EHR Report

Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.

The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.

Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).¹ This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.² The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.

In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.

This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.

The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”

So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.

References

1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.

2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.

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. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.

The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.

Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).¹ This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.² The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.

In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.

This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.

The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”

So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.

References

1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.

2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.

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. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.

The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.

Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).¹ This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.² The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.

In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.

This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.

The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”

So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.

References

1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.

2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.

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. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

George Smith (DOB 2/12/51) is a 65-year-old male patient with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia who presents to his local emergency department complaining of worsening dyspnea. He has been suffering with a “chest cold” for the past week, and has also noticed a gradual increase in chest discomfort. The patient is unsure if this is related to exertion or due to his nonproductive cough, but describes the sensation as a “tightness that seems to be getting worse.” The emergency physician is appropriately concerned about a cardiac cause for his symptoms, but is reassured after a check of his electronic health record reveals a recent nuclear treadmill stress test showing normal myocardial perfusion and excellent exercise tolerance, with a low probability of coronary disease.

The only problem is that George Smith never had a stress test. In fact, it’s his twin brother James Smith – also with a birth date of 2/12/51 and a home in the same city – who just had the study done in preparation for surgery. The mix-up in the records began 3 weeks ago, when a tech in the cardiac testing department made an error registering James for his stress test, and now the results of his study have filed into the chart of his twin brother. Fortunately for George, the primary care physician who cares for both brothers happens to be in the emergency department seeing a different patient. He is “curbsided” by the ED doc and recognizes the identification error before the patient is to be discharged home.

This alarming situation – a fictionalized version of a story that happens regularly in hospitals all across the United States – highlights several serious problems with electronic health records. With all of their claimed advantages, EHRs have created a tremendous number of new complications. Some are obvious, such as increased documentation time, connectivity issues, hardware failures, and superfluous “overdocumentation.” But the more troubling issues with electronic records are the ones that are much subtler. Specifically, as the case above highlights, there is the tendency to “lose the forest in the trees” of the EHR, and actually make mistakes that can have devastating consequences. This month we want to cast a light on how electronic tools designed to improve quality and safety actually can compromise them, beginning with the unfortunate reality that …

Modern conveniences can make errors more convenient as well

One of the great advantages of a well-designed electronic record is the ease of locating information when you need it; by entering a few pieces of information such as a last name and date of birth, we can find the needed data in seconds. Unfortunately, this simple and elegant system has exposed a weakness in the people using it: confirmation bias – the idea that we all tend to see what we want to see. This is an adaptive behavior that we all develop to improve efficiency and successfully navigate all of the conscious and subconscious decisions we make throughout the day. Typically, confirmation bias serves to make our lives easier, but in the case above, it didn’t help Mr. Smith; on the contrary, it almost led to disastrous consequences. The error was fortunately recognized by his astute primary care physician, but this case could have ended much differently. The experience should serve as a reminder to us that …

We can easily lose the big picture

The days of hunting for missing patient charts are thankfully long gone, but there are a few critical aspects of paper records that have been lost in the translation to electronic form. One such missing piece was noted by a colleague when first transitioning to an EHR. After a day or two of struggling with the new software, he lamented “I’m missing the big picture!” He had lost the advantage of glancing at a paper chart and instantly recalling the details about his patients that he had compiled over many years of care. For many physicians like him, this may mean reviewing handwritten notes or jottings in the margin of the chart, but sometimes just the appearance of the chart itself is enough to trigger an intellectual or emotional response.

This notion simply doesn’t exist in the world of electronic “charts,” which are all uniform by design. In the quest to simplify workflow and encourage muscle memory, EHR designers have eschewed the intangible experience of holding a yellowing, dog-eared, overflowing patient folder. Instead, physicians now find themselves holding the same PC or tablet as they walk into every patient encounter, left with only a name and date of birth to distinguish one patient from the next. Even worse, the mere definition of a patient chart has moved from a physical construct to a metaphysical one. Charts can be anywhere and everywhere, and can be edited by any end user at virtually any point of care. This opens up almost limitless opportunities for error, and unfortunately …

Errors can last a lifetime

With each episode of care, the charts of the two Mr. Smiths could become more enmeshed, and the histories harder to untangle. (In this case, a passing reference to the stress test results in the ED intern’s history and physical of George Smith may perpetuate the mistake, even though the error has been caught this time.) When mistakes like this are identified, hundreds of collective staff hours can be required to unweave comingled medical records, even when they don’t result in patient harm. It is therefore critical to develop safeguards to prevent them from occurring in the first place, with efforts that include training programs, workflow process improvement, and technology enhancement.

Ultimately, it may be impossible to prevent all documentation errors. However, by focusing on the big picture and considering patient safety first, we can raise awareness of these and other critical issues and develop the tools and training necessary to make mistakes possible to avoid.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. 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.

George Smith (DOB 2/12/51) is a 65-year-old male patient with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia who presents to his local emergency department complaining of worsening dyspnea. He has been suffering with a “chest cold” for the past week, and has also noticed a gradual increase in chest discomfort. The patient is unsure if this is related to exertion or due to his nonproductive cough, but describes the sensation as a “tightness that seems to be getting worse.” The emergency physician is appropriately concerned about a cardiac cause for his symptoms, but is reassured after a check of his electronic health record reveals a recent nuclear treadmill stress test showing normal myocardial perfusion and excellent exercise tolerance, with a low probability of coronary disease.

The only problem is that George Smith never had a stress test. In fact, it’s his twin brother James Smith – also with a birth date of 2/12/51 and a home in the same city – who just had the study done in preparation for surgery. The mix-up in the records began 3 weeks ago, when a tech in the cardiac testing department made an error registering James for his stress test, and now the results of his study have filed into the chart of his twin brother. Fortunately for George, the primary care physician who cares for both brothers happens to be in the emergency department seeing a different patient. He is “curbsided” by the ED doc and recognizes the identification error before the patient is to be discharged home.

This alarming situation – a fictionalized version of a story that happens regularly in hospitals all across the United States – highlights several serious problems with electronic health records. With all of their claimed advantages, EHRs have created a tremendous number of new complications. Some are obvious, such as increased documentation time, connectivity issues, hardware failures, and superfluous “overdocumentation.” But the more troubling issues with electronic records are the ones that are much subtler. Specifically, as the case above highlights, there is the tendency to “lose the forest in the trees” of the EHR, and actually make mistakes that can have devastating consequences. This month we want to cast a light on how electronic tools designed to improve quality and safety actually can compromise them, beginning with the unfortunate reality that …

Modern conveniences can make errors more convenient as well

One of the great advantages of a well-designed electronic record is the ease of locating information when you need it; by entering a few pieces of information such as a last name and date of birth, we can find the needed data in seconds. Unfortunately, this simple and elegant system has exposed a weakness in the people using it: confirmation bias – the idea that we all tend to see what we want to see. This is an adaptive behavior that we all develop to improve efficiency and successfully navigate all of the conscious and subconscious decisions we make throughout the day. Typically, confirmation bias serves to make our lives easier, but in the case above, it didn’t help Mr. Smith; on the contrary, it almost led to disastrous consequences. The error was fortunately recognized by his astute primary care physician, but this case could have ended much differently. The experience should serve as a reminder to us that …

We can easily lose the big picture

The days of hunting for missing patient charts are thankfully long gone, but there are a few critical aspects of paper records that have been lost in the translation to electronic form. One such missing piece was noted by a colleague when first transitioning to an EHR. After a day or two of struggling with the new software, he lamented “I’m missing the big picture!” He had lost the advantage of glancing at a paper chart and instantly recalling the details about his patients that he had compiled over many years of care. For many physicians like him, this may mean reviewing handwritten notes or jottings in the margin of the chart, but sometimes just the appearance of the chart itself is enough to trigger an intellectual or emotional response.

This notion simply doesn’t exist in the world of electronic “charts,” which are all uniform by design. In the quest to simplify workflow and encourage muscle memory, EHR designers have eschewed the intangible experience of holding a yellowing, dog-eared, overflowing patient folder. Instead, physicians now find themselves holding the same PC or tablet as they walk into every patient encounter, left with only a name and date of birth to distinguish one patient from the next. Even worse, the mere definition of a patient chart has moved from a physical construct to a metaphysical one. Charts can be anywhere and everywhere, and can be edited by any end user at virtually any point of care. This opens up almost limitless opportunities for error, and unfortunately …

Errors can last a lifetime

With each episode of care, the charts of the two Mr. Smiths could become more enmeshed, and the histories harder to untangle. (In this case, a passing reference to the stress test results in the ED intern’s history and physical of George Smith may perpetuate the mistake, even though the error has been caught this time.) When mistakes like this are identified, hundreds of collective staff hours can be required to unweave comingled medical records, even when they don’t result in patient harm. It is therefore critical to develop safeguards to prevent them from occurring in the first place, with efforts that include training programs, workflow process improvement, and technology enhancement.

Ultimately, it may be impossible to prevent all documentation errors. However, by focusing on the big picture and considering patient safety first, we can raise awareness of these and other critical issues and develop the tools and training necessary to make mistakes possible to avoid.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. 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.

George Smith (DOB 2/12/51) is a 65-year-old male patient with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia who presents to his local emergency department complaining of worsening dyspnea. He has been suffering with a “chest cold” for the past week, and has also noticed a gradual increase in chest discomfort. The patient is unsure if this is related to exertion or due to his nonproductive cough, but describes the sensation as a “tightness that seems to be getting worse.” The emergency physician is appropriately concerned about a cardiac cause for his symptoms, but is reassured after a check of his electronic health record reveals a recent nuclear treadmill stress test showing normal myocardial perfusion and excellent exercise tolerance, with a low probability of coronary disease.

