|
June 17, 2010
Filed Under (EMR, Electronic Medical Records) by admin
Selecting electronic medical records software is notoriously difficult. The EMR market is flooded with several hundred vendors that cover the full spectrum of pricing and functionality, and clinics often have trouble cutting through the marketing noise.
Federal qualified health centers (FQHCs) are certainly not exempt from this predicament. They too will be required to use electronic medical records by 2015. Since most are using paper charts, the transition to electronic can be especially challenging for them.
When beginning the search for an EMR, we recommend that buyers assemble a list of their key requirements. Specialty-specific templates, lab integration, e-prescribing, and device integration are commonly required features. FQHCs, however, need to consider additional functionality due to their unique offering.
These requirements include:
Although the EMR software market is large and complex, FQHCs can begin their EMR search processes effectively by focusing on software vendors that offer these four features. They will further benefit from the simple fact that fewer software vendors can serve their specialized needs. This smaller universe of potential vendors will help them quickly identify potential options and make the research process that much easier.
May 28, 2010
Filed Under (EMR, Electronic Medical Records) by admin
Urology is a surgical specialty where the doctor focuses on the urinary tract of humans and the reproductive organs of specifically males. EMR is an electronic medical record which has been developed to replace old school medical records. Urology EMR software has been developed to specifically assist doctors in this field.
EMR stands for Electronic Medical Record and is a computerized version of the old paper records and filing system.
The reason that many doctors are switching to electronic versions of medical records is mainly due to the amount of space they take up and the financial implications which come with old school paper records take up. In most places it is common law that medical records need to be held for at least seven years, this can become extremely costly to a doctors office if you add up the various materials it takes to create and upkeep medical records over that period of time.
Paper files can often require an art and some skill to locate and keep tract of. A busy doctors office accumulates hundreds of records and this can become complicated when you need to pull a certain patients file. By switching to EMR, you and your staff will be able to easily locate any file with one simple online search and a few clicks of a mouse.
Above are listed but a few of the many advantages of going online and switching to the electronic method of doing things. There are of course many more benefits that any office can experience such as increased legibility and less room for error, room is allowed for the standardization of medical terminology and abbreviations. These can also be used in medical research for data collection and storage.
One possible downfall of EMR software is that as with any technology it can be accessed by anyone with the power, will and know how. This can result in a problem with patient confidentiality. There are various laws which have been put in place to protect patient privacy so this should not be seen as too big of a concern. All current leading Urology EMR software solutions will have the best security measures in place.
Urology EMR or urology electronic medical records represent computer software available to capture access and store information in busy hospitals and clinics. Urology EMR focuses directly on those records related to urology specialists and patients.
Source: http://www.bmi-resources.com/why-is-urology-emr-so-important-to-urologists/
April 02, 2010
Filed Under (EMR, Electronic Medical Records) by admin
A new study reveals an exciting potential benefit of the rapidly accumulating databases of health care information, the ability to make unprecedented links between genomic data and clinical medicine. The research, published by Cell Press in the April issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, supports the idea that large scale DNA databanks linked to electronic medical record (EMR) systems provide a valuable platform for discovering, assessing and validating associations between genes and diseases.
“The deployment of EMRs offers the hope of improving routine care, not only by enhancing individual practitioner access to patient information but also by aggregating information for clinical research,” explains senior study author Dr. Dan M. Roden from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville Tennessee. “EMRs contain large populations with diverse diseases and have the potential to act as platforms for rapid and inexpensive creation of large inclusive patient sets.”
Dr. Roden and colleagues in informatics and in genome science were interested in examining whether large biorepositories containing DNA samples linked to EMRs might be useful for discovering and incorporating new genotype-phenotype associations. “Implementing such a vision requires that major obstacles be overcome, including technological, computational, ethical, and financial issues and determining whether genomic information will meaningfully inform clinical decision making and health care outcomes,” says Dr. Roden.
The researchers used BioVU, the Vanderbilt DNA databank, to detect known common genetic variants associated with five diseases: atrial fibrillation, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. It took only four months to generate a set of nearly 10,000 records from which the cases and controls were identified. Although the process of accessing and defining the samples was technically complex, for each of the five phenotypes, at least one previously reported genetic association was replicated.
These results support the use DNA resources coupled to EMR systems as a valuable tool for clinical research. “Our data demonstrate that phenotypes representing clinical diagnoses can be extracted from EMR systems, and support the use of DNA resources coupled to EMR systems as tools for rapid generation of large datasets required for replication of associations found in research and for discovery in genome science,” concludes Dr. Roden.
Above article publish on http://emrdailynews.com/2010/04/01/electronic-medical-records-may-accelerate-genome-driven-diagnoses-and-treatments/
October 27, 2009
While few practices and hospitals currently use aggregated patient data, the number is expected to increase, and a new study touts the information’s benefits.
