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!

5 Ways to Keep Patients from Feeling like a Number

Posted on January 17, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Jim Higgins, Founder & CEO at Solutionreach. You can follow him on twitter: @higgs77

Think about the last time you felt upset at work. What was the root cause? Did you feel ignored? Overlooked? Unappreciated? If so, you are not alone. Studies have found that two out of three workers feel unappreciated at work and 65 percent would prefer a better boss over a pay raise. Everyone wants to feel that they matter. It’s simply part of our nature as social beings. This need to feel valued is not restricted to the work environment. In fact, studies find that it extends far beyond the office walls to retail, service, and—yes—healthcare experiences.

The Patient-Provider Relationship Study confirmed this—noting that practices can no longer rely on their excellent clinical care to keep patients coming back. Patient dissatisfaction is at an all-time high, prompting patients across the generations to switch physicians.

Between 43 and 44 percent of millennials and Gen Xers will switch providers in the next few years. It’s not just the younger generations, even baby boomers are restless—20 percent are likely to find a new physician in the next three years. While patient dissatisfaction is a complex issue with multiple solutions, one of the easiest and most effective treatments also has the lowest cost to practices—making patients feel valued.

Here are six simple tools a provider can use to help patients feel they are important:

  1. Acknowledge. Nothing makes patients feel like they are on the conveyor belt of medical care more than being ignored. There is a reason the grocery king, Walmart, pays to have people simply greet you as you enter and leave the store. Humans like to be acknowledged. Consider having different front desk staff assigned as the office “greeter” along with their regular duties. A quick, “Welcome John! I’ll be right with you” along with a genuine smile can go a surprisingly long way towards patient satisfaction.
  2. Remember. Try to remember small things about each patient. One way is through use of their name. Another great time to show a patient you remember them is on their birthday. Eighty five percent of Americans say that they feel special when others celebrate their birthday. It is easy to automate a personalized birthday email or text message that keeps you connected outside of the office.
  3. Respond. Medical offices are busy. There’s no way around it. But when a patient reaches out, it is important to respond as quickly as possible. The ability to two-way text with patients is handy here because it allows you to acknowledge (see #1) a message from an out-of-office patient while still being present with patients in the office.
  4. Listen. It can be easy to brush past comments or questions from patients. In fact, research shows that the average patient is interrupted within 18 seconds of their visit. Instead of assuming that you know what a patient is going to say, wait patiently until they finish speaking. Devote your energy to looking at them and focusing on them while they talk.
  5. Thank. Patients are the reason you are in business. Every position in a medical office is made possible because of patients. During the hectic everyday rush, it can be easy to forget this simple fact. Try shooting off a personal “thank you” email or text (or even a handwritten note). The good news is that research shows that showing gratitude not only improves the well-being of those you thank, but your own well-being as well.

It is often the small things that can make the biggest difference to patient satisfaction. In the era of consumer-centric patients, it is important to help patients feel like more than just another number. Following these five simple steps will bring practices closer to that goal.

Solutionreach is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene. As the leading provider of patient relationship management solutions, Solutionreach is dedicated to helping practices improve the patient experience while saving time for providers and staff. Learn more about the Patient-Provider relationship survey here.

Ophthalmologists Worry That EHRs Decrease Productivity, Boost Costs

Posted on January 16, 2018 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 has concluded that while EHR use among ophthalmologists has shot up over the last decade, most of these doctors see the systems as lowering their productivity and increasing their office costs, according to a survey published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

To conduct the study, the researchers emailed surveys to 2,000 ophthalmologists between 2015 and 2016. The 2,000 respondents, whose responses were anonymous, were chosen out of more than 18,000 active US members of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

The researchers involved found that the EHR adoption rate for ophthalmologists, which is about 72.1%, was similar to rates among other specialties. Nonetheless, it’s a big jump from 2011, when only 47% of the 492 respondents reported using EHRs in their practice.

