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!

Patient Satisfaction Drops After Ambulatory EHR Is Rolled Out

Posted on June 4, 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.

In theory, EHR implementations are supposed to not only make providers’ jobs easier but ultimately, improve patient satisfaction too. The idea is that EHRs will eventually add something beneficial to physician routines and ultimately improving care processes. Of course, there’s a lot of question as to whether EHRs can now or will ever do so, but researchers continue to look at different use cases.

For example, new research published in JAMIA has concluded that while they weren’t too thrilled by the ambulatory EHR they were using, a group of OB/GYN practices showed some enthusiasm once the outpatient EHR was attached to the one collecting data on their related inpatient perinatal unit.

The purpose of the study was to look at how the installation of the ambulatory EHR within the OB/GYN practices and subsequent connection to an inpatient perinatal EHR affected providers’ attitudes toward sharing of clinical information. It also looked at the impact all of this had on patient satisfaction.

To conduct the study, researchers collected data on both provider and patient satisfaction. They assessed provider satisfaction by conducting four surveys staged across the phased implementation of the EHR. To measure patient satisfaction, meanwhile, they drew on data from Press Ganey surveys managed by the healthcare network using the usual process.

Their ultimate goal was to determine how provider and patient perceptions changed as the EHR system enabled greater information flow between the OB/GYN practices in the hospital.

What the study found was that the outpatient OB/GYN providers were less satisfied with how the EHR affected their work processes than other clinical and non-clinical staff. On the other hand, they grew more satisfied with their access to information once the inpatient perinatal triage unit offered useful functions. Specifically, they were happier with their access to information from the inpatient system once its capabilities included the ability to send automatic data flows from triage back to the OB/GYN offices.

On the other hand, overall patient reactions to the project appeared to be negative. Patient satisfaction fell after the installation of the ambulatory EHR, and researchers could find no evidence that patient satisfaction rebounded after the information sharing process began between inpatient and outpatient settings.

In summary, the study concluded, if providers are dissatisfied with their EHR system, and those difficulties undercut patient care, the process could negatively impact patient satisfaction. The authors recommended that healthcare organizations take extra care to maintain good communication with patients during this process.

Recording Doctor-Patient Visits Shows Great Potential

Posted on June 1, 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.

Doctors, do you know how you would feel if a patient recorded their visit with you? Would you choose to record them if you could? You may soon find out.

A new story appearing in STAT suggests that both patients and physicians are increasingly recording visits, with some doctors sharing the audio recording and encouraging patients to check it out at home.

The idea behind this practice is to help patients recall their physician’s instructions and adhere to treatment plans. According to one source, patients forget between 40% to 80% of physician instructions immediately after leaving the doctor’s office. Sharing such recordings could increase patient recall substantially.

What’s more, STAT notes, emerging AI technologies are pushing this trend further. Using speech recognition and machine learning tools, physicians can automatically transcribe recordings, then upload the transcription to their EMR.

Then, health IT professionals can analyze the texts using natural language processing to gain more knowledge about specific diseases. Such analytics are likely to be even more helpful than processes focused on physician notes, as voice recordings offer more nuance and context.

The growth of such recordings is being driven not only by patients and their doctors, but also by researchers interested in how to best leverage the content found in these recordings.

For example, a professor at Dartmouth is leading a project focused on creating an artificial intelligence-enabled system allowing for routine audio recording of conversations between doctors and patients. Paul Barr is a researcher and professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

The project, known as ORALS (Open Recording Automated Logging System), will develop and test an interoperable system to support routine recording of patient medical visits. The fundamental assumption behind this effort is that recording such content on smart phones is inappropriate, as if the patient loses their phone, their private healthcare information could be exposed.

To avoid this potential privacy breach, researchers are storing voice information on a secure central server allowing both patients and caregivers to control the information. The ORALS software offers both a recording and playback application designed for recording patient-physician visits.