By Pamela Lewis Dolan, amednews staff,
One of the biggest untapped benefits of electronic medical record adoption is the secondary uses of the data that are being collected, concludes a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The study, “Transforming Healthcare through Secondary Use of Health Data,” found that practices and hospitals have seen aggregated data from their electronic medical records identify patterns that have allowed them to improve outcomes, reduce errors and increase revenue opportunities.
But the number of institutions using the aggregated, or secondary, data in this way is very small, though it is expected to grow in the next two years.
“Almost every constituent in the [health care] industry that has to make a decision around what type of health care to deliver and when could use this kind of data and the information that aggregating it can produce,” said Dan Garrett, health IT practice leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The report found that among those organizations already using some form of secondary data, 59% have seen quality improvements, 42% have achieved cost savings, 36% have seen patient/member satisfaction improve, and 29% have increased revenue. The biggest users of secondary data are hospitals and physicians, while health plans are the farthest behind.
The survey found that although 95% of physicians are not opposed to using secondary data, many are sensitive to how it should be used. Patients also are concerned.
“We all know we need to use this data, but they also know we can’t risk security,” Garrett said.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report came from an e-mail survey conducted in June of 732 health care executives, 482 physicians, 136 payers and 114 pharmacy/life sciences organizations.
Above article published on http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/10/19/bise1023.htm
September 17, 2009
BY MARK WULKAN, M.D. The electronic medical record (EMR) is slowly transforming the way doctors, nurses, and other health care providers deliver patient care. Patients financial records have been electronic for decades; however, clinical data (the information entered by doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals) has been lagging. Processes for capturing lab and radiology results, history and physical details, operative reports, discharge summaries and other critical data have been very basic; paper charts remain the primary means of documentation and communication among the health care team.
Today, some hospitals are creating comprehensive EMRs for their patients that include the documentation and orders entered by all health care professionals. These EMR systems help:
Make it easier to access and share patient information among doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists and other health care professionals, regardless of whether they’re in the same unit, on separate floors or even away from the hospital. For example, if the doctor caring for your child in the hospital gets a call after she’s home, she can access nearly all the information in your child’s medical chart via her home computer (with the appropriate security clearance).
Allow your physician to order medications and procedures with the added benefit of EMR system “guard rails” that generate alerts to prevent errors, such as an overdose, giving a medication your child is allergic to, or prescribing drugs that are incompatible.
EMR systems designed for offices perform many of the same functions, just on a smaller scale.
Most of the top medical centers in metro Atlanta have implemented or are in the process of implementing a comprehensive EMR. Yet, the transition to comprehensive EMRs has been slow. In fact, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that only four percent of physicians had a comprehensive EMR and 13 percent had a basic system. The primary barriers have been cost and time. Over the next several years, you should see an increase. The federal government is encouraging hospitals, clinics and doctors’ offices to do so and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes stimulus money to help offset part of the cost.
In the future, as more EMR software manufacturers adopt international standards, your records will be electronically available from nearly any medical facility that you and your family visit. For example, if your child gets sick on vacation in Florida, you will be able to grant access to his pediatrician’s records and any previous hospitalization records to the Emergency Room doctor taking care of him. In addition, your pediatrician will be alerted and have the ability to access information about the ER visit. The details of how this will work are still being discussed, but this is the goal.
Above article published on
August 21, 2009
By Ken Congdon, Healthcare Technology Online
In my coverage of the healthcare technology industry, I’ve noticed that many software and hardware vendors, clinicians, and even some analysts tend to use the terms EMR (electronic medical record) and EHR (electronic health record) interchangeably. However, according to the National Alliance for Health Information Technology (NAHIT), there is a distinct difference between the two.
The NAHIT defines EMR and EHR as follows:
EMR — The electronic record of health-related information of an individual that is created, gathered, managed, and consulted by licensed clinicians and staff from a single organization who are involved in the individual’s health and care.
EHR — The aggregate electronic record of health-related information of an individual that is created and gathered cumulatively across more than one healthcare organization and is managed and consulted by licensed clinicians and staff involved in the individual’s health and care.
In other words, an EMR is a somewhat siloed record of a single diagnosis or treatment, most likely used by a single practice or specialist. Meanwhile, an EHR is a more comprehensive record that is interoperable with and compiles information from multiple medical providers’ systems.