Most respondents were devoted solely to ophthalmology and had an average of 22 years of practice. They had an average of 5.3 years of EHR use, but nearly the entire group had previously used paper records. Eighty-eight percent of those currently using EHRs had been present for the transition from paper records to digital ones, researchers found.

Not surprisingly, given typical EHR acquisition and maintenance costs, the mean number of ophthalmologists in a given practice was higher among those with an EHR in place than practices without one. Researchers found that when practices were part of an integrated health system, a government health system, the higher the odds of their having adopted an EHR.

While the adoption rate has increased, ophthalmologists actually seem less happy with EHRs than they had been before. For example, many reported that they felt EHRs were undermining both their productivity and financial situation.

For example, more than half of respondents in 2016 reported that their patients seen per day had fallen since adopting EHRs. That’s an unfortunate change in perceptions since in 2006, more than 60% of ophthalmologists saw an increase in productivity after their EHR system was implemented.

Meanwhile, respondents were ambivalent about the impact of EHR use on revenue, with 35% reporting that revenue had remained the same after adoption, 41% a decrease and almost 9% an increase.

Despite concerns that EHRs were undercutting practice productivity, researchers reported that three previous studies of academic ophthalmology practices found no change in patient volume after EHR adoption.

There also seems to be a disconnect between what ophthalmologists think their patients want technically and what they want.  While 76% reported that their patients felt mostly positive or neutral toward EHR use, 36% of ophthalmologists would return to paper records if they had the chance.

That being said, ophthalmology practices do seem to see the benefits in keeping their EHR systems in place. For example, despite the fact that 68% saw paper documentation as faster, 53% of respondents felt their EHRs were generating net positive value.

All told, it seems that ophthalmologists’ concerns about EHR use are working themselves out. However, it also seems as though the doubts we see documented here are deeply rooted and may not go away quickly.

Helping Others – Martin Luther King Day

Posted on January 15, 2018 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.

Today in the US, we’re celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. To celebrate the holiday, I thought it would be great to share some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s quotes. Many of the messages are relevant to the healthcare and illustrate what makes those working in healthcare so special.

Big Gap Exists Between Wearables Hype And Physician Use

Posted on January 12, 2018 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, I wrote an article describing some major advances in wearables and health tracking technologies. Standout technologies included Grail, a cancer detection startup, Beddit, which makes sleep tracking technology, and Senosis Health, which developed apps using smartphone sensors to monitor health signals.

In the article, I argued that we’re past the question of whether wearables are valuable and that it’s time to focus on what we want to do with next-generation of superpowered health tracking devices instead. I was driven by stats like the ones produced by the Consumer Technology Association, which asserted last year that by 2020, physician use of patient-generated data will reach critical mass. It noted that wearables are being used more often in clinical trials and that some health insurers offering free wearables to patients, trends which it predicts will cause the market to explode.

But at least to some extent, I think the CTA (and I) were both wrong. As impressive as the new patient trackers are, they won’t be that valuable if nobody on the frontlines of medicine uses them. And even if trackers are being used in clinical trials or given away by health insurers, that doesn’t mean physicians are on board. The issue is not just whether devices work well, but whether doctors can actually use them in their daily care routine.

Recent stats suggest that few physicians actually use patient-generated data in their practice. In fact, the Physicians Practice Technology Survey found that just 5% of respondents reported that they use such such devices as part of their care routine.

I’m not surprised by this research. My own informal discussions with physicians suggest that the number of practices that actively use patient-generated data may be even lower than 5%.

Why are so few medical practices leveraging patient-generated data? The reasons are fairly straightforward:

  • Few of devices offer measurements that are consistent, predictable and valid
  • Vanishingly few are FDA-approved, which does little to inspire clinicians’ confidence
  • In most cases, the data produced by wearables and related devices isn’t compatible with practice EMRs

For what it’s worth, I do believe that many physicians — especially those with an interest in health IT– know that patient-generated health data will eventually play a valuable role in their practice. After all, in principle, there must be ways that such data could inform patient care.