The only problem is that George Smith never had a stress test. In fact, it’s his twin brother James Smith – also with a birth date of 2/12/51 and a home in the same city – who just had the study done in preparation for surgery. The mix-up in the records began 3 weeks ago, when a tech in the cardiac testing department made an error registering James for his stress test, and now the results of his study have filed into the chart of his twin brother. Fortunately for George, the primary care physician who cares for both brothers happens to be in the emergency department seeing a different patient. He is “curbsided” by the ED doc and recognizes the identification error before the patient is to be discharged home.

This alarming situation – a fictionalized version of a story that happens regularly in hospitals all across the United States – highlights several serious problems with electronic health records. With all of their claimed advantages, EHRs have created a tremendous number of new complications. Some are obvious, such as increased documentation time, connectivity issues, hardware failures, and superfluous “overdocumentation.” But the more troubling issues with electronic records are the ones that are much subtler. Specifically, as the case above highlights, there is the tendency to “lose the forest in the trees” of the EHR, and actually make mistakes that can have devastating consequences. This month we want to cast a light on how electronic tools designed to improve quality and safety actually can compromise them, beginning with the unfortunate reality that …

Modern conveniences can make errors more convenient as well

One of the great advantages of a well-designed electronic record is the ease of locating information when you need it; by entering a few pieces of information such as a last name and date of birth, we can find the needed data in seconds. Unfortunately, this simple and elegant system has exposed a weakness in the people using it: confirmation bias – the idea that we all tend to see what we want to see. This is an adaptive behavior that we all develop to improve efficiency and successfully navigate all of the conscious and subconscious decisions we make throughout the day. Typically, confirmation bias serves to make our lives easier, but in the case above, it didn’t help Mr. Smith; on the contrary, it almost led to disastrous consequences. The error was fortunately recognized by his astute primary care physician, but this case could have ended much differently. The experience should serve as a reminder to us that …

We can easily lose the big picture

The days of hunting for missing patient charts are thankfully long gone, but there are a few critical aspects of paper records that have been lost in the translation to electronic form. One such missing piece was noted by a colleague when first transitioning to an EHR. After a day or two of struggling with the new software, he lamented “I’m missing the big picture!” He had lost the advantage of glancing at a paper chart and instantly recalling the details about his patients that he had compiled over many years of care. For many physicians like him, this may mean reviewing handwritten notes or jottings in the margin of the chart, but sometimes just the appearance of the chart itself is enough to trigger an intellectual or emotional response.

This notion simply doesn’t exist in the world of electronic “charts,” which are all uniform by design. In the quest to simplify workflow and encourage muscle memory, EHR designers have eschewed the intangible experience of holding a yellowing, dog-eared, overflowing patient folder. Instead, physicians now find themselves holding the same PC or tablet as they walk into every patient encounter, left with only a name and date of birth to distinguish one patient from the next. Even worse, the mere definition of a patient chart has moved from a physical construct to a metaphysical one. Charts can be anywhere and everywhere, and can be edited by any end user at virtually any point of care. This opens up almost limitless opportunities for error, and unfortunately …

Errors can last a lifetime

With each episode of care, the charts of the two Mr. Smiths could become more enmeshed, and the histories harder to untangle. (In this case, a passing reference to the stress test results in the ED intern’s history and physical of George Smith may perpetuate the mistake, even though the error has been caught this time.) When mistakes like this are identified, hundreds of collective staff hours can be required to unweave comingled medical records, even when they don’t result in patient harm. It is therefore critical to develop safeguards to prevent them from occurring in the first place, with efforts that include training programs, workflow process improvement, and technology enhancement.

Ultimately, it may be impossible to prevent all documentation errors. However, by focusing on the big picture and considering patient safety first, we can raise awareness of these and other critical issues and develop the tools and training necessary to make mistakes possible to avoid.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. 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.

“Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”

–C. Everett Koop, M.D.

While it would be hard to imagine accountable care organizations being able to get the data they need to manage care without electronic health records, and EHRs are critical as payment has evolved to emphasize the outcomes of treatment, one area remains the holy grail of disease management: how to get patients to take the medications that are prescribed.

Poor adherence to medications is a critical issue in the management of chronic disease. The causes for suboptimal adherence are numerous, including the cost of medications, patient-physician communication, patient education, motivation, and simple forgetfulness.

Approximately 1.5 billion prescriptions, at a cost of more than $250 billion, are dispensed each year in the United States. A large body of evidence supports the use of these medications. For patients with diabetes, for instance, correct medication use can lower blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and by so doing, decrease morbidity and mortality from both microvascular and macrovascular disease.

The act of taking medications is influenced by many factors, and all of these factors come together at a point in time when patients are not directly engaged with the health care system. It is at that moment that patients remember and decide whether to take their medications.

Numerous studies show that individuals often do not take their medicines as prescribed. Adherence rates for medications for chronic disease show that patients on average take only about 50% of prescribed doses. For patients with diabetes, the average adherence rate is about 70%, with rates ranging in different studies from 31% to 87%.

When patients do not take their medications correctly, there can be severe consequences. Poor medication adherence can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, including increased hospitalizations. One large dataset of more than 56,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes covered by employer-sponsored health insurance showed that increased adherence to medications significantly reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. When adherence rates increased, the hospitalization rate fell 23%, and the rate of emergency department visits decreased 46%, resulting in significant cost savings for the health system.¹

In response to this issue, many strategies have emerged. We now regularly get correspondence from insurance companies alerting us to nonadherence of individual patients. This information tends to be of little benefit, because the information is received long after the decision to take or not take the medication is made. Our response in the office to our patients is generally to remind them to take their medications, which is not much different from the discussion we have with them without that information.

Recently, a new set of apps for smartphones and tablets has emerged to help patients organize their approach to taking medications. Examples of some of these apps include Care4Today, Dosecast, Medisafe, MedSimple, MyMedREc, MyMeds, and OnTimeRx. Most of these apps allow a patient to put in their medication schedule and are organized to provide reminders when it is time to take medications.

The problem with reminders, of course, is that they don’t always happen at a time when it is convenient for a person to take their medications. For example, if your app reminds you to take your medicines at 9 p.m. each night, and you are at the movies on a Saturday night, you may extinguish the reminder and not remember to take the medications when you get home.

Many of the apps also track adherence rates so that patients can see how well they are doing in taking their medications. The results are often startling to patients, and it is hoped that such information would encourage more effort in taking medications.

One problem with many of the apps currently available is that they essentially function as sophisticated alarm clocks. They do not get at some of the fundamental reasons that people do not take their medications, which would require more behavioral input.

In fact, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at 166 medication adherence apps and concluded that current apps contained little in the way of evidence-based behavioral change techniques that have been shown to help change behavior. In fact, only about one-third of apps contained any feedback on behavior at all.²

While adherence apps still have a way to go, they can be helpful, and many contain interesting, novel features. Some allow the patient to input the name of a medication by scanning the name from the medication’s pill bottle. Some have the ability not only to remind a patient to take a medication, but also to text that patient’s caregiver (or parent, in the case of a teenager) if the medication is not taken.

While not perfect, these adherence apps are worth learning more about. They may be helpful additions to our efforts to achieve the best outcomes for our patients by helping them to actually take the medications that we so carefully prescribe.

References

1. Encinosa, W.E.; Bernard, D.; Dor, A. Does prescription drug adherence reduce hospitalizations and costs? The case of diabetes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 22, pp. 151-73, 2010 (AHRQ Publication No. 11-R008).

2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov 17. pii: S0749-3797(15)00637-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.034.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

“Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”

–C. Everett Koop, M.D.

While it would be hard to imagine accountable care organizations being able to get the data they need to manage care without electronic health records, and EHRs are critical as payment has evolved to emphasize the outcomes of treatment, one area remains the holy grail of disease management: how to get patients to take the medications that are prescribed.

Poor adherence to medications is a critical issue in the management of chronic disease. The causes for suboptimal adherence are numerous, including the cost of medications, patient-physician communication, patient education, motivation, and simple forgetfulness.

Approximately 1.5 billion prescriptions, at a cost of more than $250 billion, are dispensed each year in the United States. A large body of evidence supports the use of these medications. For patients with diabetes, for instance, correct medication use can lower blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and by so doing, decrease morbidity and mortality from both microvascular and macrovascular disease.

The act of taking medications is influenced by many factors, and all of these factors come together at a point in time when patients are not directly engaged with the health care system. It is at that moment that patients remember and decide whether to take their medications.

Numerous studies show that individuals often do not take their medicines as prescribed. Adherence rates for medications for chronic disease show that patients on average take only about 50% of prescribed doses. For patients with diabetes, the average adherence rate is about 70%, with rates ranging in different studies from 31% to 87%.

When patients do not take their medications correctly, there can be severe consequences. Poor medication adherence can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, including increased hospitalizations. One large dataset of more than 56,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes covered by employer-sponsored health insurance showed that increased adherence to medications significantly reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. When adherence rates increased, the hospitalization rate fell 23%, and the rate of emergency department visits decreased 46%, resulting in significant cost savings for the health system.¹

In response to this issue, many strategies have emerged. We now regularly get correspondence from insurance companies alerting us to nonadherence of individual patients. This information tends to be of little benefit, because the information is received long after the decision to take or not take the medication is made. Our response in the office to our patients is generally to remind them to take their medications, which is not much different from the discussion we have with them without that information.

Recently, a new set of apps for smartphones and tablets has emerged to help patients organize their approach to taking medications. Examples of some of these apps include Care4Today, Dosecast, Medisafe, MedSimple, MyMedREc, MyMeds, and OnTimeRx. Most of these apps allow a patient to put in their medication schedule and are organized to provide reminders when it is time to take medications.