Using the system, patients record visits on their phone, have them uploaded to a secure server and after that, have the recordings automatically removed from the phone. In addition, ORALS also offers a web application allowing patients to view, annotate and organize their recordings.

As I see it, this is a natural outgrowth of the trailblazing Open Notes project, which was perhaps the first organization encouraging doctors to share patient information. What makes this different is that we now have the technology to make better use of what we learn. I think this is exciting.

Medicare ACOs May Be Slated For Big Changes — And Health IT May Be Part Of It

Posted on May 25, 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.

Before I get started, I want to offer a hat tip to Becker’s Hospital Review, which turned me onto the following news. That news, in brief, is that CMS might make changes to its ACO program that could have a big impact on the doctors and hospitals that participate.

According to Becker’s, CMS Administrator had some negative things to say about so-called “upside only” risk contracts, which don’t pay out anything to the agency if they miss financial and clinical benchmarks: “These ACOs are actually increasing Medicare spending, and the presence of these ‘upside-only’ tracks may be encouraging consolidation in the marketplace, reducing competition and choice for beneficiaries,” Verma told the AHA’s Annual Membership Meeting earlier this month.

At present, a whopping 460 of 561 ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program are in Track 1, the agency’s upside-only program. At present, ACOs can only participate in two three-year contracts on this track, so next year 82 ACOs will be required to take on financial risk. Obviously, they don’t like this.

However, CMS isn’t exactly being unreasonable to consider curtailing Track 1. Looked at one way, the Medicare Shared Savings Program has failed utterly achieving its core purpose, and upside-only contracts are the primary reason.

According to Becker’s, which cited research from Avalere, while the program was supposed to generate $1.7 billion in net savings from 2013 to 2016, upside-only contracts were responsible for $444 million in federal spending. On the other hand, downside-risk ACOs cut spending by $60 million, a relatively tiny number when you consider the scale of CMS’s budget but positive side nonetheless.

All that being said, let me interject here and note that HIT may be part of the problem. I’m betting some of the expected savings was based on assumptions about how health IT would help ACOs meet clinical and financial benchmarks.

After all, the federal government spent many billions of dollars paying doctors and hospitals Meaningful Use incentive, which obviously gave them a convincing reason to adopt EMRs. No one approves that level spending without believing it would make everything better.

As it turns out, though, that might have been a flawed assumption. If I’m right, the Track 1 failure suggests that health IT isn’t doing as much to create efficiencies as federal health leaders had hoped. I know, particularly if you’re a doctor reading this, you’re saying “I could’ve told you this a decade ago.” Still, it’s worth repeating.

While health IT organizations — especially those housed in progressive health systems — are making great progress with improving care, we haven’t met the lofty goals of such approaches by any means. But if they want to progress toward value-based care, they’ll probably have to put their health IT to better use.

Competition Heating Up For AI-Based Disease Management Players

Posted on May 21, 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.

Working in collaboration with a company offering personal electrocardiograms to consumers, researchers with the Mayo Clinic have developed a technology that detects a dangerous heart arrhythmia. In so doing, the two are joining the race to improve disease management using AI technology, a contest which should pay the winner off handsomely.

At the recent Heart Rhythm Scientific Sessions conference, Mayo and vendor AliveCor shared research showing that by augmenting AI with deep neural networks, they can successfully identify patients with congenital Long QT Syndrome even if their ECG is normal. The results were accomplished by applying AI from lead one of a 12-lead ECG.

While Mayo needs no introduction, AliveCor might. While it started out selling a heart rhythm product available to consumers, AliveCor describes itself as an AI company. Its products include KardiaMobile and KardiaBand, which are designed to detect atrial fibrillation and normal sinus rhythms on the spot.

In their statement, the partners noted that as many as 50% of patients with genetically-confirmed LQTS have a normal QT interval on standard ECG. It’s important to recognize underlying LQTS, as such patients are at increased risk of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. They also note that that the inherited form affects 160,000 people in the US and causes 3,000 to 4,000 sudden deaths in children and young adults every year. So obviously, if this technology works as promised, it could be a big deal.