But right now, the simple devices patients own aren’t sophisticated enough to serve practice needs, and most of the advanced patient tracking devices are at the idea or testing phase. Until patient tracking devices become more practical, and offer reliable, valid, usable data, they’re likely to remain a dark horse.

AI Project Could Prevent Needless Blindness

Posted on January 11, 2018 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.

At this point, you’re probably sick of hearing about artificial intelligence and the benefits it may offer as a diagnostic tool. Even so, there are still some AI stories worth telling, and the following is one of them.

Yes, IBM Watson Health recently had a well-publicized stumble when it attempted to use “cognitive computing” to detect cancer, but that may have more to do with the fact that Watson was under so much pressure to produce results quickly with something that could’ve taken a decade to complete. Other AI-based diagnostic projects seem to be making far more progress.

Consider the following, for example. According to a story in WIRED magazine, Google is embarking on a project which could help eye doctors detect diabetic retinopathy and prevent blindness, basing its efforts on technologies it already has in-house.

The tech giant reported last year that it had trained image recognition algorithms to detect tiny aneurysms suggesting that the patient is in the early stages of retinopathy. This system uses the same technology that allows Google’s image search photo and photo storage services to discriminate between various objects and people.

To take things to the next step, Google partnered with the Aravind Eye Care System, a network of eye hospitals based in India. Aravind apparently helped Google develop the retinal screening system by contributing some of the images it already had on hand to help Google develop its image parsing algorithms.

Aravind and Google have just finished a clinical study of the technology in India with Aravind. Now the two are working to bring the technology into routine use with patients, according to a Google executive who spoke at a recent conference.

The Google exec, Lily Peng, who serves as a product manager with the Google Brain AI research group, said that these tools could help doctors to do the more specialized work and leave the screening to tools like Google’s. “There is not enough expertise to go around,” she said. “We need to have a specialist working on treating people who are sick.”

Obviously, we’ll learn far more about the potential of Google’s retinal scanning tech once Aravind begins using it on patients every day. In the meantime, however, one can only hope that it emerges as a viable and safe tool for overstressed eye doctors worldwide. The AI revolution may be overhyped, but projects like this can have an enormous impact on a large group of patients, and that can’t be bad.

MedStar’s Human Factors Center: An Interview with Dr. Raj Ratwani

Posted on January 10, 2018 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.For the last dozen years, he’s concentrated on EHR consulting and writing. He spent the 80s and 90s as an itinerant project manager 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, a role he recently repeated for a Council member.

Background: Recently, I had a wide ranging interview with Dr. Raj Ratwani, Acting Center Director and Scientific Director of MedStar Health’s National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare.

The center is MedStar’s patient safety, and usability applied research arm. MedStar is the Mid Atlantic area’s largest medical facility non profit operating 10 major hospitals as well as dozens of urgent care, rehab and medical groups.

MedStar set up the center, as part of its Institute for Innovation five years ago. The Institute is an in house service of several centers that conduct research, analysis, development and education. In addition to human factors, the Institute turns MedStar staff’s ideas into commercial products, conducts professional education, encourages healthy lifestyles and develops in house software products.

The Human Factors Center’s work concentrates on medical devices, as well as creating new processes and procedures. The center’s 30 person staff features physicians, nurses, engineers, product designers, patient safety, usability and human factors specialists. The Center’s focus is on both MedStar and on improving the nation’s healthcare system with grants and contracts from AHRQ, ONC, CMS, etc., as well as many device manufacturers.

Dr. Ratwani: Dr. Ratwani’s publications are extensive and were one reason prompting my interview. I met with him in his office in the old Intelsat building along with Rachel Wynn the center’s post doctoral fellow. We covered several topics from the center’s purpose to ONC’s Meaningful Use (MU) program to the center’s examination of adverse event reporting systems.

Center’s Purpose: I started by asking him what he considered the center’s main focus? He sees the center’s mission as helping those who deliver services by reducing their distractions and errors and working more productively. He said that while the center examines software systems, devices take up the lion’s share of its time from a usability perspective.

