politics. The FDA’s been under pressure from vendors who contend their products aren’t devices just software. They also don’t want their products subject to being criticized for failures, especially in instances where they have no control over the process. That may be understandable from a corporate point of view, but there are several reasons for rejecting that point of view. Consider what the FDA currently defines as a medical device.

Other Devices. The FDA captures AE reports on an incredible number of devices. A few examples:

  • Blood pressure computers
  • Crutches
  • Drug dose calculators
  • Ice bags
  • Lab gear – practically all
  • Robotic telemedicine devices, and many, many more.

ECRI on EHR Adverse Events

The respected patient safety NGO, the ECRI Institute, puts the issue squarely. Each year, it publishes its Top Ten Health Technology Hazards. Number one is inadequate alarm configuration policies and practices. Number two: “Incorrect or missing data in electronic health records and other health IT systems.” Its report says:

Many care decisions today are based on data in an electronic health record (EHR) or other IT-based system. When functioning well, these systems provide the information clinicians need for making appropriate treatment decisions. When faults or errors exist, however, incomplete, inaccurate, or out-of-date information can end up in a patient’s record, potentially leading to incorrect treatment decisions and patient harm. What makes this problem so troubling is that the integrity of the data in health IT (HIT) systems can be compromised in a number of ways, and once errors are introduced, they can be difficult to spot and correct. Examples of data integrity failures include the following:

  • Appearance of one patient’s data in another patient’s record (i.e., a patient/data mismatch)
  • Missing data or delayed data delivery (e.g., because of network limitations, configuration errors, or data entry delays)
  • Clock synchronization errors between different medical devices and systems
  • Default values being used by mistake, or fields being prepopulated with erroneous data
  • Inconsistencies in patient information when both paper and electronic records are used
  • Outdated information being copied and pasted into a new report Programs for reporting and reviewing HIT-related problems can help organizations identify and rectify breakdowns and failures.

ECRI spells out why AE reporting is so important for EHRs:

…[S]uch programs face some unique challenges. Chief among these is that the frontline caregivers and system users who report an event—as well as the staff who typically review the reports—may not understand the role that an HIT system played in an event…

The MEDTECH Act’s Effects

The move to curtail the FDA’s EHR jurisdiction is heating up. Senators Hatch and Bennett’s proposed act exempts EHRs from FDA jurisdiction by defining EHRs as passive data repositories.

Most industry chatter about the act has been its exempting EHRs and others from the ACA’s medical device tax. However, by removing FDA’s jurisdiction, it would also exempt EHRs from AE reports. Repealing a tax is always popular. Preventing AE reports may make vendors happy, but clinicians, patients and the public may not be as sanguine.

The act’s first two sections declare that any software whose main purpose is administrative or financial won’t come under device reporting.

Subsection (c) is the heart of the act, which exempts:

Electronic patient records created, stored, transferred, or reviewed by health care professionals or individuals working under supervision of such professionals that functionally represent a medical chart, including patient history records,

Subsection (d) says that software that conveys lab or other test results are exempt.

Subsection (e) exempts any software that makes recommendations for patient care.

There are several problems with this language. The first is that while it goes to lengths to say what is not a device, it is silent about what is. Where is the line drawn? If an EHR includes workflow, as all do, is it exempt because it also has a chart function? The bill doesn’t say

Subsection (d) on lab gear is also distressing. Currently, most lab gear are FDA devices. Now, if your blood chemistry report is fouled by the lab’s equipment ends up harming you, it’s reportable. Under MEDTECH, it may not be.

Then there’s the question of who’s going to decide what’s in and what’s out? Is it the FDA or ONC, or both? Who knows Most important, the bill’s negative approach fails to account for those AEs, as ECRI puts it when: “Default values being used by mistake, or fields being prepopulated with erroneous data.”

Contradictory Terms

The act has a fascinating proviso in subsection (c):

…[P]rovided that software designed for use in maintaining such patient records is validated prior to marketing, consistent with the standards for software validation relied upon by the Secretary in reviewing premarket submissions for devices.

This language refers to information that device manufacturers file with HHS prior to marketing. Oddly, it implies that EHRs are medical devices under the FDA’s strictest purview, though the rest of the act says they are not. Go figure.

What’s It Mean?

The loud applause for the MEDTECH act coming from the EHR industry, is due to its letting vendors off the medical device hook. I think the industry should be careful about what it’s wishing for. Without effective reporting, adverse events will still occur, but without corrective action. In that case, everything will seem to go swimmingly. Vendors will be happy. Congress can claim to being responsive. All will be well.