The problem with reminders, of course, is that they don’t always happen at a time when it is convenient for a person to take their medications. For example, if your app reminds you to take your medicines at 9 p.m. each night, and you are at the movies on a Saturday night, you may extinguish the reminder and not remember to take the medications when you get home.

Many of the apps also track adherence rates so that patients can see how well they are doing in taking their medications. The results are often startling to patients, and it is hoped that such information would encourage more effort in taking medications.

One problem with many of the apps currently available is that they essentially function as sophisticated alarm clocks. They do not get at some of the fundamental reasons that people do not take their medications, which would require more behavioral input.

In fact, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at 166 medication adherence apps and concluded that current apps contained little in the way of evidence-based behavioral change techniques that have been shown to help change behavior. In fact, only about one-third of apps contained any feedback on behavior at all.²

While adherence apps still have a way to go, they can be helpful, and many contain interesting, novel features. Some allow the patient to input the name of a medication by scanning the name from the medication’s pill bottle. Some have the ability not only to remind a patient to take a medication, but also to text that patient’s caregiver (or parent, in the case of a teenager) if the medication is not taken.

While not perfect, these adherence apps are worth learning more about. They may be helpful additions to our efforts to achieve the best outcomes for our patients by helping them to actually take the medications that we so carefully prescribe.

References

1. Encinosa, W.E.; Bernard, D.; Dor, A. Does prescription drug adherence reduce hospitalizations and costs? The case of diabetes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 22, pp. 151-73, 2010 (AHRQ Publication No. 11-R008).

2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov 17. pii: S0749-3797(15)00637-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.034.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

“Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”

–C. Everett Koop, M.D.

While it would be hard to imagine accountable care organizations being able to get the data they need to manage care without electronic health records, and EHRs are critical as payment has evolved to emphasize the outcomes of treatment, one area remains the holy grail of disease management: how to get patients to take the medications that are prescribed.

Poor adherence to medications is a critical issue in the management of chronic disease. The causes for suboptimal adherence are numerous, including the cost of medications, patient-physician communication, patient education, motivation, and simple forgetfulness.

Approximately 1.5 billion prescriptions, at a cost of more than $250 billion, are dispensed each year in the United States. A large body of evidence supports the use of these medications. For patients with diabetes, for instance, correct medication use can lower blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and by so doing, decrease morbidity and mortality from both microvascular and macrovascular disease.

The act of taking medications is influenced by many factors, and all of these factors come together at a point in time when patients are not directly engaged with the health care system. It is at that moment that patients remember and decide whether to take their medications.

Numerous studies show that individuals often do not take their medicines as prescribed. Adherence rates for medications for chronic disease show that patients on average take only about 50% of prescribed doses. For patients with diabetes, the average adherence rate is about 70%, with rates ranging in different studies from 31% to 87%.

When patients do not take their medications correctly, there can be severe consequences. Poor medication adherence can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, including increased hospitalizations. One large dataset of more than 56,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes covered by employer-sponsored health insurance showed that increased adherence to medications significantly reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. When adherence rates increased, the hospitalization rate fell 23%, and the rate of emergency department visits decreased 46%, resulting in significant cost savings for the health system.¹

In response to this issue, many strategies have emerged. We now regularly get correspondence from insurance companies alerting us to nonadherence of individual patients. This information tends to be of little benefit, because the information is received long after the decision to take or not take the medication is made. Our response in the office to our patients is generally to remind them to take their medications, which is not much different from the discussion we have with them without that information.

Recently, a new set of apps for smartphones and tablets has emerged to help patients organize their approach to taking medications. Examples of some of these apps include Care4Today, Dosecast, Medisafe, MedSimple, MyMedREc, MyMeds, and OnTimeRx. Most of these apps allow a patient to put in their medication schedule and are organized to provide reminders when it is time to take medications.

The problem with reminders, of course, is that they don’t always happen at a time when it is convenient for a person to take their medications. For example, if your app reminds you to take your medicines at 9 p.m. each night, and you are at the movies on a Saturday night, you may extinguish the reminder and not remember to take the medications when you get home.

Many of the apps also track adherence rates so that patients can see how well they are doing in taking their medications. The results are often startling to patients, and it is hoped that such information would encourage more effort in taking medications.

One problem with many of the apps currently available is that they essentially function as sophisticated alarm clocks. They do not get at some of the fundamental reasons that people do not take their medications, which would require more behavioral input.

In fact, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at 166 medication adherence apps and concluded that current apps contained little in the way of evidence-based behavioral change techniques that have been shown to help change behavior. In fact, only about one-third of apps contained any feedback on behavior at all.²

While adherence apps still have a way to go, they can be helpful, and many contain interesting, novel features. Some allow the patient to input the name of a medication by scanning the name from the medication’s pill bottle. Some have the ability not only to remind a patient to take a medication, but also to text that patient’s caregiver (or parent, in the case of a teenager) if the medication is not taken.

While not perfect, these adherence apps are worth learning more about. They may be helpful additions to our efforts to achieve the best outcomes for our patients by helping them to actually take the medications that we so carefully prescribe.

References

1. Encinosa, W.E.; Bernard, D.; Dor, A. Does prescription drug adherence reduce hospitalizations and costs? The case of diabetes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 22, pp. 151-73, 2010 (AHRQ Publication No. 11-R008).

2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov 17. pii: S0749-3797(15)00637-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.034.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

Physicians and other health care professionals would need to attest to meeting criteria for the meaningful use of electronic health records for 90 days in 2015, under a proposed change announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services April 10.

The agency included a number of other changes in the proposed rule, including reducing the attestation period for those new to the meaningful use program in 2015 and 2016 to 90 days. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published April 15 in the Federal Register.

kokouu/iStockphoto.com

The proposed rule is designed to align the stage 1 and stage 2 meaningful use criteria with the proposed stage 3 criteria issued earlier this year.

Other changes include moving the hospital meaningful use attestation period to a calendar year for 2015, away from the current fiscal year period. This would give hospitals an additional 3 months to attest to meeting the meaningful use criteria in 2015.

The proposed rule also would reduce the number of patients who must access their patient portal from 5% of patients to “equal to or greater than 1.” The measure tracking secure messaging would be changed from a percentage-based measure to attesting that the secure messaging function is “fully enabled.”

Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov are due June 15. 

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

Physicians and other health care professionals would need to attest to meeting criteria for the meaningful use of electronic health records for 90 days in 2015, under a proposed change announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services April 10.

The agency included a number of other changes in the proposed rule, including reducing the attestation period for those new to the meaningful use program in 2015 and 2016 to 90 days. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published April 15 in the Federal Register.

kokouu/iStockphoto.com

The proposed rule is designed to align the stage 1 and stage 2 meaningful use criteria with the proposed stage 3 criteria issued earlier this year.

Other changes include moving the hospital meaningful use attestation period to a calendar year for 2015, away from the current fiscal year period. This would give hospitals an additional 3 months to attest to meeting the meaningful use criteria in 2015.

The proposed rule also would reduce the number of patients who must access their patient portal from 5% of patients to “equal to or greater than 1.” The measure tracking secure messaging would be changed from a percentage-based measure to attesting that the secure messaging function is “fully enabled.”

Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov are due June 15. 

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

Physicians and other health care professionals would need to attest to meeting criteria for the meaningful use of electronic health records for 90 days in 2015, under a proposed change announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services April 10.

The agency included a number of other changes in the proposed rule, including reducing the attestation period for those new to the meaningful use program in 2015 and 2016 to 90 days. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published April 15 in the Federal Register.

kokouu/iStockphoto.com

The proposed rule is designed to align the stage 1 and stage 2 meaningful use criteria with the proposed stage 3 criteria issued earlier this year.

Other changes include moving the hospital meaningful use attestation period to a calendar year for 2015, away from the current fiscal year period. This would give hospitals an additional 3 months to attest to meeting the meaningful use criteria in 2015.

The proposed rule also would reduce the number of patients who must access their patient portal from 5% of patients to “equal to or greater than 1.” The measure tracking secure messaging would be changed from a percentage-based measure to attesting that the secure messaging function is “fully enabled.”

Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov are due June 15. 

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

Eighty percent of physicians are now using electronic health records in their offices. We have been impressed that the younger physicians to whom we have spoken often view their experience with EHRs very differently from older physicians. Is such a difference inevitable, perhaps, not just because change is more difficult for many people as they get older but also because expectations are influenced by experience. Noticing these different thoughts and feelings, we’ve asked two physicians more than 55 years old and two younger physicians to share some thoughts on their experiences with electronic records.

Mathew Clark (family physician)

I’ve been in practice for 31 years and using an EHR system for just under 5. I’m not thrilled with it, but I accept that it’s an unavoidable part of my practice now, and so I don’t waste energy being upset about it. I’ve learned to function efficiently with an EHR, doing the best I can. I remember physicians, before the days of SOAP notes, who would write pithy, useful notes such as "probable strep, Pen VK 500 bid for 10 days" on 3x5 index cards. Such notes lacked detail, and it’s not hard to imagine the problems this lack of detail might create, but they were readable at a glance, and told you what you needed to know. On the other hand, the massively detailed, bloated notes we see with our EHRs, obscured by "copy-forward" text and fictional (in other words, never really asked or examined) information, present very significant practical and legal issues of their own, and take hours of physician time to complete. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the index cards.

Natalie McGann (family physician)

I have been a family physician in practice for 4 years since graduating from residency. The advent of the EHR hasn’t been an overwhelming transition for those of us in the early stages of our careers. Much of our schooling to date has included laptops and other electronic devices that for many prove an easier means of communication. Despite that fact that EHRs require a host of extraneous clicks and check boxes, it is still less cumbersome than documenting encounters on paper. For the generation of young physicians accustomed to having answers at their fingertips, the idea of flipping through paper charts to collate a patient’s medical record seems far more complicated than clicking a few tabs without ever leaving your chair. I, and most colleagues in my peer group to whom I’ve spoken, agree that we would not be likely to a join a practice that doesn’t utilize an EHR or have a current plan to adopt one. Anything less would feel like a step back at this point.