The center works on these issues in several ways. Sometimes they just observe how users carry out a task. Other times, they may use specialized equipment such as eye tracking systems. Regardless, their aim is to aid users to reduce errors and increase accuracy. He noted how distractions can cause errors even when a user is doing something familiar. If a distraction occurs in the middle of a task, the user can forget they’ve already done a step and will needlessly repeat it. This not only takes time, but can also lead to cascading errors.

Impact: I asked him how they work with the various medical centers and asked about their track record. Being in house, he said, they have the advantage of formal ties to MedStar’s clinicians. However, he said their successes were a mixed bag. Even when there is no doubt about a change’s efficacy, its acceptance can depend on a variety of budget, logistic and personal factors.

EHR Certification: I then turned to the center’s studies of ONC’s MU vendor product certification. Under his direction, the center sent a team to eleven major EHR vendors to examine how they did their testing. Though they interviewed vendor staffs, they were unable to see testing. Within that constraint, they still found great variability in vendor’s approach. That is, even though ONC allowed vendors to choose their own definition of user centered design, vendors often strayed even from these self defined standards.

MU Program: I then asked his opinion of the MU program. He said he thought that the $40 billion spent drove EHR adoption for financial not clinical reasons. He would have preferred a more careful approach. The MU1 and MU2 programs weren’t evidence based. The program’s criteria needed more pilot and clinical studies and that interoperability and usability should have been more prominent.

Adverse Events: Our conversation then turned to the center’s approach to adverse events, that is instances involving patient safety. Ratwani is proud of a change he helped implement in Medstar’s process. Many institutions take a blame game approach to them berating and shaming those involved. MedStar treats them as teaching moments. The object is to determine root causes and how to implement change. Taking a no fault approach promotes open, candid discussions without staff fearing repercussions.

I finally asked him about his studies applying natural language processing to adverse patient safety reports. His publications in this area analyze the free text sections of adverse reporting systems. He told me they often found major themes in the report texts that the systems didn’t note. As a follow on, he described their project to manage and present the text from these systems. He explained that even though these systems capture free text, the text is so voluminous that users have a difficult time putting them to use.

My thanks to Dr. Ratwani and his staff for arranging the interview and their patience in explaining their work.
____________________________________

A word about DC’s old Intelsat building that houses the Institute. Normally, I wouldn’t comment on an office building. If you’ve seen one, etc., etc. Not so here. Built in the 1980s, it’s an example of futurist or as I prefer to call it Sci-Fi architecture and then some. The building has 14 interconnected “pods” with a façade meant to look like, well, a gargantuan satellite.

Intelsat Building

 

To reach an office, you go down long, open walkways suspended above an atrium. It’s all other unworldly. You wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Princess Leia rounded a corner. It’s not on the usual tourist routes and you can’t just walk in, but if you can wangle it, it’s worth a visit.

Intelsat Building Interior

Clinicians File Class Action Suit Against eClinicalWorks

Posted on January 9, 2018 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.

EMR provider eClinicalWorks has been hit by another class action lawsuit, this time a suit led by clinicians, raising questions as to how much legal trouble the vendor can survive.

The new suit is the latest of a series of dominos falling on eCW. Its legal problems began in May of last year, when it was forced to settle a suit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice for $155 million. The suit contended that eCW got its Meaningful Use certification by misrepresenting its capabilities.

Then, in November of last year, eCW was slammed with a class action lawsuit, this one demanding $1 billion. The suit alleged that by lying about the capabilities of its software, eCW “failed millions of patients by failing to maintain the integrity of patient records.”

Now, eCW faces another class action suit, this time led by primary care doctors. The suit alleges that because eCW’s software didn’t meet MU standards as promised, they lost government reimbursement. The suit asserts the eCW gave the PCPs “no reason to suspect that [it] had made false statements to obtain its certification.”