Aside from its medical value, what’s interesting about this announcement is that Mayo and AliveCor’s efforts seem to be part of a growing trend. For example, the FDA recently approved a product known as IDx-DR, the first AI technology capable of independently detecting diabetic retinopathy. The software can make basic recommendations without any physician involvement, which sounds pretty neat.

Before approving the software, the FDA reviewed data from parent company IDx, which performed a clinical study of 900 patients with diabetes across 10 primary care sites. The software accurately identified the presence of diabetic retinopathy 87.4% of the time and correctly identified those without the disease 89.5% of the time. I imagine an experienced ophthalmologist could beat that performance, but even virtuosos can’t get much higher than 90%.

And I shouldn’t forget the 1,000-ton presence of Google, which according to analyst firm CBInsights is making big bets that the future of healthcare will be structured data and AI. Among other things, Google is focusing on disease detection, including projects targeting diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease, among other conditions. (The research firm notes that Google has actually started a limited commercial rollout of its diabetes management program.)

I don’t know about you, but I find this stuff fascinating. Still, the AI future is still fuzzy. Clearly, it may do some great things for healthcare, but even Google is still the experimental stage. Don’t worry, though. If you’re following AI developments in healthcare you’ll have something new to read every day.

Nurse Satisfaction With EHRs Rises Dramatically, But Problems Remain

Posted on May 18, 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.

In the past, nurses despised EHRs as much as doctors did – perhaps even more. In fact, in mid-2014, 92% of nurses surveyed weren’t satisfied with the EHR they used, according to a study by Black Book Research. But things have changed a lot since then, Black Book says. The following data is focused largely on hospital-based nursing, but I think many of these data points are relevant to medical practices too.

Despite their previous antipathy to EHR’s, as of Q2 2018, 96% of nurses told Black Book that they wouldn’t want to go back to using paper records. That score is up 24% since 2016, the research firm reports.

Part of the reason the nurses are happier is that they feel they’re getting the technical support they need. Eighty-eight percent of responding nurses said that their IT departments and administrators were responding quickly when they asked for EHR changes, as compared with 30% in 2016.

On the other hand, the study also noted that when hospitals outsource the EHR helpdesk, nurses don’t always like the experience. Twenty-one percent said their experience with the EHR’s call center didn’t meet their expectations for communication skills and product knowledge. On the other hand, that’s a huge improvement from 88% in 2016.

Not only that, RNs are eager to improve their EHR skillsets. Most nurses are now glad that they are skilled at using at least one EHR, and 65% believe that persons who are skilled at working with multiple systems are seen as highly-desirable job candidates by health systems.

Providers’ choice of EHR can be an advantage for some in attracting top dressing talented. Apparently, RNs are beginning to choose job openings for the EHR product and vendor the provider uses as an indication of how the working environment may be than the provider itself. Eighty percent of job-seeking RNs reported that the reputation of the hospital’s EHR system is one of the top three considerations impacting where they choose to work.

That being said, there are still some IT issues that concern nurses. Eighty-two percent of nurses in inpatient facilities said they don’t have computers in each room or handheld/mobile devices they can use to access the EHR. That number is down from 93% in 2016, but still high.

These statistics should be of great interest to both hospitals and physicians. Obviously, hospitals have an institutional interest in knowing how nurses feel about their EHR platform and how they supported. Meanwhile, while most average size practices don’t address the same IT issues faced by hospitals, it benefits them to know what their nurses are looking for in a system. There’s much to think about here.

How Will CMS Handle Issues Surrounding MACRA Changes?

Posted on May 14, 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.