Danielle Carcia (intern, family medicine residency)

Overall, I enjoy using electronic medical records. I feel that it places all pertinent information about the patient in an easy-to-follow and concise manner. The ability to read through past providers and even at times specialists visits with a patient can be very helpful when navigating an appointment with a new patient. As a young physician, electronics have been an extension of myself for my entire adult life, so a computer in front of me during an office visit is comforting. I do not feel it distracts from my interaction with patients, or takes away from their experience at all, just the opposite, it allows me to more confidently care for them with up to date, and organized information at my fingertips.

Dave Depietro (family physician)

I have been a family physician for 25 years and feel that the EHRs have affected my office in a number of ways. It has definitely improved the efficacy of office tasks such as doing prescription refills, interoffice communication, and scheduling. Also before EHRs, the turnaround time for a dictated note was about a week, and now most notes are completed by the end of the day. This makes it easier if I am taking care of one of my partner’s patients or dealing with a patient I recently saw. Also in this day of pay for performance we can now gather data much easier. This would be almost impossible to do if we still had paper charts.

EHRs unfortunately also have their downsides. The main problem I see is that they add a significant amount of time for providers to complete tasks. When I dictated a note, I could have completed a note within 1-2 minutes where now with EHRs, it can take maybe 3-5 minutes/patient. Also to approve labs, x-rays, etc. it just takes longer. I feel that EHRs have added about 1½ hr to my day. I feel most of my colleagues have the same complaint. They routinely take work home at night and spend 1-2 hours at home completing notes. Many of my peers seem stressed and frustrated. Even though EHRs make the office more efficient, I feel that the provider pays the price. My other complaint is the cost of IT support to keep the EHRs running smoothly. The promise of EHRs is that they would save physicians’ money and reduce staffing, however I have not seen that happen.

I ask myself, at the end of the day, would I go back to paper charts? The answer is no. Despite their downsides, I feel that the positives of EHRs outweigh the negatives. Older doctors just need to adapt to this new way of practicing medicine.

The Bottom Line

Clearly there is a range of opinion about the effect of electronic health records on our practices and our lives, with those opinions at least partly segregated by age. We are interested in your thoughts and plan to publish some of those thoughts in future columns, so please let us know at info@ehrpc.com. Thanks.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. 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 Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.

Eighty percent of physicians are now using electronic health records in their offices. We have been impressed that the younger physicians to whom we have spoken often view their experience with EHRs very differently from older physicians. Is such a difference inevitable, perhaps, not just because change is more difficult for many people as they get older but also because expectations are influenced by experience. Noticing these different thoughts and feelings, we’ve asked two physicians more than 55 years old and two younger physicians to share some thoughts on their experiences with electronic records.

Mathew Clark (family physician)

I’ve been in practice for 31 years and using an EHR system for just under 5. I’m not thrilled with it, but I accept that it’s an unavoidable part of my practice now, and so I don’t waste energy being upset about it. I’ve learned to function efficiently with an EHR, doing the best I can. I remember physicians, before the days of SOAP notes, who would write pithy, useful notes such as "probable strep, Pen VK 500 bid for 10 days" on 3x5 index cards. Such notes lacked detail, and it’s not hard to imagine the problems this lack of detail might create, but they were readable at a glance, and told you what you needed to know. On the other hand, the massively detailed, bloated notes we see with our EHRs, obscured by "copy-forward" text and fictional (in other words, never really asked or examined) information, present very significant practical and legal issues of their own, and take hours of physician time to complete. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the index cards.

Natalie McGann (family physician)

I have been a family physician in practice for 4 years since graduating from residency. The advent of the EHR hasn’t been an overwhelming transition for those of us in the early stages of our careers. Much of our schooling to date has included laptops and other electronic devices that for many prove an easier means of communication. Despite that fact that EHRs require a host of extraneous clicks and check boxes, it is still less cumbersome than documenting encounters on paper. For the generation of young physicians accustomed to having answers at their fingertips, the idea of flipping through paper charts to collate a patient’s medical record seems far more complicated than clicking a few tabs without ever leaving your chair. I, and most colleagues in my peer group to whom I’ve spoken, agree that we would not be likely to a join a practice that doesn’t utilize an EHR or have a current plan to adopt one. Anything less would feel like a step back at this point.

Danielle Carcia (intern, family medicine residency)

Overall, I enjoy using electronic medical records. I feel that it places all pertinent information about the patient in an easy-to-follow and concise manner. The ability to read through past providers and even at times specialists visits with a patient can be very helpful when navigating an appointment with a new patient. As a young physician, electronics have been an extension of myself for my entire adult life, so a computer in front of me during an office visit is comforting. I do not feel it distracts from my interaction with patients, or takes away from their experience at all, just the opposite, it allows me to more confidently care for them with up to date, and organized information at my fingertips.

Dave Depietro (family physician)

I have been a family physician for 25 years and feel that the EHRs have affected my office in a number of ways. It has definitely improved the efficacy of office tasks such as doing prescription refills, interoffice communication, and scheduling. Also before EHRs, the turnaround time for a dictated note was about a week, and now most notes are completed by the end of the day. This makes it easier if I am taking care of one of my partner’s patients or dealing with a patient I recently saw. Also in this day of pay for performance we can now gather data much easier. This would be almost impossible to do if we still had paper charts.

EHRs unfortunately also have their downsides. The main problem I see is that they add a significant amount of time for providers to complete tasks. When I dictated a note, I could have completed a note within 1-2 minutes where now with EHRs, it can take maybe 3-5 minutes/patient. Also to approve labs, x-rays, etc. it just takes longer. I feel that EHRs have added about 1½ hr to my day. I feel most of my colleagues have the same complaint. They routinely take work home at night and spend 1-2 hours at home completing notes. Many of my peers seem stressed and frustrated. Even though EHRs make the office more efficient, I feel that the provider pays the price. My other complaint is the cost of IT support to keep the EHRs running smoothly. The promise of EHRs is that they would save physicians’ money and reduce staffing, however I have not seen that happen.

I ask myself, at the end of the day, would I go back to paper charts? The answer is no. Despite their downsides, I feel that the positives of EHRs outweigh the negatives. Older doctors just need to adapt to this new way of practicing medicine.

The Bottom Line

Clearly there is a range of opinion about the effect of electronic health records on our practices and our lives, with those opinions at least partly segregated by age. We are interested in your thoughts and plan to publish some of those thoughts in future columns, so please let us know at info@ehrpc.com. Thanks.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. 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 Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.

Eighty percent of physicians are now using electronic health records in their offices. We have been impressed that the younger physicians to whom we have spoken often view their experience with EHRs very differently from older physicians. Is such a difference inevitable, perhaps, not just because change is more difficult for many people as they get older but also because expectations are influenced by experience. Noticing these different thoughts and feelings, we’ve asked two physicians more than 55 years old and two younger physicians to share some thoughts on their experiences with electronic records.

Mathew Clark (family physician)

I’ve been in practice for 31 years and using an EHR system for just under 5. I’m not thrilled with it, but I accept that it’s an unavoidable part of my practice now, and so I don’t waste energy being upset about it. I’ve learned to function efficiently with an EHR, doing the best I can. I remember physicians, before the days of SOAP notes, who would write pithy, useful notes such as "probable strep, Pen VK 500 bid for 10 days" on 3x5 index cards. Such notes lacked detail, and it’s not hard to imagine the problems this lack of detail might create, but they were readable at a glance, and told you what you needed to know. On the other hand, the massively detailed, bloated notes we see with our EHRs, obscured by "copy-forward" text and fictional (in other words, never really asked or examined) information, present very significant practical and legal issues of their own, and take hours of physician time to complete. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the index cards.

Natalie McGann (family physician)

I have been a family physician in practice for 4 years since graduating from residency. The advent of the EHR hasn’t been an overwhelming transition for those of us in the early stages of our careers. Much of our schooling to date has included laptops and other electronic devices that for many prove an easier means of communication. Despite that fact that EHRs require a host of extraneous clicks and check boxes, it is still less cumbersome than documenting encounters on paper. For the generation of young physicians accustomed to having answers at their fingertips, the idea of flipping through paper charts to collate a patient’s medical record seems far more complicated than clicking a few tabs without ever leaving your chair. I, and most colleagues in my peer group to whom I’ve spoken, agree that we would not be likely to a join a practice that doesn’t utilize an EHR or have a current plan to adopt one. Anything less would feel like a step back at this point.

Danielle Carcia (intern, family medicine residency)

Overall, I enjoy using electronic medical records. I feel that it places all pertinent information about the patient in an easy-to-follow and concise manner. The ability to read through past providers and even at times specialists visits with a patient can be very helpful when navigating an appointment with a new patient. As a young physician, electronics have been an extension of myself for my entire adult life, so a computer in front of me during an office visit is comforting. I do not feel it distracts from my interaction with patients, or takes away from their experience at all, just the opposite, it allows me to more confidently care for them with up to date, and organized information at my fingertips.

Dave Depietro (family physician)

I have been a family physician for 25 years and feel that the EHRs have affected my office in a number of ways. It has definitely improved the efficacy of office tasks such as doing prescription refills, interoffice communication, and scheduling. Also before EHRs, the turnaround time for a dictated note was about a week, and now most notes are completed by the end of the day. This makes it easier if I am taking care of one of my partner’s patients or dealing with a patient I recently saw. Also in this day of pay for performance we can now gather data much easier. This would be almost impossible to do if we still had paper charts.

