User login
Every month we try to write about something that is both timely and relevant, but in general we choose topics that interest us. In response to our columns, we are typically greeted with e-mailed comments – both negative and positive – that highlight issues we haven’t covered or challenge the opinions we’ve expressed about health IT. We greatly enjoy the response from readers and welcome the criticism. In fact, we want to encourage it.
Over the next few columns, we hope to publish some of our readers’ comments and respond to them. If you have e-mailed us in the past, we may be contacting you to request your permission to publish your thoughts. If you have not yet sent us any correspondence, we would encourage you to do so over the next few weeks. Reach us at info@ehrpc.com and be sure to indicate whether or not you give permission to publish your words.
Historically, most of the correspondence we have received has been negative toward electronic health records. We anticipate this trend will continue as we move forward, and we are okay with that. There is no question that the national dialogue is presently quite critical of EHRs, frequently highlighting physician frustration with current electronic health record systems.
In fact, a recent survey conducted by the American College of Physicians and AmericanEHR Partners found that physician satisfaction with EHRs across multiple specialties dropped 12% from 2010 to 2012 (data presented at the 2013 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society [HIMSS] annual meeting. Furthermore, 39% of respondents stated that they would not recommend their current EHR to a colleague. But what would cause such a negative downturn?
Ironically, many feel the reason for this, in large part, is the Meaningful Use program. The very same program designed to incentivize physicians to invest in technology has become the source of their growing dissatisfaction with it. Essentially, this government-sponsored program has forced the process of EHR adoption to move very quickly. Physicians who would have never before considered themselves "early adopters" have been encouraged to purchase an electronic record while the technology is still – in many ways – in its infancy. They have been motivated not only by the promise of financial gain, but also by the fear of looming penalties if they fail to comply.
This phenomenon is fairly novel and completely atypical of technology adoption. Traditionally, when any new innovation is brought to market, it is immediately embraced by a select few who always want to be on the bleeding edge (admittedly, the two of us are self-proclaimed geeks and often count ourselves among this group). Most people, however, have little interest and might not even take notice until that which once was innovative becomes "old hat."
The Facebook phenomenon is a prime example of this. The success of the social networking giant truly exploded once it moved from an online "college hangout" to a tool that "everyone and their grandmother" (literally) began relying on for essential communication. This was a completely organic process, not one artificially cultivated by government involvement. In other words, people began using Facebook not because they had to but because they wanted to. It simply provided a better way of communicating and managing information in the social domain.
Interestingly enough, EHRs promise to bring the same utility to the field of medicine. They are intended to enhance communication among physicians and streamline care by improving data management and clinical decision support. This is possible and even obtainable today in certain circumstances, but there is a great deal of inconsistency in quality among the various products available and the market has not had time to weed out those that are failing to deliver on their promises. In many ways, even we would agree that artificial influences have encouraged the market to move too fast, and we can sympathize with those who have found reason to question the value of many current EHR offerings.
Thankfully, there are many influential voices who have recently spoken out about the speed at which the world of health IT is moving. Most notably, Dr. James L. Madara, CEO and executive vice president of the American Medical Association, filed formal comments with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this year encouraging them to "slow down" development of Meaningful Use stage 3. In the letter, Dr. Madara stated "It makes no sense to add stages and requirements to a program when even savvy EHR users and specialists are having difficulty meeting the Stage 1 measures."
It seems that the CMS agrees with this, as acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner announced in March that there will be a hiatus prior to further rulemaking to examine the program’s impact so far and solicit comments from clinicians.
With that in mind, here is your opportunity to bring your thoughts and criticisms to a public forum. As stated above, we look forward to receiving any perspective or status updates you might wish to offer and will review and publish these over the next few months. We hope that this will prove to be constructive, informative, and useful, and will reflect where our fellow clinicians stand on issues from meaningful (or unmeaningful) use to optimization strategies and techniques.
We are convinced that the true success of EHR adoption will take time and only come through the collective wisdom and feedback of clinicians, but we remain confident that eventually it will offer a path to improved patient care. Whether you agree or not, here’s your chance to let us know.
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of Redi-Reference, a software company that creates medical handheld references. Dr. Notte practices family medicine and health care informatics at Abington Memorial. They are partners in EHR Practice Consultants. Contact them at info@ehrpc.com.