However, this legislative penny in the fuse box will prove that keeping the lights on, regardless of consequences, isn’t the best policy. When something goes terribly wrong, but isn’t reported then, patients will pay a heavy price. Don’t be surprised when some member of Congress demands to know why the FDA didn’t catch it.

Study Suggests That Health IT Can Boost Doc Productivity

Posted on November 11, 2013 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.

We’ve all heard stories about medical practices whose productivity crashed when they brought an EMR on board, for reasons that range from workflow problems to training gaps to problems with a wonky system.  But if the following study is right, there’s reason to hope that health IT will actually improve productivity over time, according to a story in Medical Practice Insider.

According to research published in journal Health Affairs, physicians with health IT on board will be able to serve about 8 percent to 15 percent more patients than they could without health IT tools. And in practices where doctors have higher levels of EMR or portal adoption, the spike could be higher, according to the research, whose team includes former national coordinator David Blumenthal.

Meanwhile, practices that adopt emerging technologies such as remote care could allow doctors to perform 5 to 10 percent of care to patients outside of the office visit, and 5 to 15 percent of care could be performed asynchronously, reports Medical Practice Insider.

Another study cited by the article, done by the National Center for Health Statistics, notes that EMRs can offer varied clinical and financial benefits, such as greater availability of patient records at the point of care. And adjunct tools like e-prescribing capabilities and the ability to retrieve lab results can save time and effort, the NCHS study concludes.

These studies are encouraging, but they don’t say much about how practices can manage the workflow problems that keep them from realizing these results. While I have little doubt that health IT can increase productivity in medical practices, it’s not going to happen quickly for most.  By all means, assume your medical practice will eventually leverage health IT successfully, but it won’t happen overnight.

P.S. In the mean time, take a look at this list of factors in creating satisfied EMR users. It might help you speed up the day when productivity climbs.

Use Of Surescripts E-Prescribing Up Dramatically

Posted on October 21, 2013 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.

E-prescribing has become almost commonplace, if not universally used, among providers with EMRs during the last four years, a new study concludes. The study, which was published in The American Journal of Managed Care, was conducted by a team led by ONCHIT’s Meghan  H. Gabriel, PhD.

Researchers found that between 2008 and 2012, the total number of e-prescribers using Surescripts shot up from 7 percent (47,000 providers) to 54 percent (398,000), according to a report in EHR Intelligence.

As EHR Intelligence notes, these numbers didn’t just appear out of nowhere. Part of the reason e-prescribing has gained so much ground is that 94 percent of pharmacies are now able to accept e-prescriptions, up from 61 percent in December 2008.

It’s a good thing pharmacies are on board. E-prescribing must be in place  — specifically, certified EHR technology (CEHRT) — to meet one of the requirements of Stage 2 Meaningful Use. The requirement is that eligible providers need to transmit more than 50 percent of “all permissible prescriptions” via their CEHRT, EHR Intelligence points out, 10 percent higher than the Stage 1 requirement.

Side note: CMS seems happy with e-prescribing progress to date. According to the agency, more than 190 million electronic prescriptions had been sent by doctors, physician’s assistants and other healthcare  providers using EMRs. That 190 million is the cumulative total sent since the inception of the Meaningful Use program in 2011.

But from my way of looking at things, it isn’t completely kosher that e-prescribing by providers is barely over the half-way mark, despite representing considerable improvement over the years. While 54 percent is a nice round number, it still suggests that nearly half of providers are not equipped to achieve compliance with Meaningful Use Stage 2, an undesirable situation at best.

No, despite the improvement in e-prescribing uptake, to me the current stats actually look like a problem, not a win at this stage. The 46 percent of providers not online with e-prescribing had better get their act together.

CMS Shares Benefits Of Meaningful Use

Posted on July 23, 2013 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.

CMS has released new data which lays out some of the benefits of Meaningful Use since the inception of the program in 2011.  The data outlines various ways in which Meaningful Use requirements have played out statistically.

According to the statement, the following landmarks have been reached over the last few years:

• More than 190 million electronic prescriptions have been sent by doctors, physician’s assistants and other health care providers using EMRs.

• Health care professionals sent 4.6 million patients an electronic copy of their health information from their EMRs.

• More than 13 million reminders about appointments, required tests, or check-ups were sent to patients using EMRs.