EHRs unfortunately also have their downsides. The main problem I see is that they add a significant amount of time for providers to complete tasks. When I dictated a note, I could have completed a note within 1-2 minutes where now with EHRs, it can take maybe 3-5 minutes/patient. Also to approve labs, x-rays, etc. it just takes longer. I feel that EHRs have added about 1½ hr to my day. I feel most of my colleagues have the same complaint. They routinely take work home at night and spend 1-2 hours at home completing notes. Many of my peers seem stressed and frustrated. Even though EHRs make the office more efficient, I feel that the provider pays the price. My other complaint is the cost of IT support to keep the EHRs running smoothly. The promise of EHRs is that they would save physicians’ money and reduce staffing, however I have not seen that happen.

I ask myself, at the end of the day, would I go back to paper charts? The answer is no. Despite their downsides, I feel that the positives of EHRs outweigh the negatives. Older doctors just need to adapt to this new way of practicing medicine.

The Bottom Line

Clearly there is a range of opinion about the effect of electronic health records on our practices and our lives, with those opinions at least partly segregated by age. We are interested in your thoughts and plan to publish some of those thoughts in future columns, so please let us know at info@ehrpc.com. Thanks.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. 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 Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.

Electronic health records have led to recent issues appearing in the court system that can potentially convolute physician defense. Both health care attorneys and physicians are grappling with new technology that brings with it the need for close attention to new areas of detail. Certain habits, or lack of habits, can affect the medical-legal environment. Physicians who are aware of these issues can take steps to reduce their exposure.

One of the largest problems seen with EHRs is the failure of physicians to review dictated records. After a note is dictated into the electronic system, health care providers should be encouraged to read it and any accompanying documentation such as prescriptions.

Voice recognition systems are not foolproof and can lead to inaccuracies in the transcription of operative reports, office notes, and prescriptions. When a doctor is deposed and has to explain that what the record says is not really what he or she meant it to say, it decreases his or her credibility with the jury and undermines subsequent testimony. When a physician says that the record is not an accurate representation of what occurred, the jury is left with an impression of carelessness and a failure on the doctor’s part to take the time to ensure patient safety. Taking a few minutes to guarantee the accuracy of the record at the time of creation can save years of explanation after a case has been instituted.

The failure of the physician to review his or her notes can also lead to the veracity of the EHR being called into question. We are aware of at least one case in which an emergency department physician was asked to testify at trial about her interaction with a patient from many years prior. Understandably, the emergency department physician did not have a recollection of the visit and intended to rely on the record. The EHR documented the care that was provided, but the physicians had not signed it. At trial, the doctor was not allowed to testify about what she did for the patient. The rationale was that the doctor did not recall what was done, and her failure to sign the EHR contemporaneously meant that there was no evidence that the EHR was accurate.

A physician should be able to say that his or her custom and practice is to review the EHR before it is finalized and make any updates or addendums as needed. That way, even if there is no signature, the physician has given credence to the accuracy of the records.

Health care providers should be encouraged to use the "free-text" section that is available when it adds to the accuracy of the record. Often, the "drop box" does not provide an adequate selection to describe the history or physical. In anesthesia cases, for instance, the EHR drop box may allow only a description of "awake," "drowsy," or "unresponsive." These choices, while true, do not give an accurate picture of the patient. If a patient in the postanesthesia care unit is technically awake but not properly responsive, that should be documented.

Similarly, in the primary care physician’s office there are times when the general description of how a patient is looking can be informative and integral to the physician formulating an assessment. An example might be the case of a sick child. The child may be curious, playful, and smiling when pulling at the stethoscope. If we are using that information as an important part of our decision as to whether or not that child is seriously ill, then that level of detail should be included in the record. The term "NAD" (no acute distress) does not reflect the level of observation that influenced the decision not to do further testing.

If the drop box is the only source of information utilized, then the true description of the patient is not contained within the records. Sometimes, the most important bits of information cannot be explained utilizing drop boxes.

Another common issue is the failure of EHRs to document when a patient calls the physician’s office but is not actually seen for an appointment. The patient alleges that he or she called the doctor multiple times to report a problem. The HER, however, may not have any record of such a phone call. Physicians need to ensure that they are made aware of these telephone calls and that some type of note is made. The note should not just indicate that a call was made but also should document the physician response and recommendations.

Finally, a new area of concern that has emerged is failure to follow up on a recommendation once it has been made. An ideal situation would be for the EHR or physician office to send a follow-up reminder if an important test is not done. This reminder to the patient should be recorded as well as whether the patient went through with the recommendation and steps the health care provider took to encourage compliance.

This overview does not represent an exhaustive list of EHR issues but rather highlights some common issues along with steps that can be taken to minimize errors, with a goal of increasing overall safety for the patient and decreasing liability for the health care provider.

Mr. Marcoz is a health care attorney in Wilmington, Del., who is shareholder at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in the Health Care Liability Practice Group. His areas of practice include medical malpractice and dental insurance defense. 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 also editor-in-chief of Redi-Reference Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.

Electronic health records have led to recent issues appearing in the court system that can potentially convolute physician defense. Both health care attorneys and physicians are grappling with new technology that brings with it the need for close attention to new areas of detail. Certain habits, or lack of habits, can affect the medical-legal environment. Physicians who are aware of these issues can take steps to reduce their exposure.

One of the largest problems seen with EHRs is the failure of physicians to review dictated records. After a note is dictated into the electronic system, health care providers should be encouraged to read it and any accompanying documentation such as prescriptions.

Voice recognition systems are not foolproof and can lead to inaccuracies in the transcription of operative reports, office notes, and prescriptions. When a doctor is deposed and has to explain that what the record says is not really what he or she meant it to say, it decreases his or her credibility with the jury and undermines subsequent testimony. When a physician says that the record is not an accurate representation of what occurred, the jury is left with an impression of carelessness and a failure on the doctor’s part to take the time to ensure patient safety. Taking a few minutes to guarantee the accuracy of the record at the time of creation can save years of explanation after a case has been instituted.

The failure of the physician to review his or her notes can also lead to the veracity of the EHR being called into question. We are aware of at least one case in which an emergency department physician was asked to testify at trial about her interaction with a patient from many years prior. Understandably, the emergency department physician did not have a recollection of the visit and intended to rely on the record. The EHR documented the care that was provided, but the physicians had not signed it. At trial, the doctor was not allowed to testify about what she did for the patient. The rationale was that the doctor did not recall what was done, and her failure to sign the EHR contemporaneously meant that there was no evidence that the EHR was accurate.

A physician should be able to say that his or her custom and practice is to review the EHR before it is finalized and make any updates or addendums as needed. That way, even if there is no signature, the physician has given credence to the accuracy of the records.

Health care providers should be encouraged to use the "free-text" section that is available when it adds to the accuracy of the record. Often, the "drop box" does not provide an adequate selection to describe the history or physical. In anesthesia cases, for instance, the EHR drop box may allow only a description of "awake," "drowsy," or "unresponsive." These choices, while true, do not give an accurate picture of the patient. If a patient in the postanesthesia care unit is technically awake but not properly responsive, that should be documented.

Similarly, in the primary care physician’s office there are times when the general description of how a patient is looking can be informative and integral to the physician formulating an assessment. An example might be the case of a sick child. The child may be curious, playful, and smiling when pulling at the stethoscope. If we are using that information as an important part of our decision as to whether or not that child is seriously ill, then that level of detail should be included in the record. The term "NAD" (no acute distress) does not reflect the level of observation that influenced the decision not to do further testing.

If the drop box is the only source of information utilized, then the true description of the patient is not contained within the records. Sometimes, the most important bits of information cannot be explained utilizing drop boxes.

Another common issue is the failure of EHRs to document when a patient calls the physician’s office but is not actually seen for an appointment. The patient alleges that he or she called the doctor multiple times to report a problem. The HER, however, may not have any record of such a phone call. Physicians need to ensure that they are made aware of these telephone calls and that some type of note is made. The note should not just indicate that a call was made but also should document the physician response and recommendations.

Finally, a new area of concern that has emerged is failure to follow up on a recommendation once it has been made. An ideal situation would be for the EHR or physician office to send a follow-up reminder if an important test is not done. This reminder to the patient should be recorded as well as whether the patient went through with the recommendation and steps the health care provider took to encourage compliance.

This overview does not represent an exhaustive list of EHR issues but rather highlights some common issues along with steps that can be taken to minimize errors, with a goal of increasing overall safety for the patient and decreasing liability for the health care provider.

Mr. Marcoz is a health care attorney in Wilmington, Del., who is shareholder at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in the Health Care Liability Practice Group. His areas of practice include medical malpractice and dental insurance defense. 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 also editor-in-chief of Redi-Reference Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.

Electronic health records have led to recent issues appearing in the court system that can potentially convolute physician defense. Both health care attorneys and physicians are grappling with new technology that brings with it the need for close attention to new areas of detail. Certain habits, or lack of habits, can affect the medical-legal environment. Physicians who are aware of these issues can take steps to reduce their exposure.

One of the largest problems seen with EHRs is the failure of physicians to review dictated records. After a note is dictated into the electronic system, health care providers should be encouraged to read it and any accompanying documentation such as prescriptions.

Voice recognition systems are not foolproof and can lead to inaccuracies in the transcription of operative reports, office notes, and prescriptions. When a doctor is deposed and has to explain that what the record says is not really what he or she meant it to say, it decreases his or her credibility with the jury and undermines subsequent testimony. When a physician says that the record is not an accurate representation of what occurred, the jury is left with an impression of carelessness and a failure on the doctor’s part to take the time to ensure patient safety. Taking a few minutes to guarantee the accuracy of the record at the time of creation can save years of explanation after a case has been instituted.