As most readers will know, when CMS released details on MIPS and the Alternative Payment Model incentives it embarked on a new direction for quality programs generally. As most readers will know, MIPS consolidated PQRS, the Physician Value-based Modifier and the Medicare EHR Incentive Program for EPs (Meaningful Use). But CMS is still updating the Medicaid incentive program.

If I were a physician, I’d be even more interested in the CMS initiative dubbed Promoting Interoperability. In some of the biggest news to come out of the agency in ages, CMS is restructuring the EHR Incentive Programs to become the Promoting Interoperability Programs. Promoting Interoperability replaces the Advancing Care Information category of MIPS.

Whoa. That would be a big enough deal on its own, but the issues the rule raises are an even bigger one.

CMS’s has been working towards this goal for a few years. Per HIMSS, here are some changes suggested in the proposed rule that might have the biggest impact on the health IT world:

  • The rule would cut down measures from 16 to six
  • It would use a new performance-based scoring methodology which would include measures of performance on e-prescribing, health information exchange, provider to patient exchange and public health and clinical data exchange
  • The agency will define and work to prevent “information blocking”

On a related note, CMS has posted a request for information asking for stakeholder feedback on program participation conditions. This is pretty unusual for the agency.

Like many CMS proposals, this one leaves some important questions open. (Apparently, CMS itself wonders how this thing will work, as the request for information suggests.)

For example, the new performance-based scoring method will award providers anywhere from 0 to 100 points. Measuring health IT performance is always a tricky thing to do, and there’s little doubt that if this becomes a final rule, both providers and CMS will have to go through some struggles before they perfect this approach. In the meantime, providers face some big challenges. How will they adapt to them? Its too soon to say.

Addressing so-called “information blocking” should be an even bigger challenge. Everyone from members of Congress to providers to vendors acts as though there’s one way to describe this practice, but there’s still a lot of wiggle room. Honestly, I’ll be amazed if CMS manages to pin it down the first time around.

Still, the time is more than overdue for CMS to take on interoperability directly. Without real data interoperability, many promising digital health schemes will collapse under their own weight. If CMS can figure out how to make it happen, it will be pretty neat.

Giving Patients Test Results: Is It A Good Idea?

Posted on May 2, 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.

These days, the conventional wisdom is that sharing health data with patients increases their engagement, which then improves their health.  And certainly, that may well be the case. I can tell you that when one of my doctors refused to share lab data until he reviewed it, I chewed his practice manager out. (Not very nice, I realized later.)

Still, I was intrigued by a story in the Washington Post challenging the idea that sharing test results is always a good idea. The story argues that in some cases, sharing data with patients lead to confusion and fear, largely because the patient usually gets no guidance on what the results mean. They may not be prepared to receive this information, and if they can’t reach their doctor, they might panic.

According to a source quoted in the Post, virtually no one knows what the actual benefits and risks are associated with releasing test results. “There is just not enough information about how it should be done right,” said Hardeep Singh, an associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine who studies patients’ experiences in receiving test results from portals. “There are unintended consequences for not thinking it through.”

Despite these concerns, some healthcare providers have decided to release most test results, gambling that this will pay off over the long-term. One such provider is Geisinger Health System. Geisinger releases test results twice a day, four hours after the data is published through a portal. ‘The majority [of patients] want early access to the results, and they don’t want to be impeded,” said Ben Hohmuth, Geisinger’s associate chief medical informatics officer at Geisinger.

Geisinger’s bet may help it avoid needless patient harm. According to a study appearing in JAMA, between 8% and 26% of abnormal test results – including potential malignancies – aren’t followed up on in a timely matter. Giving them this data allows them to react quickly to abnormal test results and advocate for themselves.

It also seems that the Washington Post didn’t take the time to get to know CT Lin, CMIO at University of Colorado Health. He’s done extensive research into providing electronic access to results and other health data. His results are clear and cover the idea that releasing some results is harmful. There are a few results that are good to keep until the provider has talked to the patient. However, he found across a wide range of examples that releasing the results doesn’t cause any of the damages that many imagine in their minds.