• Providers have checked drug and medication interactions to ensure patient safety more than 40 million times through the use of EMRs.

• Providers shared more than 4.3 million care summaries with other providers when patients moved between care settings.

It’s clear from these stats that e-prescribing is on a serious roll — though it’s interesting to me that over the last few years I’ve only had my scripts e-prescribed a couple of times.  Clearly there’s a lot more work to do there despite the large number.

On the other hand, these factoids aren’t staggering given that they’re cumulative over a few years. For example, while it’s encouraging that providers have shared more than 4 million care summaries (Continuity of Care Documents, I assume), that’s still a tiny fraction of the volume that we’ll need to see to say we have anything like real interoperability.

I was actually surprised to see that the reminders issued about appointments, tests and check-ups stood at a relatively modest 13 million. Primary care practices, in particular, are under such pressure to make sure patients hit their marks that you’d think setting up such reminders would be a no-brainer. But apparently it’s not.

All told, the numbers cited by CMS definitely suggest progress, but not as big of a win as the agency might have preferred. Let’s see the numbers for patient data sharing up in the hundreds of millions and then I’ll really be impressed.

Providers In Underserved Areas Lagging On EMR Implementation

Posted on July 11, 2013 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.

Providers in large metros are less likely to have implemented EMRs than those in smaller metro areas and rural areas, according to a study written up by Healthcare Informatics.

The study, which appeared in Health Services Research, set out to determine whether EMR adoption was lower in traditionally underserved areas. To look at this issue, in 2011 researchers gathered data from 261,973 ambulatory healthcare sites with 716,160 providers, covering 50 states and the District of Columbia. Provider sites ranged from one-physician practices to large multi-physician groups, Healthcare Informatics reports.

Researchers found that areas with high concentrations of minority and low income populations, as well as those in large metropolitan areas were more likely to be in the lowest quartile of EMR adoption nationally, as compared with rural areas. The study also found that 43 percent of providers working in ambulatory healthcare sites had EMRs with e-prescribing capabilities, Healthcare Informatics reports.

Clearly, if researchers were expecting to find a lack of EMR adoption in these metro practices, they hit the nail on the head. I’d like to know, however, why things fell out this way.

Are metro practices lacking the resources to adopt EMRs in a more pronounced way than rural practices? Is there some phenomenon in the works in which underserved populations aren’t expecting EMRs, and therefore aren’t pressuring providers to implement them?

It’s worth noting that according to HIMSS data for Q1 2013, about 50 percent of ambulatory providers were still paper-based, and that nearly half of remaining practices were still stuck at Level 3 of adoption (CDR, access to results from outside facilities) or lower.

I’d argue that the gap between practices with mature implementations and those who are barely crawling is of equal importance and worth a study of its own. In the meantime, it is worth considering what can be done — beyond Meaningful Use incentives, clearly, or the gap wouldn’t exist — to be sure that EMR uptake doesn’t hit a snag with metro providers.

Health IT Costs, Health IT Adoption, HIE and CommonWell – Pre #HITsm Thoughts

Posted on June 28, 2013 I Written By

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

Last week I took the #HITsm Chat topics and created a blog post about Healthcare Unbound. I enjoyed creating the post so much that I decided to do it again this week. Not to mention I’ll be on the road to Utah during this week’s chat and won’t be able to participate. (Side Note: If you live in Utah and want to do lunch, I’d love to meet and talk EMR or health IT. I’ll be in Hawaii in July if you want to do the same.)

The chat topics make perfect discussion items. Plus, I love that I have more of an opportunity to really dig into the topics in a blog post. You can’t dig in quite as much in 140 characters.

Topic 1: Costs vs benefits. Will high costs always be the #1 barrier cited to #healthIT adoption?
We’ve seen an enormous shift in the cost of healthcare IT since I first started blogging about EMR 8 years ago. Cost use to be a much bigger issue when the cheapest EMR software you could find was about $30,000+ per doctor (in the ambulatory space). Plus, they expected you to pay the entire lump sum payment up front (many did offer financing). These days the cost of EMR software has dropped dramatically and fewer and fewer EHR vendors are using the lump sum payment model. This change means that costs are much more in line with a practice’s revenue.

These days, I’d say that those who use cost as the reason for not adopting health IT are really just using it as an excuse not to do it. There are a few rural providers where cost is more than just an excuse, but those are pretty few and far between. I’m not saying that cost isn’t an important part of any health IT project, but I’ve most often seen cost used as a mask for other reasons people don’t want to implement health IT. The most common reason is actually just a general resistance to change.