The failure of the physician to review his or her notes can also lead to the veracity of the EHR being called into question. We are aware of at least one case in which an emergency department physician was asked to testify at trial about her interaction with a patient from many years prior. Understandably, the emergency department physician did not have a recollection of the visit and intended to rely on the record. The EHR documented the care that was provided, but the physicians had not signed it. At trial, the doctor was not allowed to testify about what she did for the patient. The rationale was that the doctor did not recall what was done, and her failure to sign the EHR contemporaneously meant that there was no evidence that the EHR was accurate.

A physician should be able to say that his or her custom and practice is to review the EHR before it is finalized and make any updates or addendums as needed. That way, even if there is no signature, the physician has given credence to the accuracy of the records.

Health care providers should be encouraged to use the "free-text" section that is available when it adds to the accuracy of the record. Often, the "drop box" does not provide an adequate selection to describe the history or physical. In anesthesia cases, for instance, the EHR drop box may allow only a description of "awake," "drowsy," or "unresponsive." These choices, while true, do not give an accurate picture of the patient. If a patient in the postanesthesia care unit is technically awake but not properly responsive, that should be documented.

Similarly, in the primary care physician’s office there are times when the general description of how a patient is looking can be informative and integral to the physician formulating an assessment. An example might be the case of a sick child. The child may be curious, playful, and smiling when pulling at the stethoscope. If we are using that information as an important part of our decision as to whether or not that child is seriously ill, then that level of detail should be included in the record. The term "NAD" (no acute distress) does not reflect the level of observation that influenced the decision not to do further testing.

If the drop box is the only source of information utilized, then the true description of the patient is not contained within the records. Sometimes, the most important bits of information cannot be explained utilizing drop boxes.

Another common issue is the failure of EHRs to document when a patient calls the physician’s office but is not actually seen for an appointment. The patient alleges that he or she called the doctor multiple times to report a problem. The HER, however, may not have any record of such a phone call. Physicians need to ensure that they are made aware of these telephone calls and that some type of note is made. The note should not just indicate that a call was made but also should document the physician response and recommendations.

Finally, a new area of concern that has emerged is failure to follow up on a recommendation once it has been made. An ideal situation would be for the EHR or physician office to send a follow-up reminder if an important test is not done. This reminder to the patient should be recorded as well as whether the patient went through with the recommendation and steps the health care provider took to encourage compliance.

This overview does not represent an exhaustive list of EHR issues but rather highlights some common issues along with steps that can be taken to minimize errors, with a goal of increasing overall safety for the patient and decreasing liability for the health care provider.

Mr. Marcoz is a health care attorney in Wilmington, Del., who is shareholder at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in the Health Care Liability Practice Group. His areas of practice include medical malpractice and dental insurance defense. 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 also editor-in-chief of Redi-Reference Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.

The response to our request for readers to comment on their experiences with electronic health records continues to astonish us, with the quantity, depth, and intensity of responses. The majority of e-mails discuss concerns about the way EHRs have affected both patient care and office workflow, and we have made an effort to make sure that these voices are heard.

This month, we thought that we would emphasize a response from Dr. Don Weinshenker, a general internist in Denver who has worked in the VA system since 1992 and who describes himself as a "champion" of the EHR for over a decade. What we like about Dr. Weinshenker’s comments is that while he acknowledges the challenges inherent in adopting electronic records, he also offers some solutions based on a decade of experience. Some of his suggestions remind us of columns we published about a year ago on Humanism and EHRs, two words seldom used together, but which present what we feel is an important concept – discerning how to use our new tools to carry out, not distract us from, our core goals of connecting with other human beings to help safely alleviate suffering and improve health using an empathic manner that communicates caring and understanding. Dr. Weinshenker shares his thoughts as follows:

I feel it is quite possible and relatively easy to integrate the computer into an exam room while maintaining the excellent clinician/patient experience for which we all strive.

The first thing I do when I walk into a room is greet the patient and look the patient in the eye. I don’t look at the computer at first. I then acknowledge the "elephant in the room." I usually say something to the effect of, "As you likely know, we do almost everything on the computer. I will be using the computer today during this visit." I have not had a single patient object.

Next I do bring the patient’s chart up on the computer, if I hadn’t already preloaded it, and open a progress note with my simple template. I then turn to the patient, away from the computer, and start to take a history. At an appropriate pause I say, "Let me get that into your chart." I do turn to the computer at that time and start to type. I repeat what the patient told me as I type. By doing this, patients know what I am typing as well as experiencing a version of "reflective listening" so that they know that I truly did hear them. Also, I always clarify as I type. "The left foot pain has been going on for 2 weeks, or was it 3 weeks?" I write my primary care note in real time while talking with the patient. The majority of the content of my notes is in natural language, as opposed to clicking on little phrases.

Then, I talk about what I am doing in terms of ordering on the computer. "I am going to go ahead and order that podiatry consult now. You said that you would prefer to be seen after the 15th, right? I’ll order that x-ray we talked about as well."

I am sitting at a desk with the patient next to me facing me. It only takes a small turn of my head to face the patient. It is common for me to turn the computer screen a little so it faces the patient. I involve the patients with the computer. Very frequently, they can actually see what I am typing into the computer. In addition, for many of the computerized clinical reminders that we use, I will have the patient read the questions off the screen, e.g., for depression screening, so that they can answer the questions directly.

It appears that some of your readers have misconceptions about the role of computers. At least one mentioned that the computers are essentially going to replace doctors. Ideally, the use of computers is synergistic. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. Using cars as an analogy, no one complains about having power steering or brakes in a car. They make the car easier to drive. It is more common to have a lane change warning if there is a car in the next lane. Some of the fanciest cars, such as the top-end Mercedes, monitor what is in front of the car and will automatically put on the brakes if a pedestrian is present. I can’t afford that car but would be grateful if I had it and it saved the life of a pedestrian who stepped in front of me.

This brings up the questions of alerts and alert fatigue. One wouldn’t want a beep and/or a warning light every time a car passes you in the next lane. Clearly, there has to be more work on alerts making them smarter and more configurable, as otherwise they just become noise. EHRs are far from perfect, but with good design and with thoughtful implementation, I am completely convinced that they are an aid rather than a hindrance.

We like Dr. Weinshenker’s thoughts – he has figured out and shared ways to incorporate and communicate his care for and attention to patients into his workflow with the EHR. We are still at the beginning of our transformation from paper to electronic records, and this change is not easy. It has been said, beginnings are always hard. It is through shared suggestions like those provided by Dr. Weinshenker that we will together develop a patient-oriented electronic approach. Keep those comments coming.

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 company that creates mobile apps. 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.

The response to our request for readers to comment on their experiences with electronic health records continues to astonish us, with the quantity, depth, and intensity of responses. The majority of e-mails discuss concerns about the way EHRs have affected both patient care and office workflow, and we have made an effort to make sure that these voices are heard.

This month, we thought that we would emphasize a response from Dr. Don Weinshenker, a general internist in Denver who has worked in the VA system since 1992 and who describes himself as a "champion" of the EHR for over a decade. What we like about Dr. Weinshenker’s comments is that while he acknowledges the challenges inherent in adopting electronic records, he also offers some solutions based on a decade of experience. Some of his suggestions remind us of columns we published about a year ago on Humanism and EHRs, two words seldom used together, but which present what we feel is an important concept – discerning how to use our new tools to carry out, not distract us from, our core goals of connecting with other human beings to help safely alleviate suffering and improve health using an empathic manner that communicates caring and understanding. Dr. Weinshenker shares his thoughts as follows:

I feel it is quite possible and relatively easy to integrate the computer into an exam room while maintaining the excellent clinician/patient experience for which we all strive.

The first thing I do when I walk into a room is greet the patient and look the patient in the eye. I don’t look at the computer at first. I then acknowledge the "elephant in the room." I usually say something to the effect of, "As you likely know, we do almost everything on the computer. I will be using the computer today during this visit." I have not had a single patient object.

Next I do bring the patient’s chart up on the computer, if I hadn’t already preloaded it, and open a progress note with my simple template. I then turn to the patient, away from the computer, and start to take a history. At an appropriate pause I say, "Let me get that into your chart." I do turn to the computer at that time and start to type. I repeat what the patient told me as I type. By doing this, patients know what I am typing as well as experiencing a version of "reflective listening" so that they know that I truly did hear them. Also, I always clarify as I type. "The left foot pain has been going on for 2 weeks, or was it 3 weeks?" I write my primary care note in real time while talking with the patient. The majority of the content of my notes is in natural language, as opposed to clicking on little phrases.

Then, I talk about what I am doing in terms of ordering on the computer. "I am going to go ahead and order that podiatry consult now. You said that you would prefer to be seen after the 15th, right? I’ll order that x-ray we talked about as well."

I am sitting at a desk with the patient next to me facing me. It only takes a small turn of my head to face the patient. It is common for me to turn the computer screen a little so it faces the patient. I involve the patients with the computer. Very frequently, they can actually see what I am typing into the computer. In addition, for many of the computerized clinical reminders that we use, I will have the patient read the questions off the screen, e.g., for depression screening, so that they can answer the questions directly.

It appears that some of your readers have misconceptions about the role of computers. At least one mentioned that the computers are essentially going to replace doctors. Ideally, the use of computers is synergistic. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. Using cars as an analogy, no one complains about having power steering or brakes in a car. They make the car easier to drive. It is more common to have a lane change warning if there is a car in the next lane. Some of the fanciest cars, such as the top-end Mercedes, monitor what is in front of the car and will automatically put on the brakes if a pedestrian is present. I can’t afford that car but would be grateful if I had it and it saved the life of a pedestrian who stepped in front of me.

This brings up the questions of alerts and alert fatigue. One wouldn’t want a beep and/or a warning light every time a car passes you in the next lane. Clearly, there has to be more work on alerts making them smarter and more configurable, as otherwise they just become noise. EHRs are far from perfect, but with good design and with thoughtful implementation, I am completely convinced that they are an aid rather than a hindrance.