Don’t Judge A Software Package Based On Name Alone
Despite the NAHIT definitions, it’s obvious that the industry is still unclear on how to delineate EMRs from EHRs. For example, some software vendors brand their technologies as EHR platforms when, in reality, they don’t provide interoperability capabilities and would therefore be more accurately marketed as EMRs. At the same time, other vendors brand their products as EMR packages when they actually provide more comprehensive EHR frameworks. In fact, analysis of software packages currently on the market indicates that the latter is more likely to be the case, as most clinical records software vendors tend to brand their products as EMRs as opposed to EHRs. However, the term EHR does seem to be gaining popularity as it is the phrase used by President Obama in his healthcare stimulus talks and is the prominent terminology used in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
Knowing that the terms used to brand clinical records software aren’t always accurate, you must dig deeper to ensure a software platform you’re assessing is equipped to meet the needs of your facility and your patients. Criteria to consider when evaluating EMR/EHR software include:
If you purchase a system that matches your requirements, it should provide a speedy ROI regardless of whether or not it is “technically” branded correctly.
Above article published on http://www.ecmconnection.com/article.mvc/EMR-Or-EHR-Whats-In-A-Name-0001
August 21, 2009
Filed Under (EHR, Electronic Medical Records) by admin
OREM, UT, August 12, 2009 — Healthcare technology research firm KLAS today announced its annual clinical market share report, which details the wins and losses of acute care electronic medical record (EMR) vendors at large hospitals with more than 200 beds.
The report notes that, in 2008, EMR vendors sold the fewest number of new contracts in the United States and Canada in the seven years since KLAS began tracking clinical market share information. However, despite a tough economy, Epic continued to make gains among large hospitals, capturing nearly 40 percent of the new business. McKesson and Siemens also scored some unusual wins, while Cerner saw no net growth in its clinical market share for the first time.
The KLAS report, “Physicians, Nurses, and EMR Adoption: Which Solutions are CEOs Betting On?”, reflects data collected from more than 1,600 hospitals over 200 beds in the United States and Canada. While acknowledging the seven-year low in EMR sales, the report also notes that the recent past does not appear to be an indication of the future.
“The advent of new meaningful use requirements, plus the ongoing debate around broader healthcare reform, has many organizations looking for a new clinical information system,” said Jason Hess, KLAS general manager of clinical research and author of the new report. “During this study, KLAS identified more than 400 large hospitals that either have no EMR or are using a legacy system; and we
are already aware of purchasing activity that, if the rate continues, will far exceed 2008 sales.”
Beyond the steady progress of Epic EpicCare Inpatient, Siemens Soarian Clinicals and McKesson Paragon Clinicals found some unusual wins in 2008. Siemens was able to communicate its vision for Soarian to providers outside its client base, as five non-Siemens hospitals (four organizations) bought Soarian in 2008, despite the product’s historically low computerized physician order entry (CPOE) adoption. Further, the company won three hospitals in the over 400-bed space, bucking Epic’s trend of pushing vendors out of that market.
McKesson Paragon also made some surprising inroads with larger hospitals, given its reputation as a smaller community hospital solution. Of the 12 McKesson EMR wins in hospitals over 200 beds, four of the organizations chose Paragon as opposed to Horizon. These wins indicate that Paragon, one of the lowest-rated systems that KLAS followed in 2000, is now gaining significant momentum, not to mention leading performance scoring in the community hospital information system (HIS) market.
For Cerner and Eclipsys, the KLAS report noted that leadership in CPOE adoption did not necessarily translate into EMR wins. As validated by KLAS earlier this year, Cerner has the highest number of hospitals doing CPOE, and Eclipsys has the greatest number of physicians doing CPOE - yet neither vendor was among the top three in new large hospital EMR sales in the United States and Canada in 2008.
Above article published on http://www.chiroeco.com/chiropractic/news/8403/1112/Report:-EHR-adoption-increase-expected-in-2009/
July 31, 2009
By Chris Hobson, MD Health IT industry news followers have probably noticed industry confusion and inconsistencies regarding terminology about what to call patient information that is collected and shared electronically.
In fact, analysts, vendors, journalists and practitioners all are guilty of using the terms electronic medical record (EMR) and electronic health record (EHR) interchangeably as if they are one and the same. In fact, these are two different terms that address two different sets of business needs with different — although overlapping — sets of features and capabilities. The distinction is more than minor semantics, and it’s crucial for health IT decision-makers to understand the difference.
Electronic record
To many, an electronic record is considered to be any clinical record that isn’t paper-based or hanging on a clipboard. The problem is, this doesn’t describe how the data will be used, gathered or shared. Will the electronic record be used only within the confines of a single office or practitioner, or within a single regional health system? Alternatively, will the data be shared across a wide range of different providers, such as specialists’ offices, labs, insurance providers and government agencies? For the sake of clarity and accurate understanding, it is important to distinguish between electronic records that can be shared widely and those that are designed to reside within a single organization.
When discussing digitized medical records, depending on the software vendor, geographic region, country or even the personal preferences of the presenter, the two terms — EMR and EHR — are being used interchangeably. Unfortunately, that distinction has been lost in the flood of material appearing in the literature.