Topic 2: Why does ePrescribing have such widespread acceptance while #telehealth adoption is so low?
If providers could be reimbursed for telehealth, adoption would be high.

It is ironic that doctors don’t really get reimbursed for ePrescribing, but they do it at a high level. Although, the doctor does get reimbursed for the visit that generates the need for the prescription. A deeper investigation of why ePrescribing has had good adoption would be interesting. Certainly there are many doctors who miss their sig pad. However, once you have to record the prescription in the EHR, you might as well ePrescribe it.

Plus, there are some obvious reasons why ePrescribing is better. Whether it’s replacing the unreadable prescriptions or the drug to drug and allergy interaction checking that’s built into every ePrescribing platform, the benefits can be understood quickly.

The sad thing is that the benefits of Telehealth can be seen quickly as well, but you can’t get paid to do it.

Topic 3: #HIE as a noun or a verb? Does negative press for HIE org$ hinder health data exchange as a whole?
HIE is currently more of a noun than a verb. Verbs require action and we’re not seeing enough HIE action.

In some ways negative press could discourage healthcare organizations from participating in an HIE organization. However, negative press about HIE’s weaknesses can also put pressure on healthcare organizations to finally step up to the plate and have more HIE action and less HIE talk.

The biggest hindrance to HIE is business model, and good or bad press won’t do much to change that.

Topic 4: Is #CommonWell just a bully in a fairy godmother costume?
I love this question mostly because I sent the tweet that inspired it. Although, a smart health IT PR/marketer was the one who said it to me.

It’s a little too early to tell if the fairy godmother costume that CommonWell has on is real or fake. I think there path is paved with good intentions, but will the almighty dollar get in the way of them realizing these good intentions? I don’t know. I’m hopeful that it will be a success. I’m also glad that at least the conversations are happening. That’s a step forward from where we were before CommonWell.

Topic 5: Open forum: What #HealthIT topic had your attention this week?
There are so many topics that I discuss each week, but I think I’m most excited by the project announced this week to create a Common Notice of Privacy Practices. I hope their crowdfunding is successful and they get a lot of great healthcare organizations on board with what they’re doing. I also found the Vitera Healthcare acquisition of Success EHS quite interesting. EMR is slowly but surely consolidating.

EMR, HIE Use Up Sharply In U.S.

Posted on May 10, 2013 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 survey by Accenture has concluded that the number of U.S. doctors using EMRs — either in their practice or at a hospital — has climbed to over 90 percent, and that almost half are using HIEs. More than half of doctors surveyed (60%) report using an EMR in their own medical practice.

The Accenture survey reached out to 3,700 doctors in eight countries, including Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain and the U.S.  Data showed a spike in healthcare IT usage across all of the countries surveyed.

In the U.S., doctors had the biggest increase in adoption demonstrated in the survey, up 32 percent in routine use of health IT capabilities, as opposed to an average increase of 15 percent among non-U.S. clinicians, reports HealthcareIT News.

Other standout activities were e-prescribing (65 percent using) and entering patient notes into EMRs (78 percent), a 34 percent annual increase between 2011 and 2012. Forty-five percent of physicians also use IT for basic clinical tasks such as getting alerts while seeing patients (45 percent), according to Healthcare IT News.

Healthcare IT News also caught an interesting detail around lab orders. The magazine notes that 57 percent of U.S. doctors said they regularly use electronic lab orders  (a 21 percent annual increase) the volume of physicians doing so internationally dropped 6 percent.

Globally, the number of doctors who “routinely” access clinical data on patients seen by different health organizations has climbed by 42 percent, from 33 percent of doctors in 2011 to 47 percent in 2012. Spain was the leader by a significant margin, with 69 percent of doctors routinely accessing such data.

The study also concluded that internationally, almost 60 percent of doctors customarily enter patient notes electronically either during or after consults.

On the other hand, so-called “digital doctors” are still unlikely to connect or transact electronically with outside organizations. Accenture found that only 10 percent of physicians communicate electronically to support remote consults/diagnostics, and that roughly 20 percent e-prescribe, receive notifications of patients’ interactions with other health organizations and communicate electronically with clinicians in other organizations.

Upcoding, Presidential Debates, and MU Incentives– #HITsm Chat Highlights

Posted on September 29, 2012 I Written By

Katie Clark is originally from Colorado and currently lives in Utah with her husband and son. She writes primarily for Smart Phone Health Care, but contributes to several Health Care Scene blogs, including EMR Thoughts, EMR and EHR, and EMR and HIPAA. She enjoys learning about Health IT and mHealth, and finding ways to improve her own health along the way.