Every month we try to write about something that is both timely and relevant, but in general we choose topics that interest us. In response to our columns, we are typically greeted with e-mailed comments – both negative and positive – that highlight issues we haven’t covered or challenge the opinions we’ve expressed about health IT. We greatly enjoy the response from readers and welcome the criticism. In fact, we want to encourage it.
Over the next few columns, we hope to publish some of our readers’ comments and respond to them. If you have e-mailed us in the past, we may be contacting you to request your permission to publish your thoughts. If you have not yet sent us any correspondence, we would encourage you to do so over the next few weeks. Reach us at info@ehrpc.com and be sure to indicate whether or not you give permission to publish your words.
Historically, most of the correspondence we have received has been negative toward electronic health records. We anticipate this trend will continue as we move forward, and we are okay with that. There is no question that the national dialogue is presently quite critical of EHRs, frequently highlighting physician frustration with current electronic health record systems.
In fact, a recent survey conducted by the American College of Physicians and AmericanEHR Partners found that physician satisfaction with EHRs across multiple specialties dropped 12% from 2010 to 2012 (data presented at the 2013 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society [HIMSS] annual meeting. Furthermore, 39% of respondents stated that they would not recommend their current EHR to a colleague. But what would cause such a negative downturn?
Ironically, many feel the reason for this, in large part, is the Meaningful Use program. The very same program designed to incentivize physicians to invest in technology has become the source of their growing dissatisfaction with it. Essentially, this government-sponsored program has forced the process of EHR adoption to move very quickly. Physicians who would have never before considered themselves "early adopters" have been encouraged to purchase an electronic record while the technology is still – in many ways – in its infancy. They have been motivated not only by the promise of financial gain, but also by the fear of looming penalties if they fail to comply.
This phenomenon is fairly novel and completely atypical of technology adoption. Traditionally, when any new innovation is brought to market, it is immediately embraced by a select few who always want to be on the bleeding edge (admittedly, the two of us are self-proclaimed geeks and often count ourselves among this group). Most people, however, have little interest and might not even take notice until that which once was innovative becomes "old hat."
The Facebook phenomenon is a prime example of this. The success of the social networking giant truly exploded once it moved from an online "college hangout" to a tool that "everyone and their grandmother" (literally) began relying on for essential communication. This was a completely organic process, not one artificially cultivated by government involvement. In other words, people began using Facebook not because they had to but because they wanted to. It simply provided a better way of communicating and managing information in the social domain.
Interestingly enough, EHRs promise to bring the same utility to the field of medicine. They are intended to enhance communication among physicians and streamline care by improving data management and clinical decision support. This is possible and even obtainable today in certain circumstances, but there is a great deal of inconsistency in quality among the various products available and the market has not had time to weed out those that are failing to deliver on their promises. In many ways, even we would agree that artificial influences have encouraged the market to move too fast, and we can sympathize with those who have found reason to question the value of many current EHR offerings.
Thankfully, there are many influential voices who have recently spoken out about the speed at which the world of health IT is moving. Most notably, Dr. James L. Madara, CEO and executive vice president of the American Medical Association, filed formal comments with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this year encouraging them to "slow down" development of Meaningful Use stage 3. In the letter, Dr. Madara stated "It makes no sense to add stages and requirements to a program when even savvy EHR users and specialists are having difficulty meeting the Stage 1 measures."
It seems that the CMS agrees with this, as acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner announced in March that there will be a hiatus prior to further rulemaking to examine the program’s impact so far and solicit comments from clinicians.
With that in mind, here is your opportunity to bring your thoughts and criticisms to a public forum. As stated above, we look forward to receiving any perspective or status updates you might wish to offer and will review and publish these over the next few months. We hope that this will prove to be constructive, informative, and useful, and will reflect where our fellow clinicians stand on issues from meaningful (or unmeaningful) use to optimization strategies and techniques.
We are convinced that the true success of EHR adoption will take time and only come through the collective wisdom and feedback of clinicians, but we remain confident that eventually it will offer a path to improved patient care. Whether you agree or not, here’s your chance to let us know.
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of Redi-Reference, a software company that creates medical handheld references. Dr. Notte practices family medicine and health care informatics at Abington Memorial. They are partners in EHR Practice Consultants. Contact them at info@ehrpc.com.