All of this is interesting in and of itself, but it doesn’t address the bigger question: Can eCW survive the legal firestorm that has engulfed the company?

eClinicalWorks is a private company, so I can’t offer detailed information on its finances, but it reported revenue of $130 million for the third quarter of 2017. If that’s a representative number, the company generates roughly half a billion dollars a year.

That’s a lot of money, but it’s not an infinite supply. The $155 million settlement has to have hurt (though I suppose it might have been covered in part or entirely by business liability insurance).

The other two lawsuits could prove more deadly. While it’s hard to predict whether a suit will go anywhere, there’s at least some chance that eCW will face a $1 billion judgment. Of course, even if it does lose the case, it will take effect only after several years of legal wrangling. Nonetheless, it seems likely that such a conclusion could bankrupt the company.

The other key question is whether eCW can hold onto its customers as lawsuit after lawsuit is filed. It might seem to some that eCW has been punished enough for its indiscretions, and that the additional lawsuits are largely part of a feeding frenzy. On the other hand, one might suggest that if eCW lied to all of its customers, it deserves to be forced out of business. It’s a flip of the coin at  this point.

Regardless, the suits do suggest that EMR vendors had better keep their noses clean. If they try to fool customers – or the feds – the results could be catastrophic.

Allscripts to Pay $100 Million Cash to Acquire Practice Fusion

Posted on January 8, 2018 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.

Today, Allscripts announced that it would pay $100 million cash to acquire EHR vendor, Practice Fusion. I wouldn’t quite say this is a fire sale, but in Silicon Valley it’s pretty close when you consider that according to CrunchBase Practice Fusion had raised over $157 million. These seem to be the kind of transactions that Allscripts likes to do. I’ve heard it said that Allscripts is the place where EHR software goes to die. That’s a corrupt way of describing what I think has been their strategy.

The press release said that Practice Fusion supports 30,000 ambulatory practices and 5 million patients. I wouldn’t be surprised if the practices number is inflated since it’s a free EHR and a lot of ambulatory practices signed up to check it out, but don’t actually use the software. I’m at least 2-3 of those practices and haven’t touched my accounts in years. The July 2017 meaningful use attestation data listed 8,440 providers using Practice Fusion software. So, Practice Fusion still has a good size user base, but it’s probably closer to 12-15k practices in my opinion.

As I’ve looked at the ambulatory EHR market, I’ve often been describing EHR vendors as distribution channels as opposed to EHR software vendors. If you go around any exhibit hall, EHR vendors aren’t really selling EHR software much anymore. In most cases, EHR vendors are catering to their existing user base and then using them as a distribution channel for other products and services. With this in mind, Allscripts acquisition of Practice Fusion expands their distribution channel. That’s a valuable thing.

One other piece of this transaction which I believe many won’t understand is Practice Fusion’s relationships with life science organizations. Those relationships are how Practice Fusion was funding their free EHR. I’ve heard mixed reviews on those relationships, but no doubt Allscripts is hoping those relationships can generate more revenue for their company when they add Allscript’s large userbase.

Fierce Healthcare also found in the SEC filing for this acquisition an interesting note about Practice Fusion receiving a request from the US Attorney’s office:

The SEC filing also noted that Practice Fusion received a request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont in March 2017 requesting information and documents as part of a civil investigation into the company’s EHR certification. Allscripts stated that although Practice Fusion has complied in “a cooperative, thorough and timely manner,” any legal proceedings, damages or settlements could “adversely impact” future operating results.

No doubt these requests are an extension of the $155 million eCW Whistleblower lawsuit. I expect most major EHR vendors have had some sort of inquiry after the eCW lawsuit. Hopefully, the team at Allscripts vetted the inquiries well especially given Practice Fusion’s past history of pushing the envelope. Considering Practice Fusion’s FTC Charges and Settlement, I’d think that they’d have been careful about their EHR certification, but it’s hard to take the Silicon Valley mentality out of your culture.

