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 Demand For Digital Health Tools May Exceed Providers’ Ability To Deliver

Posted on March 15, 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.

It’s taken a long time, but it looks like consumers are getting serious about using digital tools to improve their health. According to a new survey by Accenture, in some cases consumers are actually more interested in using such tools than their providers are, researchers found.

Patients are taking advantage of a wide range of digital health options, including mobile tech (46%), accessing electronic health records (38%), social media (35%), wearable technology (33%), smart scales (27%), remote consultations (16%) and remote monitoring (14%). All of these numbers are up from 2017, notably mobile and access to electronic health records, use of which grew 10% and 9% respectively.

The survey also notes that the number of consumers receiving virtual healthcare services has increased since last year, from 21% in 2017 to 25% this year. Seventy-four percent of those accessing virtual care were satisfied with the encounter. Meanwhile, about three-quarters of consumers said they would use virtual care for after-hours appointments, and about two-thirds would choose this option for follow-up appointments after seeing a doctor in person.

Key takeaways for clinicians, meanwhile, include that while patients agree that in-person visits provide quality care, engage patients in their health care decisions and diagnose problems faster, virtual visits offer some significant advantages too. Virtual care benefits they identified include reducing medical costs to patients, accommodating patient schedules and providing timely care, respondents said.

Clinicians should also note that AI-based virtual doctors may someday become the competition. When asked whether they would use an AI virtual doctor provided by their provider, some were doubtful, with 29% saying they prefer visiting the doctor, 26% that they didn’t understand enough about how AI works, and 23% that they did not want to share their data.

However, 47% said they would choose a virtual doctor because it would be available whenever they needed it. Also, 36% said they’d use a virtual doctor because it would save time by avoiding a trip to the doctor, and 24% said they’d like to access a virtual doctor because the AI would have access to large amounts of relevant information.

Right now, it’s far more likely that hospitals will have the capacity to deliver such services, which may demand a higher level of IT expertise and staff time that many medical practices have available. Nonetheless, it seems likely that at some point, medical practices will need to offer more digital services if they want to remain competitive.

Study Says Physicians Have Major Cybersecurity Problems

Posted on December 18, 2017 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.

New research sponsored by the AMA and consulting firm Accenture has concluded that cyberattacks on medical practices are common – in fact, far more common than one might think.

Not only do these numbers suggest patient data is far more vulnerable than expected, it suggests that clinicians are often poorly educated about security and the implications of handling it badly. It’s fair to say that unless this trend is turned around, it could undermine industry efforts to build trusting relationships with patients and encourage them to engage in two-way data exchange.

The study found that most physicians (85%) think that sharing electronic protected health information is a good idea and that two-thirds believe that giving patients more access to their health data would improve care. One-third of respondents said that they share ePHI if they trust the vendors involved.

Thirty-seven percent get training content on security from their health IT vendor, and 50% said they trust these training providers are sure the content is adequate. However, this may be a mistake. While 87% of respondents said that their practice is HIPAA-compliant, the study also found that two-thirds of doctors still have basic questions about HIPAA. It’s clear, in other words, that trusted relationships aren’t doing the job here.

In fact, an eye-popping 83% of medical practices have experienced some form of cyberattack such as malware, phishing or viruses. Not surprisingly, 55% of physicians surveyed are very worried about future cyberattacks. Unfortunately, worrying is what many people do instead of taking action, and that may be what’s going on here.

What makes these lax attitudes all the more problematic is that when attacks occur, the effect can be very substantial. For example, 74% of respondents said that a cyberattack was likely to interrupt their clinical practice, and 29% of doctors working in medium-sized practices said that it could take up to a full day to recover from an attack, a crippling length of time for any small business.

So what are practices willing to do to avoid these problems? Among these respondents, 60% said they would pay someone to create a security framework to protect ePHI. Also, 49% of practices surveyed have in-house security staffers on board. However, it should be noted that three times more medium and large practices have such an officer in place compared to smaller medical groups, probably because security expertise is very pricey.

However, probably the most valuable thing they can do is the least expensive of the list. Every practice should require that physicians stay current at least on HIPAA and cybersecurity basics. If medical groups do this, at least they’ve established a baseline from which they can work on other security issues.