Maybe its time for providers to begin studying patient responses to test result access even more. We’re not talking rocket science here. You could start with an informal survey of patients visiting one of your primary care clinics, asking them whether they use your portal and which features they consider most valuable.

If patients don’t rate access to test results highly, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t bother making them available.  It could be that at the moment, your test results aren’t displayed in a useful manner, or that the patients you talk with dislike the portal overall. We can work to learn this as well rather than imagining some scenario that could go bad. That’s easy in healthcare.

Regardless, the evidence suggests that at least some patients benefit from having this data, especially the ability to ask good questions about their health status. For the time being, that’s probably a good enough reason to keep the data flowing.

AI Software Detects Diabetic Retinopathy Without Physician Involvement

Posted on April 27, 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.

The FDA has approved parent company IDx to market IDx-DR, the first AI technology which can independently detect diabetic retinopathy. The software can make basic recommendations without any physician involvement.

Before approving the software, the FDA reviewed data from a clinical study of 900 patients with diabetes across 10 primary care sites. IDx-DR accurately identified the presence of diabetic retinopathy 87.4% of the time and accurately identified those without the disease 89.5% of the time. In other words, it’s not perfect but it’s clearly pretty close.

To use IDx-DR, providers upload digital images of a diabetic patient’s eyes taken with a retinal camera to the IDx cloud server. Once the image reaches the server, IDx-DR uses an AI algorithm to analyze the images, then tells the user whether the user has anything more than mild retinopathy.

If it finds significant retinopathy, the software suggests referring the patient to an eye care specialist for an in-depth diagnostic visit. On the other hand, if the software doesn’t detect retinopathy, it recommends a standard rescreen in 12 months.

Apparently, this is the first time the FDA has allowed a company to sell a device which screens and diagnoses patients without involving a specialist. We can expect further AI approvals by the FDA in the future, according to Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD. “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning hold enormous promise for the future of medicine,” Gottlieb tweeted. “The FDA is taking steps to promote innovation and support the use of artificial intelligence-based medical devices.”

The question this announcement must raise in the minds of some readers is “How far will this go?” Both for personal and clinical reasons, doctors are likely to worry about this sort of development. After all, putting aside any impact it may have on their career, they may be concerned that patient will get short-changed.

They probably don’t need to worry, though. According to an article in the MIT Technology Review, a recent research project done by Google Cloud suggests that AI won’t be replacing doctors anytime soon.

Jia Li, who leads research and development at Google Cloud, told a conference audience that while applying AI to radiology imaging might be a useful tool, it can automate only a small part of radiologists’ work. All it will be able to do is help doctors make better judgments and make the process more efficient, Li told conference attendees.

In other words, it seems likely that for the foreseeable future, tools like IDx-DR and its cousins will help doctors automate tasks they didn’t want to do anyway. With any luck, using them will both save time and improve diagnoses. Not at all scary, right?

AI Tool Helps Physician Group Manage Prescription Refills

Posted on April 25, 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.

Most of the time, when we hear about AI projects people are talking about massive efforts spanning millions of records and many thousands of patients. A recent blog item, however, suggests that AI can be used to improve comparatively modest problems faced by physician groups as well.

The case profiled in the blog involves Western Massachusetts-based Valley Medical Group, which is using machine learning to manage medication refills. The group, which includes 115 providers across four centers, implemented a product known as Charlie, a cloud-based tool made by Healthfinch 18 months ago. (I should note, at this point, that the blog maintained is by athenaHealth, which probably has a partnership with Healthfinch. Moving on…)

Charlie is a cloud-based tool which automates the process of prescription refills by integrating with EHRs. Charlie processes refill requests much like a physician or pharmacist would, but more quickly and probably more thoroughly as well.