The other obvious tie into this story is Allscript’s previous acquisition of McKesson’s HIT software business. I’ll admit that it’s hard for me to keep up with all the EHR software that exists under Allscripts umbrella, but with the addition of Practice Fusion, Allscripts certainly has an EHR software for healthcare organizations of every shape and size. Plus, I expect they run their EHR businesses at break even while they make most of their money off of other lines of business they can sell to their EHR customers. It’s not just Allscripts that’s seen how much money can be made doing revenue cycle management and providing other services to their EHR users.

I will be interested to see what Allscripts chooses to do with Practice Fusion long term. Will they eventually sunset the Practice Fusion EHR and encourage users to migrate to one of their other EHR? Will they start charging Practice Fusion EHR users for the EHR? You can imagine the outrage that would come if they did start charging, but EHR switching isn’t a simple process. So, I’d imagine that many practices would just start paying and it would take months and years for them to finally switch EHR vendors and many would probably just decide to stay with “the devil they know.” That would be a big gamble on the part of Allscripts, so it will be interesting to see if they make it. Then again, maybe they have enough revenue from being a distribution channel to Practice Fusion users that they’ll be able to continue the free EHR model. Time will tell.

Those are some initial thoughts on the acquisition of Practice Fusion by Allscripts. I should also note that the acquisition isn’t complete. It still has to go through the standard ant-trust evaluation process, but I don’t expect that to be an issue. What do you think of this acquisition? Is this a good move by Allscripts? What does this mean for Practice Fusion users?

Doctor on Demand Stats Offer Insight Into Telmedicine Trends

Posted on January 5, 2018 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.

Recently, direct-to-consumer telemedicine provider Doctor on Demand released some statistics on its performance in 2017. While some of the report was self-congratulatory, I still think the data points are worth looking at, especially for clinicians.

For starters, it’s worth noting that the company now considers itself a fully integrated medical practice. For example, it’s begun offering lab testing services through Quest Diagnostics and Lab Corp. as part of a program to control chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels.

Another factoid the stats offer is that its physicians are generally in their mid-career; apparently, Doctor on Demand’s average physician has 15 years of experience. The company doesn’t offer any perspective on why that might be, but it suggests to me that clinicians who participate are both confident that they can manage care remotely and comfortable with technology.

Why is that the case? My guess is that this work may not be attractive to younger doctors, who might feel uneasy managing patients online given their lack of experience. It also suggests older physicians, some of whom still consider telemedicine to be a poor substitute for face-to-face care, probably aren’t engaging with telemedicine either.

Other data provided by Doctor on Demand includes the top reasons for visits included treatment of cold and flu, prescription refills and infections, which isn’t surprising. It also notes that mental health visits climbed 240% over 2016, with anxiety, depression and stress being the most common symptoms treated. This is more interesting, as it suggests that among other problems, consumers feel they aren’t getting their mental health needs met in real life.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the company’s self-reported benefit statistics, I’m taking them with a large grain of salt, but I found them to be worth a look nonetheless. The company says it saved its patients nearly $1 billion in healthcare costs and saved over 1.6 million hours that would otherwise have been spent in doctor’s waiting rooms. These results were allegedly generated by a base of 1 million patients, according to the San Francisco Business Times.

I’m not writing this to suggest that Doctor on Demand is better or worse than other telemedicine companies and video services offered by privately-employed physicians or hospital telemedicine services. Still, I got a kick out of learning what trends a well-positioned telemedicine service was seeing in the marketplace. While Doctor on Demand’s results may not reflect the market as a whole, they certainly offer food for thought.

Top 10 Blog Posts on EMR and EHR from 2017

Posted on January 4, 2018 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.

As we kick off 2018, I thought it would be fun to look back at the top 10 blog posts (based on views) in 2017 for EMR and EHR. It’s always great to see what people found interesting and which topics were of interest to readers. Plus, I’m always fascinated to see what old articles are still of interest to people. Not to mention, to look at what has changed since the article was written.