New Research Identifies Game-Changing Uses For AI In Healthcare

Posted on June 27, 2017 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 recent times, the use of artificial intelligence technology in healthcare has been a very hot topic. However, while we’ve come tantalizingly close to realizing its promise, no application that I know of has come close to transforming the industry. Moreover, as John Lynn notes, healthcare organizations will not get as much out of AI use if they are not doing a good job of working with both structured and unstructured data.

That being said, new research by Accenture suggests that those of us dismissing AI tech as immature may be behind the curve. Researchers there have concluded that when combined, key clinical health AI applications could save the US healthcare economy as much $150 billion by 2026.

Before considering the stats in this report, we should bear Accenture’s definition of healthcare AI in mind:

“AI in health presents a collection of multiple technologies enabling machines to sense, comprehend, act and learn, so they can perform administrative and clinical healthcare functions…Unlike legacy technologies that are only algorithms/tools that complement a human, health AI today can truly augment human activity.”

In other words, the consulting firm sees AI as far more than a data analytics tool. Accenture analysts envision an AI ecosystem that transforms and serves as an adjunct to the many healthcare processes. That’s a pretty ambitious take, though probably not a crazy one.

In its new report, Accenture projects that the AI health market will reach $6.6 billion by 2021, up from $600 million in 2014, fueled by the growing number of health AI acquisitions taking place. The report notes that the number of such deals has leapt from less than 20 in the year 2012 to nearly 70 by mid-2016.

Researchers predict that the following applications will generate the projected $150 billion in savings/value:

  • Robot-assisted surgery: $40 billion
  • Virtual nursing assistants: $20 billion
  • Administrative workflow assistance: $18 billion
  • Fraud detection: $17 billion
  • Dosage error reduction: $16 billion
  • Connected machines: $14 billion
  • Clinical trial participant identifier: $13 billion
  • Preliminary diagnosis: $5 billion
  • Automated image diagnosis: $3 billion
  • Cybersecurity: $2 billion

There are a lot of interesting things about this list, which goes well beyond current hot topics like the use of AI-driven chatbots.

One that stands out to me is that two of the 10 applications address security concerns, an approach which makes sense but hadn’t turned up in my research on the topic until now.

I was also intrigued to see robot-assisted surgery topping the list of high-impact health AI options. Though I’m familiar with assistive technologies like the da Vinci robot, it hadn’t occurred to me that such tools could benefit from automation and data integration.

I love the picture Accenture paints of how this might work:

“Cognitive robotics can integrate information from pre-op medical records with real-time operating metrics to physically guide and enhance the physician’s instrument precision…The technology incorporates data from actual surgical experiences to inform new, improved techniques and insights.”

When implemented properly, robot-assisted surgery will generate a 21% reduction in length of hospital stays, the researchers estimate.

Of course, even the wise thinkers at Accenture aren’t always right. Nonetheless, the broad trends report identifies seem like reasonable choices. What do you think?

And by all means check out the report – it’s short, well-argued and useful.

Background On Cerner’s Capture Of DoD EHR Data Center Biz

Posted on January 6, 2016 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 many readers will know, the Department of Defense awarded Cerner the $4.3 billion Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization contract this summer, through its partnership with Leidos and Accenture. In doing so the partners beat out some formidable competition, including an Epic/IBM bid and a group, led by Computer Sciences Corp., whose partners included Allscripts and HP.

This is a system integration project on the grandest scale, connecting healthcare systems located at Army hospitals, on Naval vessels, in battlefield clinics across the glove. The idea is to bring all of this data — on active-duty members, reservists and civilian contractors — into a single open, interoperable platform. The new platform should serve 9.5 million military beneficiaries in roughly 1,000 locations.

Now, just six months into the 10-year deal, the DoD has decided to change the rules a bit. Military officials have concluded that the new records system capabilities won’t function at their best unless they’re hosted in a Center datacenter. The new system, officials said, “requires direct access to proprietary Cerner data, which is only available within Cerner-owned-and-operated data centers.”