We like Dr. Weinshenker’s thoughts – he has figured out and shared ways to incorporate and communicate his care for and attention to patients into his workflow with the EHR. We are still at the beginning of our transformation from paper to electronic records, and this change is not easy. It has been said, beginnings are always hard. It is through shared suggestions like those provided by Dr. Weinshenker that we will together develop a patient-oriented electronic approach. Keep those comments coming.

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 company that creates mobile apps. 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.

The response to our request for readers to comment on their experiences with electronic health records continues to astonish us, with the quantity, depth, and intensity of responses. The majority of e-mails discuss concerns about the way EHRs have affected both patient care and office workflow, and we have made an effort to make sure that these voices are heard.

This month, we thought that we would emphasize a response from Dr. Don Weinshenker, a general internist in Denver who has worked in the VA system since 1992 and who describes himself as a "champion" of the EHR for over a decade. What we like about Dr. Weinshenker’s comments is that while he acknowledges the challenges inherent in adopting electronic records, he also offers some solutions based on a decade of experience. Some of his suggestions remind us of columns we published about a year ago on Humanism and EHRs, two words seldom used together, but which present what we feel is an important concept – discerning how to use our new tools to carry out, not distract us from, our core goals of connecting with other human beings to help safely alleviate suffering and improve health using an empathic manner that communicates caring and understanding. Dr. Weinshenker shares his thoughts as follows:

I feel it is quite possible and relatively easy to integrate the computer into an exam room while maintaining the excellent clinician/patient experience for which we all strive.

The first thing I do when I walk into a room is greet the patient and look the patient in the eye. I don’t look at the computer at first. I then acknowledge the "elephant in the room." I usually say something to the effect of, "As you likely know, we do almost everything on the computer. I will be using the computer today during this visit." I have not had a single patient object.

Next I do bring the patient’s chart up on the computer, if I hadn’t already preloaded it, and open a progress note with my simple template. I then turn to the patient, away from the computer, and start to take a history. At an appropriate pause I say, "Let me get that into your chart." I do turn to the computer at that time and start to type. I repeat what the patient told me as I type. By doing this, patients know what I am typing as well as experiencing a version of "reflective listening" so that they know that I truly did hear them. Also, I always clarify as I type. "The left foot pain has been going on for 2 weeks, or was it 3 weeks?" I write my primary care note in real time while talking with the patient. The majority of the content of my notes is in natural language, as opposed to clicking on little phrases.

Then, I talk about what I am doing in terms of ordering on the computer. "I am going to go ahead and order that podiatry consult now. You said that you would prefer to be seen after the 15th, right? I’ll order that x-ray we talked about as well."

I am sitting at a desk with the patient next to me facing me. It only takes a small turn of my head to face the patient. It is common for me to turn the computer screen a little so it faces the patient. I involve the patients with the computer. Very frequently, they can actually see what I am typing into the computer. In addition, for many of the computerized clinical reminders that we use, I will have the patient read the questions off the screen, e.g., for depression screening, so that they can answer the questions directly.

It appears that some of your readers have misconceptions about the role of computers. At least one mentioned that the computers are essentially going to replace doctors. Ideally, the use of computers is synergistic. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. Using cars as an analogy, no one complains about having power steering or brakes in a car. They make the car easier to drive. It is more common to have a lane change warning if there is a car in the next lane. Some of the fanciest cars, such as the top-end Mercedes, monitor what is in front of the car and will automatically put on the brakes if a pedestrian is present. I can’t afford that car but would be grateful if I had it and it saved the life of a pedestrian who stepped in front of me.

This brings up the questions of alerts and alert fatigue. One wouldn’t want a beep and/or a warning light every time a car passes you in the next lane. Clearly, there has to be more work on alerts making them smarter and more configurable, as otherwise they just become noise. EHRs are far from perfect, but with good design and with thoughtful implementation, I am completely convinced that they are an aid rather than a hindrance.

We like Dr. Weinshenker’s thoughts – he has figured out and shared ways to incorporate and communicate his care for and attention to patients into his workflow with the EHR. We are still at the beginning of our transformation from paper to electronic records, and this change is not easy. It has been said, beginnings are always hard. It is through shared suggestions like those provided by Dr. Weinshenker that we will together develop a patient-oriented electronic approach. Keep those comments coming.

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 company that creates mobile apps. 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.

In response to our request for comments, readers have graciously flooded our inbox with a variety of e-mails full of opinions on electronic health records.

This has been an overwhelmingly positive and educational experience. Through your comments, we have been reminded that health information technology is a field rife with debate. Here, unlike most other areas of medicine, it is still impossible to define a single best practice that can reliably be employed in every EHR implementation.

Although we are convinced that it is the timeliness of the subject matter that actually drives readership, we truly appreciate the personal words of affirmation we receive every month. And though we do try to respond to feedback individually whenever possible, we think it is important to again say thank you to everyone who has cared enough to read and respond. You help us to better navigate the murky waters of electronic health records and help make sure that our comments are grounded in the day-to-day experiences of a wide range of users.

Over thenext few columns (with the permission of the authors), we will be publishing many of the comments we have received. Not surprisingly, the majority of messages discuss negative experiences, with an occasional e-mail that speaks to the benefits of the EHR. The focus has really been on how the transition to electronic health records has changed the physician/patient experience and the efficiencies – or inefficiencies – introduced by the use of EHRs. Many respondents expressed appreciation for the opportunity to vent their frustrations, and this further underscores the need for better, more open discussion on the topic.

One letter that reflects a balanced sentiment, yet captures the overall flavor of the thoughts expressed by our fellow physicians, came from Dr. Marc D. Grobman, a solo family physician in Wilmington, Del. Dr. Grobman adopted Practice Fusion, a free ad-supported EHR that we mentioned in a previous column. He relates his experience before and after the EHR, and how it has affected his practice:

"So let’s start with my routine before EMR [electronic medical records]. I would arrive at the office at 8:30 a.m. after seeing my kids off at the school bus. I would greet my staff and start seeing patients at 9:00 a.m. During the day, messages would pile up in the little basket for me, and I would quickly jot answers to questions or requests and hand them back to my staff between patients. During lunch, I would quickly eat ... and then jump to the mail, sign everything then enter into a Word file for the patient (the poor-man’s EMR) and then bring it to the staff for filing. The filing would often take days to accomplish because, being solo, I have only two other staff members.

"Now my days at the office begin at 7:45 a.m. (after rising at 5:30 a.m. to shower, eat, and check the EMR for prescription renewals, use the Delaware Health Information Network [DHIN] to look for admissions to the local hospitals and download the lab results, H&Ps, consults, radiology reports, and so on) with a grab of incoming faxes off the fax machine. I then race to my desk and turn on the computer and scanner to scan everything. Then I race to upload the material before the patients start at 9:00 a.m. Between patients, or most often at lunch, I answer "Messages" on the EMR, write Rx’s and handle any other things that come up. During lunch I also take time to scan and upload as quickly as possible. Same routine after lunch. Before I go home @ 6 or 7 p.m., I make sure everything is scanned so I can upload after dinner at home. No filing any more for the staff, since I scan and upload everything."

On first glance, Dr. Grobman’s experience seems quite discouraging, as he has seemingly transitioned his job description from physician to staff. He even goes on to admit being "baffled" by trying to find any meaning in meaningful use. But his closing thoughts do not express regret. Instead, he shares this:

"I do like using the EMR. I like being green and not needing paper, files, folders, stickers. ... I do find it worthwhile to have [an electronic] copy of the paper forms I do fill out for prior authorizations or pre-exclusion questions or legal request-just in case, you know, someone on the other end loses it. Is the trade-off worth it? In the end I am just more than slightly positive about this whole process."

This letter does a wonderful job of articulating some of the advantages and irritations of a successful EHR implementation. Dr. Grobman also alludes to another interesting theme: frustration with the meaningful use incentive program. Again, he is not alone here. Some readers, like Dr. Michael Laidlaw of Rocklin, Calif., admit to rejecting the government incentive program altogether. Dr. Laidlaw writes:

"What made me abandon the incentive this year (I qualified for and was reimbursed for stage 1) is when I realized that I spent the first 2-5 minutes of each visit endlessly clicking a bunch of garbage to make all the green lights show up on the [meaningful use] meter. I said to myself: ‘I’m not wasting precious seconds of my life and my patients’ time to ensure some database gets filled with data. I didn’t go into medicine for this. It is not benefiting my patients or me. I hate it.’ I actually refused to take the $10K+ this year. I have even accepted that I would rather be penalized in the future. What is worth the most to me is AUTONOMY."

In reviewing all of the feedback we’ve received, this idea seems to come up again and again. Physicians are willing to accept the time-consuming idiosyncrasies of electronic health records but are offended by the idea of technologic or governmental intrusion into the physician-patient relationship. We will continue to explore this idea in the coming months as we share more reader comments and response to the column.

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 company that creates mobile apps. 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.

In response to our request for comments, readers have graciously flooded our inbox with a variety of e-mails full of opinions on electronic health records.

This has been an overwhelmingly positive and educational experience. Through your comments, we have been reminded that health information technology is a field rife with debate. Here, unlike most other areas of medicine, it is still impossible to define a single best practice that can reliably be employed in every EHR implementation.

Although we are convinced that it is the timeliness of the subject matter that actually drives readership, we truly appreciate the personal words of affirmation we receive every month. And though we do try to respond to feedback individually whenever possible, we think it is important to again say thank you to everyone who has cared enough to read and respond. You help us to better navigate the murky waters of electronic health records and help make sure that our comments are grounded in the day-to-day experiences of a wide range of users.