Facebook in Healthcare – What’s amazing about this blog post is that it’s from 2014. Looking back 3+ years later, I haven’t really seen Facebook become a big player in healthcare. Sure, there are plenty of patient groups on Facebook, but it’s not really a Facebook product. Facebook has done a number of things in healthcare over the years to get the word out about organ donation and things like that, but I currently don’t see them as a big player in healthcare the same way Amazon, Google, and Apple are looking at healthcare.

What the EMR Industry Can Learn From Facebook – Amazing that another article about Facebook was in the Top 10 and this one from 2012 was written by Priya Ramchandran. Her vision of a world where a patients health record was just automatically pushed down to a server every time we have a health encounter has been far from realized. The challenge of the comparison for me is that Facebook has a reason to push all that data together. In healthcare, there are reasons why organizations don’t want to push the data out to the patient. Until we change those reasons, we won’t see this vision despite hundreds of companies efforts to try and accomplish it. Yes, even Apple is working on solving this problem now and I think they’ll fail.

Epic Launches FHIR-Based App Platform – Epic’s launch of the Epic App Orchard platform was big news in 2017. I’ll admit that I’m still a bit skeptical about Epic App Orchard. Many herald it as Epic opening up their EHR to developers. I personally am skeptical and fear that it’s really just making public the connections they were already creating and is more PR than anything. Epic App Orchard isn’t a truly open API that would allow innovators and entrepreneurs to build on top of the Epic EHR. Plus, I fear that Epic App Orchard is just a new revenue stream for Epic. Those are my fears that I’ll be exploring as I talk to people in 2018 about it.

Publicly Traded Health IT Companies – I wouldn’t have thought of this blog post as one that would have garnered a lot of attention. Maybe that means we should do more work covering the publicly traded healthcare IT companies on this blog. They seem to be increasingly dominating the landscape.

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Medical Ethics and the Machine Revolution – One of the great additions to EMR and EHR this year was Janae Sharp and this blog post was an excellent example of her work. Understanding the impact of AI in healthcare is going to be an extremely important topic over the next decade. I’m glad she kicked off the conversation since it’s a challenging one. I still keep thinking about the question she asked, “Can a machine learn empathy?” Chew on that one for a while.

EHR Innovation & Regulation: Friends or Foes? – I’m really glad that this post by Stephen Dart from AdvancedMD did so well. I think most doctors don’t appreciate the challenging situation EHR vendors are in when it comes to balancing compliance and innovation. I believe it’s the core of what’s wrong with most EHR software out there and contributes to a lot of physician burnout.

Is Cerner Edging Up On Epic? – This post was from 2016, but the question is still a good one. The reality is that both Cerner and Epic are doing amazingly well. I don’t see anything on the horizon that’s going to change it. Both of them are behemoths that are doing incredibly well. I don’t really see either of them cutting into the progress of the other either. What do you think?

Is Your Health Data Unstructured? – Enabling an AI Powered Healthcare Future – I still love the insight shared in this article. Technology doesn’t solve your problems. Technology amplifies your current state. If you’re doing a good job, technology will accelerate the good. If you’re doing poorly on something, technology will accelerate and amplify the bad.

#HIMSS17 Mix Tape – This is just a fun post leading into HIMSS that Colin has done every year with us for a lot of years. The exciting part is that when Colin posted this he was still working at a Healthcare IT vendor. We’re lucky to now have him formally as part of the Healthcare Scene team. I’m quite sure Colin will be doing a #HIMSS18 Mix Tape shortly. So, if you have suggestions, reach out to him on Twitter.

12 Reasons Why EMRs Improve Patient Care – How amazing that this post from 2011 is still doing so well. I imagine it’s because so many people are trying to understand the value of the EHR. Especially as it related to improving patient care. This post really deserves a future dedicated blog post to look at the 12 ways EMR improve patient care and how many of them have been realized. I’ll put it on my to-do list for 2018.

There you have it. The top 10 blog posts on EMR and EHR for 2017. It’s always fun to look back and see what’s changed and what’s stayed the same. Thanks to each of you for reading and supporting the work we do here. Now on to an awesome 2018!