I’m not sharing this tidbit because it nets the partnership more money — Cerner will take in a comparatively trivial $5 million per year to host the government health data — but for a few other reasons that offer ongoing perspective on this massive deal:

  • While there’s no concrete way to prove this, the buzz around the time of Cerner winning the contract was that it won because it was perceived as more open than Epic. Arguably, if the DoD has to transfer data hosting because it needs access to proprietary algorithms, maybe the whole open thing was a fake-out. Certainly, needing access to Cerner logic locks down the deal even further than a straight ahead contract award.
  • Why couldn’t the DoD anticipate that their own data centers wouldn’t meet the needs of the project?  And why didn’t planners know, in advance, that they’d need access to Cerner’s “quantitative models and strategies” prior to signing on the dotted line? Admittedly, this is a sprawling project, but planning for appropriate network architecture seems pretty basic to me. Did Cerner deliberately raise this issue only after the deal was done?
  • In the notice the DoD issued outlining its intention to shift hosting to Cerner, it noted that while it wasn’t seeking competitive proposals, “any firm believing that they can fulfill the requirement of providing these services may be considered by the Agency.” The key for late entrants would be to prove that they could both meet hosting requirements and connect to proprietary Cerner data.
  • Was the intent always to host the EHR at the Cerner data centers and this was a way to do an end around the bid process and make the initial bid look more attractive (ie. cheaper) so it won the contract? I wonder how many more of these late additions the DoD will have when implementing the Cerner EHR. We’ve seen many hospital EHR implementation budgets have skyrocketed. It’s not hard to imagine the same scenario playing out with the DoD EHR budget. This might be the first of many EHR add-ons that weren’t part of the original contract.

Accenture: “Zombie” Digital Health Startups Won’t Die In Vain

Posted on August 24, 2015 I Written By

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

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been screaming for a while about how VCs are blowing their money on questionable digital health ventures. To my mind, their investment patterns suggest that the smart money really isn’t that smart. I admit that sorting out what works in digital health/mHealth/connected health is very challenging, but it’s far from impossible if you immerse yourself in the industry. And given how much difference carefully-thought out digital health tools can make, it’s exasperating to watch failing digital health startups burn through money.

That being said, maybe all of those dollars won’t be wasted. According to no less an eminence grise than Accenture, failing digital health ventures will feed the stronger ones and make their success more likely. A new report from Accenture predicts that these “zombie” startups — half of which will die within two years, it says — will provide talent and technology to their surviving rivals. (OK, I agree, the zombie image is a bit unsettling, isn’t it?)

To bring us their horror movie metaphor, Accenture analyzed the status of 900 healthcare IT startups, concluding that 51% were likely to collapse within 20 months.  The study looked at ventures cutting across social, mobile, analytics, cloud and sensors technologies, which include wearables, telehealth and remote monitoring.

While most researchers try to predict who the winners will be in a given market, Accenture had a few words to say about the zombie also-rans. And what they found was that the zombies have taken in enough cash to have done some useful things, collecting nearly $4 billion in funding between 2008 and 2013.

The investments are part of an ongoing funding trend. In fact, digital health dollars are likely to pour in over the next two years as well, with healthcare IT startups poised to take in $2.5 billion more over the next two years, Accenture estimates. Funding should focus on four segments, including engagement (25%), treatment (25%), diagnosis (21%) and infrastructure (29%), the study found.

So what use are the dying companies that will soon litter the digital health landscape? According to Accenture, more-successful firms can reap big benefits by acquiring the failing startups. For example, healthcare players can do “acqui-hiring” deals with struggling digital health startups to pick up a deep bench of qualified tech staffers. They can pick up unique technologies (the 900 firms analyzed, collectively, had 1,700 patents). And acquiring firms can harvest the startups’ technology to improve their products and services lineups.

Not only that — and this is Anne, not Accenture talking — acquiring healthcare firms get a wonderful infusion of entrepreneurial energy, regardless of whether the acquired firm was booking big bucks or not. And I speak from long experience. I’ve known the leaders of countless tech startups, and there’s very little difference between those who make a gazillion dollars and those whose ventures die. Generally speaking, anyone who makes a tech startup work for even a year or two is incredibly insightful, creative, and extremely dedicated, and they bring a kind of excitement to any company that hires them.

So, backed by the corporate wisdom of Accenture, I’ve come to praise zombies, not to bury them. While they may give their corporate lives, their visions won’t be wasted. With any luck, the next generation of digital health companies will appreciate the zombies’ hard work and initiative, even if they’re no longer with us.

Will EHR Vendors Become Service and Consulting Companies?

Posted on October 14, 2014 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.

This is the topic of a really interesting LinkedIn discussion: Will EHR Vendors Become Service and Consulting Companies?