Every week, HL7 Standards, hosts a #HITsm Tweet Chat and poses four questions “on current topics that are influencing healthcare technology, health IT, and the use of social media in healthcare.” It’s always a great discussion and also a great chance to meet a wide variety of people that are passionate about healthcare IT.

In case you missed it, or are curious about what went on this week, we’ve put together the list of topics with some of the best responses for each topic. There were some interesting topics this week, as well as some great responses. If you have any opinions on any of these topics, feel free to continue the discussion in the comments. This chats take place every Friday at 11AM CST. You’ll find members of Healthcare Scene regularly participating in the chat under some of the following Twitter accounts: @techguy@ehrandhit@hospitalEHR, and @smyrnagirl.

Topic One: Big debate now about EHRs sparking upcoding if not fraud. What’s your take? Will inverse be true with digitized health system?

 

 

 

Topics Two: 59% of IT execs say staff shortages harm earning of MU incentives. What is long-term impact if feds HIT education lag demand?

 

 

 

 

Topic Three: What would you ask Obama or Romney about HealthIT, reform law, or healthcare in general during the Oct. 3 debate? 

 

 

 

 

Topic Four: Health IT projects: Which ones are you postponing until after the election? 

 

Can Health IT Reduce Readmissions?

Posted on August 15, 2012 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.

We who work around health IT know it can do some great tricks, but it’s always nice to see examples of how it can actually save money.  One example of how health IT can be a cost-saver is in helping to reduce readmissions, according to a new study from CSC.  Here’s a summary of how it might work, courtesy of CMIO magazine:

Reducing readmissions will require identifying patients at risk for readmission, carefully orchestrated care management programs and patient-specific transition pathways. While this type of patient tracking, collaboration and patient-centeredness has been historically difficult to achieve, health IT should enable more organized care management through tools such as e-prescribing, master patient indexes and electronic clinical communication.

The report notes, however, that this works much better if hospitals and health systems have integrated EMRs that extend from the facility into community medical practices.  And that’s just common sense. After all, hospitals aren’t equipped to check on patients regularly once they’re discharged, aside perhaps from a few that are experimenting with remote monitoring.

The thing is, given that hospitals and medical practices are seldom running the same systems, it’s unlikely (OK, almost impossible) that they’ll be able to share much in the way of digital information. Sure, they’ll get faxes galore, but if that was an efficient way to share docs we wouldn’t be having these conversations.

Oh well. It’s always good for deep thinker types to point the way ahead. Unfortunately, I think we’ll have to wait a while for coordinated care planning via health IT to really find its place. Maybe John’s predictions for Direct Project will help us get part of the way there.

What’s Next For Physician Tablet Use?

Posted on July 23, 2012 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.

Not long ago, Manhattan Research released a study offering details on how doctors’ consumption of digital devices and media is progressing.  The survey, which surveyed 3,015 physicians in 25 specialties, looked at doctors who were online in the first quarter of 2012.

Among the most interesting — if not surprising — findings was that tablets have more or less officially hit the medical mainstream. According to the research firm, tablet use among doctors has nearly doubled since last year, hitting a whopping 62 percent in this year’s study.  You also won’t be shocked to learn that iPads dominate medical tablet use, in part due to their high-res screen and ease of  use.

Why the greater rush to adoption?  I think the following comment, which Monique Levy of Manhattan Research made to InformationWeek, offers a nice insight:   “It used to be that you had to solve the problems of security access, validation, and data security first and then adopt,  (but) what’s happened is that the system has turned upside down. We’re now at adoption first and solve the problem later.”

As Levy notes, the first wave of adoption has been driven largely by access to lower-risk information, and less for patient data. We can expect to another round of resistance when physicians are tethered to EMRs largely by tablets, she predicts.  I’d add that as long as there’s no native client physicians can use to access EMRs on the iPad, it will make things worse.

Given that resistance, maybe medical use of tablets will expand in other areas first. According to IT prognosticators and researchers at the Gartner Group, top medical uses of tablets also include waiting rooms, e-prescribing, diagnostic image viewing and appointment scheduling. (I’m amazed more practices aren’t doing the waiting room check-in thing.) Maybe one of these other areas will evolve breakout apps before doctors are really hooked up with patient data on their tablet.