According to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), an EMR is a component of an electronic health record that is owned by the health care provider. The EMR is a set of applications and workflow tools that digitizes the creation, collection, storage and management of patient information within the confines of a single organization. An EMR system may touch clinical data repositories, lab applications and patient information management systems, among others — but all within the reach of a single organization.
EHRs, on the other hand, comprise as far as is possible, a complete and unified view of all the patient’s clinical assessments and care records drawn from across a wide region corresponding to all the providers who are seeing the patient — the totality of his/her personal data, state of health and delivered care. HIMSS defines EHR as a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information produced by encounters in one or more care settings.
An EHR consists of data provided from organizations throughout the service delivery chain — laboratories, providers, pharmacists, insurance payment records — as well as all of the patient’s personal data such as date of birth, address, weight, provider visits, and so on. These records can be shared easily across separate health care providers, labs, government agencies and insurance companies, made available whenever and wherever the patient is seen
Improved workflow
While both EMRs and EHRs provide some similar benefits — cost savings through improved workflow and paper reduction, improved delivery of care accuracy — EMRs provide those benefits only within a single organization. EHRs, because they are shared across the irrelevant geographic or otherwise defined region, increase the efficiency of patient care and improve patient outcomes, disseminate information rapidly between care providers, help with research efforts, and cut costs throughout the entire system more promptly and reliably.
The industry may be confused about what exactly is the difference between an EMR and an EHR, but there should be no confusion about the type of solution an organization needs. The benefits associated with sharing patient information with partners, suppliers and insurance companies can only be achieved through an EHR. In the years ahead, solutions that survive this rapidly changing market must be capable of sharing electronic patient information effectively both within an organization, between facilities and across regions. Health care organizations need to ensure that they are laying the groundwork today to make that future collaboration possible.
Dr. Hobson is chief medical officer at Orion Health. Above article published on http://health-care-it.advanceweb.com/editorial/content/editorial.aspx?cc=203986&CP=2
July 15, 2009
Filed Under (EMR, Electronic Medical Records) by admin
The call for widespread adoption of electronic medical records has prompted some states to pass stringent privacy laws to protect their residents against fraud or identity theft. But a new analysis finds these laws seem to significantly diminish the effectiveness of the new technology. Many of the new technologies available to healthcare providers depend on information sharing to be effective, study authors note. If one hospital adopts the use of EMRs, they explain, that increases the likelihood of nearby hospitals adopting EMRs by 7%. Conversely, in states where EMR privacy laws restrict the sharing of patient information, record sharing has been reduced by as much as 24%. Recently, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging found that nursing homes lead the healthcare field in overall adoption of electronic medical records. The Bush administration largely endorsed the idea of a national health IT infrastructure, and has set a goal of full implementation by 2014. Ideas for spurring adoption of EMRs have been present in most draft versions of new healthcare reform legislation, but no final plan has emerged. The report, “Privacy Protection and Technology Diffusion: The Case of Electronic Medical Records,” appears in the current issue of Management Science. Above article published on
June 10, 2009
TORONTO, Ontario’s doctors say a study released today by the Ontario Health Quality Council (OHQC) illustrates the need to remain vigilant in getting every Ontarian a family doctor and expanding access to Electronic Medical Records (EMRs). “Every person in the province deserves to have access to the care and xpertise of a physician, and Ontario’s doctors will accept nothing less,” aid Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, President of the Ontario Medical Association OMA). “Since 2004, more than 630,000 people that didn’t have a doctor now do. e are very proud of what we have accomplished but we know there is more work to be done.” In the most recent agreement, Ontario’s doctors and the government committed to work together to find another 500,000 patients a physician. Dr. Strasberg suggested that one of the most effective ways to achieve this objective is through the expansion of collaborative care models. Ontario’s doctors have long advocated for collaborative health care teams where various health professionals work together under one roof to provide care to a large number of patients. “The evidence is clear, when physicians and other health professionals work together, not only is there a more comprehensive level of care provided to patients, but it can reduce the strain on the health care system.” The OHQC study also highlights the importance of EMRs in ensuring continuity of care to patients. EMRs are a critical component in the evolution of the province’s health care system, which is why the OMA has been pushing for the expansion of them into every doctor’s office across the province. To date, more than 3,000 family physicians in Ontario have EMRs in their offices and by the end of 2009, 4 million patients will have an EMR. “Doctors who use Electronic Medical Records report patient safety, continuity of care and quality of care have improved,” said Dr. Strasberg. “Ensuring that EMRs are available in every doctor’s office is an important step towards improving and strengthening Ontario’s health care system.” Above article published on http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2009/09/c4722.html
|
|