I think this is a really great question and one that’s worthy of serious consideration. I think we’ve seen this happen time and time again in the IT industry. Some of the best examples are IBM, HP, and Dell. As their IT hardware and software becomes a “commodity” then they leverage their relationships and domain expertise to change into a service and consulting company. Usually this also involves them spending their extra cash to acquire the leading consulting company (or companies) in the industry as well.

In some ways we’re already seeing this happen. Epic announced a consulting division of their company in order to retain their senior staff. Cerner’s always made a good chunk of their money from consulting services.

Of course, thanks to meaningful use incentive money and some still massive upgrade costs, EHR vendors haven’t needed to shift their business model to a service and consulting model yet. There’s still plenty of money to be made just selling the software, training, etc.

What will also be interesting to watch is whether the large service and consulting companies like Accenture, IBM, HP, Dell, etc. will eat up the market share so that the EHR companies don’t have as much of an opportunity to grow a service and consulting business. No doubt it will be a big dog fight. Not to mention many of the current EHR consulting companies (although, you could see many of these getting acquired by the EHR vendors).

I guess my short answer to this question is: In the short term, we’re not likely to see a massive shift towards services and consulting, but long term it’s very likely to happen. What are your thoughts?

Many US Consumers Would Switch Doctors To Gain EMR Data Access

Posted on September 17, 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.

Evidence continues to mount that consumers not only accept EMRs, but want to have access to the data they contain. The latest on this subject comes in the form of a new Accenture survey, which concluded that 41 percent of US consumers would be willing to switch doctors to obtain online access to their EMR data.

To get a sense of how consumers are responding to the EMR revolution, Accenture surveyed more than 9,000 people in nine countries.  The survey sought to assess consumer perceptions of their doctors’ electronic capabilities across nine countries: Australia Brazil, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. (The survey included 1,000 US consumers.)

Researchers with Harris interactive, which fielded the study, found that at present, roughly one third of US consumers (36 percent) have full access to their EMR. However,  57 percent of consumers surveyed are self-tracking their personal health information, keeping data on items such as their health history (37 percent), physical activity (34 percent) and other health indicators such as blood pressure and weight.

Other survey results suggest that consumers on something of a collision course with doctors when it comes to access to medical data. While roughly four out of five consumers (84 percent) believe they should have full access to the EMR data, only one third of doctors (36 percent) agree.  The same study found that the majority of US doctors (65 percent) believe patient should have only limited access to their records.

These results strongly suggest that sharing full EMR data with patients is likely to become common practice in the future. After all, it seems that engaged patients are most of the way there already, and will continue to put pressure on doctors to open up the kimono for the foreseeable future.

P.S.  This data dovetails nicely with another recent report by independent research firms Aeffect and 88 Brand Partners which concludes that almost 50 percent of patients take EMR access into account when they consider choosing a  healthcare provider.

Is That EHR Poll Worth The PDF It’s Printed On?

Posted on September 3, 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.

The following is a guest post by Carl Bergman from EHR Selector.

One thing that’s certain in the EHR world, someone is either polling or blogging about the results. The problem is how do you know which poll to believe and which to trash? It’s not an easy question, if for no other reason than the remarkable volume of studies.

Five Questions

To figure this out, I ask myself five questions about EHR polls. The answers help me figure out which are the real deal and which to ignore. Here my five:

  1. What does it say? What is its take away? Not just the headline, but what do the findings reveal? A study may be rigorously done, but if the author makes an inductive leap over a cliff from results to meaning, the work is for naught.
  2. Who’d they ask? A valid poll’s sample should be a microcosm of the whole group. The idea is that if you contacted everyone in the group you’d get the same results you got from your poll.
    If the survey lets anyone answer, then it only represents those who answered. For example, let’s say in 2012 Fox News and MSNBC each ran an on line poll of Romney versus Obama. The polls let anyone vote. Would you be surprised that Romney won on Fox, but Obama won on MSNBC?
  3. What did they ask? If I can read the questions, I look to see if they are fairly worded. I’m leery if they’re a version of the classic leading question, “How long have you been beating your wife?”
  4. Is it free? I can understand paying for a study that’s cost a lot to produce. What I can’t understand is a study that touts its findings, but puts its methodology behind a pay wall.
  5. Who did it? If you have questions, you should be able to contact the chief investigator.