Every month we try to write about something that is both timely and relevant, but in general we choose topics that interest us. In response to our columns, we are typically greeted with e-mailed comments – both negative and positive – that highlight issues we haven’t covered or challenge the opinions we’ve expressed about health IT. We greatly enjoy the response from readers and welcome the criticism. In fact, we want to encourage it.
Over the next few columns, we hope to publish some of our readers’ comments and respond to them. If you have e-mailed us in the past, we may be contacting you to request your permission to publish your thoughts. If you have not yet sent us any correspondence, we would encourage you to do so over the next few weeks. Reach us at info@ehrpc.com and be sure to indicate whether or not you give permission to publish your words.
Historically, most of the correspondence we have received has been negative toward electronic health records. We anticipate this trend will continue as we move forward, and we are okay with that. There is no question that the national dialogue is presently quite critical of EHRs, frequently highlighting physician frustration with current electronic health record systems.
In fact, a recent survey conducted by the American College of Physicians and AmericanEHR Partners found that physician satisfaction with EHRs across multiple specialties dropped 12% from 2010 to 2012 (data presented at the 2013 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society [HIMSS] annual meeting. Furthermore, 39% of respondents stated that they would not recommend their current EHR to a colleague. But what would cause such a negative downturn?
Ironically, many feel the reason for this, in large part, is the Meaningful Use program. The very same program designed to incentivize physicians to invest in technology has become the source of their growing dissatisfaction with it. Essentially, this government-sponsored program has forced the process of EHR adoption to move very quickly. Physicians who would have never before considered themselves "early adopters" have been encouraged to purchase an electronic record while the technology is still – in many ways – in its infancy. They have been motivated not only by the promise of financial gain, but also by the fear of looming penalties if they fail to comply.
This phenomenon is fairly novel and completely atypical of technology adoption. Traditionally, when any new innovation is brought to market, it is immediately embraced by a select few who always want to be on the bleeding edge (admittedly, the two of us are self-proclaimed geeks and often count ourselves among this group). Most people, however, have little interest and might not even take notice until that which once was innovative becomes "old hat."
The Facebook phenomenon is a prime example of this. The success of the social networking giant truly exploded once it moved from an online "college hangout" to a tool that "everyone and their grandmother" (literally) began relying on for essential communication. This was a completely organic process, not one artificially cultivated by government involvement. In other words, people began using Facebook not because they had to but because they wanted to. It simply provided a better way of communicating and managing information in the social domain.
Interestingly enough, EHRs promise to bring the same utility to the field of medicine. They are intended to enhance communication among physicians and streamline care by improving data management and clinical decision support. This is possible and even obtainable today in certain circumstances, but there is a great deal of inconsistency in quality among the various products available and the market has not had time to weed out those that are failing to deliver on their promises. In many ways, even we would agree that artificial influences have encouraged the market to move too fast, and we can sympathize with those who have found reason to question the value of many current EHR offerings.
Thankfully, there are many influential voices who have recently spoken out about the speed at which the world of health IT is moving. Most notably, Dr. James L. Madara, CEO and executive vice president of the American Medical Association, filed formal comments with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this year encouraging them to "slow down" development of Meaningful Use stage 3. In the letter, Dr. Madara stated "It makes no sense to add stages and requirements to a program when even savvy EHR users and specialists are having difficulty meeting the Stage 1 measures."
It seems that the CMS agrees with this, as acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner announced in March that there will be a hiatus prior to further rulemaking to examine the program’s impact so far and solicit comments from clinicians.
With that in mind, here is your opportunity to bring your thoughts and criticisms to a public forum. As stated above, we look forward to receiving any perspective or status updates you might wish to offer and will review and publish these over the next few months. We hope that this will prove to be constructive, informative, and useful, and will reflect where our fellow clinicians stand on issues from meaningful (or unmeaningful) use to optimization strategies and techniques.
We are convinced that the true success of EHR adoption will take time and only come through the collective wisdom and feedback of clinicians, but we remain confident that eventually it will offer a path to improved patient care. Whether you agree or not, here’s your chance to let us know.
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of Redi-Reference, a software company that creates medical handheld references. Dr. Notte practices family medicine and health care informatics at Abington Memorial. They are partners in EHR Practice Consultants. Contact them at info@ehrpc.com.