According to the blog item, Charlie pulls in refill requests from the practice’s EHR then adds relevant patient data to the requests. After doing so, Charlie then runs the requests through an evidence-based rules engine to detect whether the request is in protocol or out of protocol. It also detects duplicates. errors and other problems. Charlie can also absorb specific protocols which let it know what to look for in each refill request it processes.

After 18 months, Valley’s refill process is far more efficient. Of the 10,000 refill requests that Valley gets every month, 60% are handled by a clerical person and don’t involve a clinician. In addition, clerical staff workloads have been cut in half, according to the practice’s manager of healthcare informatics.

Another benefit Valley saw from rolling out Charlie with that they found out which certain problems lay. For example, practice leaders found out that 20% of monthly refill requests were duplicate requests. Prior to implementing the new tool, practice staff spent a lot of time investigating the requests or worse, filling them by accident.

This type of technology will probably do a lot for medium-sized to larger practices, but smaller ones probably can’t afford to invest in this kind of technology. I have no idea what Healthfinch charges for Charlie, but I doubt it’s cheap, and I’m guessing its competitors are charging a bundle for this stuff as well. What’s more, as I saw at #HIMSS18, vendors are still struggling to define the right AI posture and product roadmap, so even if you have a lot of cash buying AI is still a somewhat risky play.

Still, if you’re part of a small practice that’s rethinking its IT strategy, it’s good to know that technologies like Charlie exist. I have little doubt that over time — perhaps fairly soon — vendors will begin offering AI tools that your practice can afford. In the meantime, it wouldn’t hurt to identify processes which seem to be wasting a lot of time or failing to get good results. That way, when an affordable tool comes along to help you’ll be ready to go.

Cloud-Based EHRs With Analytics Options Popular With Larger Physician Groups

Posted on April 20, 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.

Ever wonder what large medical practices want from the EHRs these days? According to one study, the answer is “cloud-based systems with all the bells and whistles.”

Black Book Research just completed a six-month client satisfaction poll questioning members of large practices about their EHR preferences. The survey collected data from roughly 19,000 EHR users.

According to the survey, 30% of practices with more than 11 clinicians expect to replace their current EHR by 2021, primarily because they want a more customizable system. It’s not clear whether they are sure yet which vendors offer the best customization options, though it’s likely we’ll hear more about this soon enough.

Among groups planning an EHR replacement, what appealed to them most (with 93% ranking it as their preferred option) was cloud-based mobile solutions offering an array of analytical options. They’re looking for on-demand data and actionable insights into financial performance, compliance tracking and tools to manage contractual quality goals. Other popular features included telehealth/virtual support (87%) and speech recognition solutions for hands-free data entry (82%).

Among those practices that weren’t prepared for an EHR replacement, it seems that some are waiting to see how internal changes within Practice Fusion and eClinicalWorks play out. That’s not surprising given that both vendors boasted an over 93% customer loyalty level for Q1 2018.

The picture for practices with less than six or fewer physicians is considerably different, which shouldn’t surprise anybody given their lack of capital and staff time.  In many cases, these smaller practices haven’t optimized the EHRs they have in place, with many failing to use secure messaging, decision support and electronic data sharing or leverage tools that increase patient engagement.

Large practices and smaller ones do have a few things in common. Ninety-three percent of all sized medical and surgical practices using an installed, functional EHR system are using three basic EHR tools either frequently or always, specifically data repositories, order entry and results review.

On the other hand, few small to midsize groups use advanced features such as electronic messaging, clinical decision support, data sharing, patient engagement tools or interoperability support. Again, this is a world apart from the higher-end IT options the larger practices crave.

For the time being, the smaller practices may be able to hold their own. That being said, other surveys by Black Book suggest that the less-digitalized practices won’t be able to stay that way for long, at least if they want to keep the practice thriving.

A related 2018 Black Book survey of healthcare consumers concluded that 91% of patients under 50 prefer to work with digitally-based practices, especially practices that offer conductivity with other providers and modern portals giving them easy access to the health data via both phones and other devices.