Two EHR Poll Examples

Here are two recent studies that make important statements about the EHR field. Let’s see how they fare:

1. Accenture Survey Reveals Most US Doctors Believe Patients Should Help Update Their Electronic Health Records, But Shouldn’t Have Access to Their Full Record. URL: http://goo.gl/2ymctw.
     a. The Claim. This poll makes a strong statement about how US doctors view patient’s role in their medical record. It says an overwhelming number of physicians, 82 percent, want their patients to update their EHRs, but only 31 percent believe that patients should be able to see their full record. If true, this has major policy implications.
     b. Who Was Asked? Accenture hired Harris Interactive to administer the poll. Harris asked 3,700 physicians in eight countries. This included 500 US doctors. The poll was done on line. Any physician could participate.
The poll’s biggest problem is that it is a self selecting sample. There is no attempt to show that it is representative of US doctors as a whole, much less ambulatory, in patient, etc.
     c. Questions? The questions asked aren’t listed.
     d. Free? There is no charge for the viewing the poll. The results are posted in two .pdf pages on Accenuture’s site.
     e. Investigator. No contact’s given for Harris Interactive. It lists three major Accenture officials.

2. Software Advice: Four Years Later: The Impact of the HITECH Act on EHR Implementations. URL: http://goo.gl/OcIeVO.
     a. The Claim. Software Advice is an online technology service for those shopping for vertical software products. Their survey has these major findings:
          i. Replacements. 31.2 percent of EHR shoppers were looking for a replacement. It was 21.0 percent in 2010.
          ii. New. 16.4 percent of shoppers in 2013 were opening a new practice versus 12.2 in 2010.
          iii. Paper. 50.9 percent were dropping paper systems compared to 64.9 percent in 2010.
     b. Who Was Asked? Software Advice (SA) polled 385 practices chosen at random from those who had contacted the firm. They were chosen from a group of likely buyers who had contacted the firm. SA is clear about who was in their full group and who they sampled. They say:
          i. Self-Selection Bias. Almost all of the individuals we qualified discovered our site through an Internet search and then consented to a 15-minute phone call discussing their EHR selection process. This may skew the results toward buyers who are more technologically savvy, as well as to those who are uncertain as to which product they are going to buy. Buyers who rely exclusively on referrals from colleagues to make their EHR purchase decisions, for example, were not likely to have been sampled. . . . [It also states:]Not included in this survey sample are the countless successful EHR implementations: buyers who purchased an EHR and absolutely love it; or practices for whom the savings in time and efficiency were well worth the costs of the software and the transition.
     c. Questions? The questions are not available.
     d. Free. Yes. The results are posted on its web site.
     e. Investigator? There are no contacts for the survey, however SA’S Larik Malish answered comments from readers.

Of these two examples, Accenture’s claims are based on a self selecting survey, which is unlikely to represent more than those who answered. I wouldn’t give its claims much weight.

SA’s study is representative within its defined limits. Within those limits, it’s worth taking into account.

Trying to make sense of EHR poll claims is not for the meek. There are polls and then there are polls. A few questions can help sort them out.

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.

Doctors Want Patients To Update, But Not Have Full Access To EMRs

Posted on March 12, 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.

So, it seems that doctors are willing to open up the kimono, but only so far. A new Accenture study has concluded that while most U.S. doctors surveyed are ready to have patients update their electronic health record, only a minority believe patients should have access to their full record.

Accenture, which announced these results last week at HIMSS, did an eight-country survey of 3,700 doctors cutting across Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain and the U.S.

When it came to U.S. doctors, 82 percent reported that they were comfortable having patients update their own EMR data. But when asked, less than a third (31 percent) felt that patients should have access to their full record. Sixty-five percent felt that  patients should have limited access and 4 percent no access at all.  (Interestingly, the results were similar across all eight countries, Accenture reports.)

Breaking things down further, while almost half (47 percent) of U.S. doctors surveyed felt that patients should not be able to update their lab results, most said patients should be able to update several types of information, including:

* Demographics (95 percent)
* Family medical history (88 percent)
* Medications (87 percent)
* Allergies (85 percent)

Most doctors (81 percent) also believe patients should be able to add clinical updates to records, specifically self-measured items like glucose and blood pressure levels or new symptoms.

On the other hand, only 21 percent of doctors surveyed currently allow patients to have online access to their medical summary or patient chart, despite the fact that 49 percent believe that giving patients access to their records is crucial to providing effective care, Accenture said.