Over thenext few columns (with the permission of the authors), we will be publishing many of the comments we have received. Not surprisingly, the majority of messages discuss negative experiences, with an occasional e-mail that speaks to the benefits of the EHR. The focus has really been on how the transition to electronic health records has changed the physician/patient experience and the efficiencies – or inefficiencies – introduced by the use of EHRs. Many respondents expressed appreciation for the opportunity to vent their frustrations, and this further underscores the need for better, more open discussion on the topic.

One letter that reflects a balanced sentiment, yet captures the overall flavor of the thoughts expressed by our fellow physicians, came from Dr. Marc D. Grobman, a solo family physician in Wilmington, Del. Dr. Grobman adopted Practice Fusion, a free ad-supported EHR that we mentioned in a previous column. He relates his experience before and after the EHR, and how it has affected his practice:

"So let’s start with my routine before EMR [electronic medical records]. I would arrive at the office at 8:30 a.m. after seeing my kids off at the school bus. I would greet my staff and start seeing patients at 9:00 a.m. During the day, messages would pile up in the little basket for me, and I would quickly jot answers to questions or requests and hand them back to my staff between patients. During lunch, I would quickly eat ... and then jump to the mail, sign everything then enter into a Word file for the patient (the poor-man’s EMR) and then bring it to the staff for filing. The filing would often take days to accomplish because, being solo, I have only two other staff members.

"Now my days at the office begin at 7:45 a.m. (after rising at 5:30 a.m. to shower, eat, and check the EMR for prescription renewals, use the Delaware Health Information Network [DHIN] to look for admissions to the local hospitals and download the lab results, H&Ps, consults, radiology reports, and so on) with a grab of incoming faxes off the fax machine. I then race to my desk and turn on the computer and scanner to scan everything. Then I race to upload the material before the patients start at 9:00 a.m. Between patients, or most often at lunch, I answer "Messages" on the EMR, write Rx’s and handle any other things that come up. During lunch I also take time to scan and upload as quickly as possible. Same routine after lunch. Before I go home @ 6 or 7 p.m., I make sure everything is scanned so I can upload after dinner at home. No filing any more for the staff, since I scan and upload everything."

On first glance, Dr. Grobman’s experience seems quite discouraging, as he has seemingly transitioned his job description from physician to staff. He even goes on to admit being "baffled" by trying to find any meaning in meaningful use. But his closing thoughts do not express regret. Instead, he shares this:

"I do like using the EMR. I like being green and not needing paper, files, folders, stickers. ... I do find it worthwhile to have [an electronic] copy of the paper forms I do fill out for prior authorizations or pre-exclusion questions or legal request-just in case, you know, someone on the other end loses it. Is the trade-off worth it? In the end I am just more than slightly positive about this whole process."

This letter does a wonderful job of articulating some of the advantages and irritations of a successful EHR implementation. Dr. Grobman also alludes to another interesting theme: frustration with the meaningful use incentive program. Again, he is not alone here. Some readers, like Dr. Michael Laidlaw of Rocklin, Calif., admit to rejecting the government incentive program altogether. Dr. Laidlaw writes:

"What made me abandon the incentive this year (I qualified for and was reimbursed for stage 1) is when I realized that I spent the first 2-5 minutes of each visit endlessly clicking a bunch of garbage to make all the green lights show up on the [meaningful use] meter. I said to myself: ‘I’m not wasting precious seconds of my life and my patients’ time to ensure some database gets filled with data. I didn’t go into medicine for this. It is not benefiting my patients or me. I hate it.’ I actually refused to take the $10K+ this year. I have even accepted that I would rather be penalized in the future. What is worth the most to me is AUTONOMY."

In reviewing all of the feedback we’ve received, this idea seems to come up again and again. Physicians are willing to accept the time-consuming idiosyncrasies of electronic health records but are offended by the idea of technologic or governmental intrusion into the physician-patient relationship. We will continue to explore this idea in the coming months as we share more reader comments and response to the column.

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 company that creates mobile apps. 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.

In response to our request for comments, readers have graciously flooded our inbox with a variety of e-mails full of opinions on electronic health records.

This has been an overwhelmingly positive and educational experience. Through your comments, we have been reminded that health information technology is a field rife with debate. Here, unlike most other areas of medicine, it is still impossible to define a single best practice that can reliably be employed in every EHR implementation.

Although we are convinced that it is the timeliness of the subject matter that actually drives readership, we truly appreciate the personal words of affirmation we receive every month. And though we do try to respond to feedback individually whenever possible, we think it is important to again say thank you to everyone who has cared enough to read and respond. You help us to better navigate the murky waters of electronic health records and help make sure that our comments are grounded in the day-to-day experiences of a wide range of users.

Over thenext few columns (with the permission of the authors), we will be publishing many of the comments we have received. Not surprisingly, the majority of messages discuss negative experiences, with an occasional e-mail that speaks to the benefits of the EHR. The focus has really been on how the transition to electronic health records has changed the physician/patient experience and the efficiencies – or inefficiencies – introduced by the use of EHRs. Many respondents expressed appreciation for the opportunity to vent their frustrations, and this further underscores the need for better, more open discussion on the topic.

One letter that reflects a balanced sentiment, yet captures the overall flavor of the thoughts expressed by our fellow physicians, came from Dr. Marc D. Grobman, a solo family physician in Wilmington, Del. Dr. Grobman adopted Practice Fusion, a free ad-supported EHR that we mentioned in a previous column. He relates his experience before and after the EHR, and how it has affected his practice:

"So let’s start with my routine before EMR [electronic medical records]. I would arrive at the office at 8:30 a.m. after seeing my kids off at the school bus. I would greet my staff and start seeing patients at 9:00 a.m. During the day, messages would pile up in the little basket for me, and I would quickly jot answers to questions or requests and hand them back to my staff between patients. During lunch, I would quickly eat ... and then jump to the mail, sign everything then enter into a Word file for the patient (the poor-man’s EMR) and then bring it to the staff for filing. The filing would often take days to accomplish because, being solo, I have only two other staff members.

"Now my days at the office begin at 7:45 a.m. (after rising at 5:30 a.m. to shower, eat, and check the EMR for prescription renewals, use the Delaware Health Information Network [DHIN] to look for admissions to the local hospitals and download the lab results, H&Ps, consults, radiology reports, and so on) with a grab of incoming faxes off the fax machine. I then race to my desk and turn on the computer and scanner to scan everything. Then I race to upload the material before the patients start at 9:00 a.m. Between patients, or most often at lunch, I answer "Messages" on the EMR, write Rx’s and handle any other things that come up. During lunch I also take time to scan and upload as quickly as possible. Same routine after lunch. Before I go home @ 6 or 7 p.m., I make sure everything is scanned so I can upload after dinner at home. No filing any more for the staff, since I scan and upload everything."

On first glance, Dr. Grobman’s experience seems quite discouraging, as he has seemingly transitioned his job description from physician to staff. He even goes on to admit being "baffled" by trying to find any meaning in meaningful use. But his closing thoughts do not express regret. Instead, he shares this:

"I do like using the EMR. I like being green and not needing paper, files, folders, stickers. ... I do find it worthwhile to have [an electronic] copy of the paper forms I do fill out for prior authorizations or pre-exclusion questions or legal request-just in case, you know, someone on the other end loses it. Is the trade-off worth it? In the end I am just more than slightly positive about this whole process."

This letter does a wonderful job of articulating some of the advantages and irritations of a successful EHR implementation. Dr. Grobman also alludes to another interesting theme: frustration with the meaningful use incentive program. Again, he is not alone here. Some readers, like Dr. Michael Laidlaw of Rocklin, Calif., admit to rejecting the government incentive program altogether. Dr. Laidlaw writes:

"What made me abandon the incentive this year (I qualified for and was reimbursed for stage 1) is when I realized that I spent the first 2-5 minutes of each visit endlessly clicking a bunch of garbage to make all the green lights show up on the [meaningful use] meter. I said to myself: ‘I’m not wasting precious seconds of my life and my patients’ time to ensure some database gets filled with data. I didn’t go into medicine for this. It is not benefiting my patients or me. I hate it.’ I actually refused to take the $10K+ this year. I have even accepted that I would rather be penalized in the future. What is worth the most to me is AUTONOMY."

In reviewing all of the feedback we’ve received, this idea seems to come up again and again. Physicians are willing to accept the time-consuming idiosyncrasies of electronic health records but are offended by the idea of technologic or governmental intrusion into the physician-patient relationship. We will continue to explore this idea in the coming months as we share more reader comments and response to the column.

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 company that creates mobile apps. 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.

Despite all the discussion of meaningful use of EHRs to earn federal incentives, what physicians seem most frustrated with is the lack of optimal use of their EHRs. In this podcast, Dr. Skolnik and Dr. Notte talk about what you can do to optimize your EHR and make your interactions with it easier and more effective throughout the clinical day.

To download the podcast, right-click here.

To read the related column, click here.

To listen via this Web page, click on the player below:

Despite all the discussion of meaningful use of EHRs to earn federal incentives, what physicians seem most frustrated with is the lack of optimal use of their EHRs. In this podcast, Dr. Skolnik and Dr. Notte talk about what you can do to optimize your EHR and make your interactions with it easier and more effective throughout the clinical day.

To download the podcast, right-click here.

To read the related column, click here.

To listen via this Web page, click on the player below:

Despite all the discussion of meaningful use of EHRs to earn federal incentives, what physicians seem most frustrated with is the lack of optimal use of their EHRs. In this podcast, Dr. Skolnik and Dr. Notte talk about what you can do to optimize your EHR and make your interactions with it easier and more effective throughout the clinical day.

To download the podcast, right-click here.

To read the related column, click here.

To listen via this Web page, click on the player below: