Fifty-eight percent of U.S. physicians who don’t use electronic medical records (EMRs) intend to purchase an EMR system within the next two years, according to a new report from Accenture (NYSE: ACN).

“If U.S. health care providers properly implement and use EMRs more broadly, there is no doubt that EMRs can make an important contribution to improving quality of care and controlling costs.”

Today, just six percent of U.S. office-based physicians use a fully functioning system.

Accenture’s Innovation Center for Health and Institute for Health & Public Service Value worked with Harris Interactive to survey 1,000 U.S. physicians from practices of fewer than 10 practitioners to measure their views of EMRs. Approximately 15 percent of respondents were users of EMRS and 85 percent were non-users.

The survey’s primary objective was to determine concerns and perceptions of EMRs and gauge motivating factors at a time when U.S. federal legislation includes incentives for physicians who implement and use EMRs and penalties for those who do not adopt EMRs by 2015. The New York Academy of Medicine assisted with the qualitative survey and analysis.

Among the key findings:

• 58 percent of non-users intend to purchase an EMR system within the next two years;
• About 80 percent of physicians under the age of 55 plan to implement an EMR system within the next two years;
• Three-quarters of non-users are intrigued by the idea of purchasing an EMR system from a local hospital - if the purchase is at least partially subsidized by the hospital;
• On average, non-users would expect a hospital/health network to subsidize about half the cost of an EMR system;
• The key driver of EMR adoption is federal legislation - 61 percent cited federal penalties for non-adoption and 51 percent cited federal incentives;
• Non-users underestimate the cost and time requirements to implement an EMR system, but also have an exaggerated perception of difficulties in using EMR systems, compared to the actual experiences of EMR users; and
• The vast majority of current EMR users – 90 percent – believe that their EMR system has brought value to their practice, in particular “changing the way their practice works for the better.”

The 90 percent of users who feel their EMR system has been beneficial to their practice cited the following reasons:

• Their EMR system provides an effective overview of patients’ relevant history, records and information; and,
• Their EMR system allows quick and accurate data entry.

“Our research indicates that, as intended, federal legislation is an important driver of EMR adoption among U.S. physicians,” said Dr. Kip Webb, who leads Accenture’s clinical transformation practice. “If U.S. health care providers properly implement and use EMRs more broadly, there is no doubt that EMRs can make an important contribution to improving quality of care and controlling costs.”

Above article publish on http://asociagroup.com/blog/?p=1288

The medical community has had quite a challenge to convert to entirely medical records and, in many ways, is still in transition. Dermatologists frequently enjoy straightforward practice settings that integrate patient data on surgical procedures, patients’ historical data, and newer technologies that continue to emerge. Any more, the accuracy and reliability of these data systems are improving and high quality dermatology care is being increasingly streamlined. The sophisticated technology is undermined, however, if each piece of the dermatologist’s arsenal isn’t integrated into a comprehensive Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system.

DERMATOLOGY-SPECIFIC WORKFLOW

The term “workflow” refers here to an EMR that adapts to the way you conduct your office activities. Instead of being a cumbersome addition to your workload, the right EMR System for you can and should easily integrate into your unique office setting. For example, if you do physical exams, laser treatments and phlebotomy all in different rooms, you need your EMR to be able to automatically migrate all of the patient’s data so that it is accessible from any computer throughout your office. The days of manually scanning, uploading, and transferring patient data are over. Therefore, we will begin here with the assumption that all patient records will be easily accessible from one user interface, not multiple software programs for different types of records. This includes drawings you use to identify the locations of lesions with respect to anatomy. As you will read in a moment, all of this information can be housed within one EMR System.

VERIFY EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE COMPATIBILITY

Many dermatologists acquire new patients from a host of community referral locations, with physicians that use different machines and software than they own in their office. You need to be able to verify their previous imaging for the best possible patient care and to avoid repeating any tests, particularly for staging various cancers. The problem is that trying to choose an EMR based on the myriad of consultant’s equipment is difficult at best. For example, if you use the DicomWorks viewer for viewing radiographic images, but a patient brings you a CD-ROM from a consultant that used CT Scanner from Toshiba, the Aquilion 16-Slice, you need to make sure that the EMR you choose to grow your practice will be compatible.

If you consult on patients in the hospital or another setting separate from your primary office, the right EMR can really help increase your efficiency. First, being able to view the patient’s record remotely while your taking the consulting physician’s phone call can be extremely helpful. Second, you can synchronize the data on your laptop or handheld device directly into your EMR. Taking your laptop of portable digital assistant with you on your visit to the away patient can save you time by not having to type notes a second time after the consult is finished.

DRAWING DERMATOLOGIC IMAGES IN YOUR EMR

A growing trend is for physicians to use tablet PC’s at bedside. This lends itself very easily to using EMR’s that allow you to draw on anatomical diagrams directly in the patient’s record. Traditional desktop computers also allow this feature. For example, you can outline a nevus and the EMR software will convert that to an image file that is saved with the patient record. This can be particularly useful when tracking growth. You will need to put specific notes in the text areas of the EMR for it to be searchable later.

BUILDING TRUST IN YOUR EMR SYSTEM

Dermatologists are known to conduct rather extensive excisions of carcinomas in the clinic setting. Your EMR should record vital signs in real time and trigger audible and visual notifications in the event of abnormal readings. You shouldn’t have to watch the monitor continually; rather you can control all the parameters and alarms exactly how you want them to behave.

EASILY TRACK STAFF AND PATIENTS’ ACTIVITIES

Appointment reminders and recurring laboratory studies frequently require valuable time from your staff. An EMR System that could integrate automatic emails or phone calls one week prior to an appointment would improve efficiency.

In addition, your EMR should timestamp and track every authorized user’s activities. From ordering special materials prior to nuclear studies, to tracking who logs into the EMR, a lot of repetitive tasks can be integrated into an office system that curbs human error and improves your practice’s measurable outcomes.

Above article publish on http://www.emrconsultant.com/education/dermatologists-guide

Today’s cardiologists rely heavily on electronic data. From echocardiogram and stress test machines to catheterization suites, the accuracy and reliability of these data systems are paramount for delivering high quality cardiology care. The sophisticated technology is undermined, however, if each piece of the cardiologist’s arsenal isn’t integrated into a comprehensive Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system.

CARDIOLOGY-SPECIFIC EMR’S

The EMR System you choose needs to be able to integrate into your office setting. For example, if you do physical exams, echocardiograms and stress testing all in different rooms, you need your EMR to be able to automatically migrate all of the patient’s data so that it is accessible from any computer. The days of manually scanning, uploading, and transferring patient data are over. Therefore, we will begin here with the assumption that all patient records will be easily accessible from one user interface, not multiple software programs for different types of records.

VERIFY EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE COMPATIBILITY

Many cardiologists send their patients for tests that use different machines and software than they own in their office. Choosing an EMR based on the myriad of consultant’s equipment is difficult at best.

BUILDING TRUST IN YOUR EMR SYSTEM

Besides equipment compatibility, the right EMR for your office should make your life easier, not harder. The daily operations of your cardiology practice should not have to adapt to accommodate an antiquated EMR. It should be the other way around. For example, if a patient is in your Philips Integris Cath Lab suite and their latest potassium result is 7.4, a combination of audible and visual notifications should be triggered. You shouldn’t have to wait in the Emergency Department to receive all of your laboratory results before taking the patient to the cath lab; rather you should have a system in place that you can trust will alert you to critical developments.

EASILY TRACK STAFF AND PATIENTS’ ACTIVITIES

The last thing your sophisticated cardiology suite and EMR System should do is be a burden to those that use it the most – your office personnel. Verify that your EMR will seamlessly integrate patient appointments, reminders, and other scheduling details. Special tests such as fasting lipid profiles often require that your staff spend time sending out reminders and tracking down results prior to their appointment with you. An EMR System that could integrate automatic emails or phone calls one week prior to an appointment would improve efficiency. From ordering special materials prior to nuclear studies, to tracking who logs into the EMR, a lot of repetitive tasks can be integrated into an office system that curbs human error and improves your practice’s measurable outcomes.

DICOM COMPATIBILITY

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) is a standard construct used increasingly by Health Information Systems, but it is not universal. Because you will view color video of echocardiograms, roentgenograms, and graphical data, the EMR System you choose will likely need to meet this standard.

Specifically, DICOM covers handling, storing, printing, and transmitting information in medical imaging. To ensure that all of the equipment and software you use can be accessed and viewed within your EMR interface, it will be important to navigate the technical areas of licensing fees versus free viewers and custom integration programming.

Above article publish on http://www.emrconsultant.com/education/cardiologists-guide

Many of today’s modern anesthesiologists have relied heavily on electronic patient records for quite some time. From medical histories during pre-op, to intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring, the accuracy and reliability of these data systems are paramount for delivering high quality anesthesiology care. The sophisticated technology is undermined, however, if the pieces of the anesthesiologist’s record systems aren’t integrated into a comprehensive Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system.

ANESTHESIOLOGY-SPECIFIC EMR’S

Unless you’re in a private anesthesiology group, you may not have much choice in the EMR System you use, but consider this. An EMR system designed by anesthesiologists will be more relevant to your daily workflow with much less after market modification than other systems. It would be ideal if you could find an EMR that would let you have a complete compliment of anesthesiology-specific content and integrate its data with the existing EMR software that you use in the hospitals where you hold privileges.

The EMR System that you choose needs to be able to allow for the particular way your practice operates and your daily workflow. For example, if you take preoperative patient histories using on hospital-based EMR system, but the anesthesiology-specific EMR suite that you want is different, you need your EMR to automatically migrate all of the patient’s data so that it is instantly accessible from your office, the operating room, or any other computer workstation. The days of manually scanning, uploading, and transferring patient data are over. Therefore, we will begin here with the assumption that all patient records will be easily accessible from one user interface, not multiple software programs for different types of records.

VERIFY EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE COMPATIBILITY

Many surgeons send their patients for tests that use different machines and software than they the hospital has access to. Choosing an EMR based on the myriad of consultant’s equipment is difficult at best. For example, if cardiologists cleared a C.A.B.G. patient using the Welch Allyn Propaq Stress Testing System and you want to see the EKG tracings yourself, you need to make sure that the EMR you choose will let you grow your practice in all of these circumstances.

BUILDING TRUST IN YOUR EMR SYSTEM

In addition to software compatibility between all of the records systems that you access, the right EMR for your practice should make your life easier, not harder. The daily operations of your anesthesiology practice should not have to adapt to accommodate an antiquated EMR; it should be the other way around. For example, if a patient’s most recent intraoperative hematocrit drops by eight points, a combination of audible and visual notifications should be triggered. You shouldn’t have to manually check everything and lose precious time before replenishing blood products; rather you should have a system in place, which acts as an adjunct to your traditional methods of ensuring patient safety. Over time, you will build trust that your new EMR will alert you to critical developments.

EASILY TRACK STAFF AND PATIENTS’ ACTIVITIES

Don’t waste time learning complicated software systems that seem to drain more energy than you expect. Your new EMR should be convenient, easy to use, and save you time. If you have other personnel, such as secretaries or nurses that access your EMR, it should make their life easier too, not increase their burden. Verify that your EMR will seamlessly integrate patient appointments, reminders, and other scheduling details.

From ordering special materials and gases for inventory, to tracking who logs into the EMR, a lot of repetitive tasks can be integrated into your anesthesiology practice’s unique system. This will help curb human error and improve your practice’s measurable outcomes.

DICOM COMPATIBILITY

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) is a standard construct used increasingly by Health Information Systems, but it is not universal. Because you will view color video of Doppler ultrasounds, plain radiographs and graphical data, the EMR System you choose will likely need to meet this standard.

Above article publish on http://www.emrconsultant.com/education/anesthesiologists-guide

By Peter Polack

A good electronic medical records system must be able to demonstrate a process for maintaining the legal integrity of its records. Here we cover some of the top considerations when moving your practice from paper to digital.

As a practice makes the transition from paper to electronic medical records, they may encounter a variety of legal concerns. Some important decisions must be made to ensure the legal integrity of digital records. Additionally, there will be some surprises in store regarding compliance, privacy, and security. In matters of electronic medical records, the best offense is a good defense. Here are some issues to consider:

When you write a medical exam on a piece of paper and sign it, you’ve created a legal document. By now you are probably well aware of the importance of documentation, and the dangers which alterations to medical records invite. A paper chart’s integrity is usually rather simple to determine. However, an electronic chart is often more complicated. According to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, an electronic record must be stored in a legally correct manner - otherwise it may be considered hearsay, challenged as legally invalid.

So, why is this important? Well, if your electronic medical records don’t meet the Federal or State requirements for a medical record, payors can deny a claim. Or, even worse, you may subject your practice to an increased risk of an adverse outcome in litigation. It’s not only important to be sure your electronic medical records are not altered, but you also need the ability to demonstrate the procedures which prove this fact.

How do you make sure an electronic record cannot be altered? The ideal system must balance the user’s desires, including ability to correct mistakes and make changes, with the legal integrity of the record itself.

- Does your EMR system “time stamp” each entry to produce an audit trail? This could include an unalterable record of every entry and event in order to prove the validity of the record.

- Does it restrict access to certain templates or features? You wouldn’t want a front desk employee changing patients’ intraocular pressures, for example.

- Does the system keep track of which person documented what? You wouldn’t want your name associated with another user’s entry.

- Does it have a strict but not too time-consuming security protocol? Some solutions include alphanumeric passwords that are changed periodically, biometric access, and automatic logout after a period of inactivity.

- Does it have a secure yet practical “lock-out” feature? A typical one might allow the doctor to make changes at the end of the day, but after 24 hours the record locks. This may seem a bit harsh, but it could actually serve to protect you by preventing unauthorized changes.

Above article publish on http://www.buzzle.com/articles/some-of-the-legal-issues-with-electronic-medical-records.html

Patty Enrado, Contributing Editor

Long before ARRA, more than five years ago, the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center began a $50 million electronic medical record initiative. This past summer, UCSF reportedly wrote off a third of that cost and scrapped its contract with the EMR vendor. The EMR system reportedly had technical difficulties that never enabled it to be fully functional. Undeterred, UCSF is forging ahead with its goal of digitizing its patient records, which says a lot about its faith in EMRs.

UCSF Medical Center isn’t the first healthcare system to have a costly, disastrous experience, and it won’t be the last. Industry stakeholders, however, need to work together to ensure that the number of failures dwindle significantly.

The most important thing that the EHR/EMR market can do for itself is to be transparent. If there is no transparency, how can healthcare systems perform accurate due diligence? There’s a business reason for non-disclosure clauses in sales contracts, which prevent purchasers from reporting problems with the health IT vendor or their products, and “hold harmless” clauses, which exempt vendors from any liability. It may guarantee a risk-free business environment for the health IT vendor, but it hurts the EMR market and eventually hurts the health IT vendor’s reputation. Clinicians and healthcare organization executives may be obligated to remain silent about the product and/or the vendor’s problems, but they will talk informally to their counterparts in other healthcare organizations. You’ve heard the complaints. You know which health IT companies did what to whom.

Transparency need not be the enemy of health IT companies if they have solid products and customer support. For those that have had problems - and I’m not saying they have bad products or customer support - it’s a business imperative to fix those problems. There are less-expensive, more flexible EMR solutions that have come into the market in the last year. There will be other UCSF Medical Centers that cut off their legacy vendor and start anew.

There are some in the industry who say so long as the federal stimulus incentives help subsidize the purchase of legacy systems the problems will continue. University of Pennsylvania sociologist Ross Koppel believes the federal government should have put that money to use by developing “more usable and more responsible software.” I think that route would have been successful as a first step, though I still believe in the incentives. There are some who believe the federal government should regulate the EMR industry. If that sounds odious, then perhaps the EMR industry ought to regulate itself.

As for healthcare providers, they need to understand the enormity of the task. What I mean is that they need to not only put up the cash for the initiative but dedicate human resources to the initiative. Dedicate a team, if that is what is required.

I’d be remiss not to mention that for every UCSF there is a UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) - large healthcare systems that have successfully implemented big-budget EMRs and are reaping administrative and clinical benefits. The problem is there aren’t enough of them. And that’s why there is hesitation among healthcare systems. As an industry, let’s try to increase those success stories.

Above article published on http://www.healthcareitnews.com/blog/how-healthcare-industry-can-increase-number-successful-ehremr-initiatives

BY DR. SCOTT RANSOM

When Dr. Henry Plummer developed the concept of the “unit record” nearly 100 years ago, his idea was to place all of a patient’s records in a single file that traveled with the patient and could be stored in a central repository. His concept of medical care continuity quickly became the standard for medical record keeping worldwide.

I wonder what Dr. Plummer would make of today’s adoption of electronic medical records (EMR) by U.S. health care providers? After all, the concept is basically the same, just expanded to take advantage of today’s capacious electronic storage and retrieval methods.

Even the federal government has gotten into the act, defining a complete EMR system as containing four basic functions: computerized orders for prescriptions, computerized orders for tests, reporting of test results and physician notes.

In a perfect world, an EMR system tracks a patient’s entire health and medical history in a computerized, electronic format that is accessible wherever the patient is. These records are more easily retrievable than manual systems, and can make a patient’s navigation through the health care system much safer and more efficient.

But it’s hardly a perfect world. Even though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has made the promotion of a national, interoperable health information system a priority, EMRs have not been adopted nearly as quickly in the U.S. as one might expect. Issues, including the high cost, lack of standardization, security and privacy have stood in the way of implementation.

A recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine points out that hospital EMR adoption rates are still abysmal, concluding that only about 8 percent of the 3,000 hospitals studied by researchers used even a basic EMR in a single unit, which included nurse or physician notes. And only 1.5 percent of non-federal U.S. facilities use a comprehensive EMR.

This seems counter-intuitive, especially when one considers the numerous advantages of EMRs, starting with efficiency. Information stored in an electronic format can be retrieved easily at the touch of a button or the click of a mouse. Search and retrieval times are a fraction of what they would be in manual systems. At the very least, this saves time by eliminating the need to complete the old manual medical history forms at a new physician’s office. This also reduces the chance for error when a patient forgets to list certain prescribed medications or supplements. It’s all there in one easily accessible record.

But efficiency isn’t the only benefit. For patients, access to good care becomes easier and safer when records can easily be shared. Important information — such as blood type, prescribed drugs, medical conditions and other medical history aspects — can be accounted for much more quickly. Doctors and other medical personnel can retrieve these medical records from anywhere using handheld devices like an iPhone, which allows them to continue treatment no matter where they are. And, in case of emergency, information can be shared with emergency room physicians who can then order diagnostic tests and share results online.

Another benefit is safety. It’s estimated that nearly 98,000 patients die annually by preventable medical errors of some type. It’s entirely possible that these numbers could be greatly reduced by a comprehensive medical history information generated through an EMR system.

The Mayo Clinic is setting the standard for EMR implementation. With one of the largest such systems in the world, all medical documentation relating to a patient’s care – physician notes, laboratory reports, surgical dictations, copies of correspondence, appointment schedules, X-rays, ultrasounds, CT and MRI scans, echocardiograms – is instantly available to caregivers via more than 16,000 computer terminals on Mayo’s three campuses. The efficiencies created by simply typing a few identifying keystrokes to retrieve a patient’s record saves a doctor’s practice or a hospital many thousands of dollars. That’s even taking the cost of the electronic system into account.

Even the federal government thinks electronic record keeping is important. Veterans’ hospitals across the country share an electronic system called VistA, which shares records of veterans in its health system. Should a patient find him or herself in a VA hospital, even away from home, the hospital will have the same access to his or her records that the hometown hospital does.

It’s interesting to note that a recent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute contends that Medicaid penalties might do more to boost EMR adoption than incentives, like available funding to physicians to purchase and implement EMRs. According to the report, “Provisions in the stimulus law that call for cuts in Medicare reimbursements, rather than a multibillion-dollar incentive program, will do more to push the adoption of electronic medical records among hospitals and doctor practices by 2015.”

However EMR adoption happens, it’s critical that it happen sooner rather than later. The health care industry’s ability to provide efficient, coordinated, safe and high-quality care is only enhanced by the rapid availability of accurate data. And with the availability of solid data, researchers can also use the EMR to analyze large amounts of patient information more efficiently, speeding the application of new research findings and vastly improving patient care in the future.

Just as Dr. Plummer saw beyond the information exchange limitations of his era, we can see the benefits of using the latest technologies for the practice of continuity in 21st century medicine. But the goal, just as it was in Dr. Plummer’s time, or even going as far back as Hippocrates and his famous oath, is still nobly laudable: “First, do no harm.”

Above article published on http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=11302

BY DR. SCOTT RANSOM

When Dr. Henry Plummer developed the concept of the “unit record” nearly 100 years ago, his idea was to place all of a patient’s records in a single file that traveled with the patient and could be stored in a central repository. His concept of medical care continuity quickly became the standard for medical record keeping worldwide.

I wonder what Dr. Plummer would make of today’s adoption of electronic medical records (EMR) by U.S. health care providers? After all, the concept is basically the same, just expanded to take advantage of today’s capacious electronic storage and retrieval methods.

Even the federal government has gotten into the act, defining a complete EMR system as containing four basic functions: computerized orders for prescriptions, computerized orders for tests, reporting of test results and physician notes.

In a perfect world, an EMR system tracks a patient’s entire health and medical history in a computerized, electronic format that is accessible wherever the patient is. These records are more easily retrievable than manual systems, and can make a patient’s navigation through the health care system much safer and more efficient.

But it’s hardly a perfect world. Even though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has made the promotion of a national, interoperable health information system a priority, EMRs have not been adopted nearly as quickly in the U.S. as one might expect. Issues, including the high cost, lack of standardization, security and privacy have stood in the way of implementation.

A recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine points out that hospital EMR adoption rates are still abysmal, concluding that only about 8 percent of the 3,000 hospitals studied by researchers used even a basic EMR in a single unit, which included nurse or physician notes. And only 1.5 percent of non-federal U.S. facilities use a comprehensive EMR.

This seems counter-intuitive, especially when one considers the numerous advantages of EMRs, starting with efficiency. Information stored in an electronic format can be retrieved easily at the touch of a button or the click of a mouse. Search and retrieval times are a fraction of what they would be in manual systems. At the very least, this saves time by eliminating the need to complete the old manual medical history forms at a new physician’s office. This also reduces the chance for error when a patient forgets to list certain prescribed medications or supplements. It’s all there in one easily accessible record.

But efficiency isn’t the only benefit. For patients, access to good care becomes easier and safer when records can easily be shared. Important information — such as blood type, prescribed drugs, medical conditions and other medical history aspects — can be accounted for much more quickly. Doctors and other medical personnel can retrieve these medical records from anywhere using handheld devices like an iPhone, which allows them to continue treatment no matter where they are. And, in case of emergency, information can be shared with emergency room physicians who can then order diagnostic tests and share results online.

Another benefit is safety. It’s estimated that nearly 98,000 patients die annually by preventable medical errors of some type. It’s entirely possible that these numbers could be greatly reduced by a comprehensive medical history information generated through an EMR system.

The Mayo Clinic is setting the standard for EMR implementation. With one of the largest such systems in the world, all medical documentation relating to a patient’s care – physician notes, laboratory reports, surgical dictations, copies of correspondence, appointment schedules, X-rays, ultrasounds, CT and MRI scans, echocardiograms – is instantly available to caregivers via more than 16,000 computer terminals on Mayo’s three campuses. The efficiencies created by simply typing a few identifying keystrokes to retrieve a patient’s record saves a doctor’s practice or a hospital many thousands of dollars. That’s even taking the cost of the electronic system into account.

Even the federal government thinks electronic record keeping is important. Veterans’ hospitals across the country share an electronic system called VistA, which shares records of veterans in its health system. Should a patient find him or herself in a VA hospital, even away from home, the hospital will have the same access to his or her records that the hometown hospital does.

It’s interesting to note that a recent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute contends that Medicaid penalties might do more to boost EMR adoption than incentives, like available funding to physicians to purchase and implement EMRs. According to the report, “Provisions in the stimulus law that call for cuts in Medicare reimbursements, rather than a multibillion-dollar incentive program, will do more to push the adoption of electronic medical records among hospitals and doctor practices by 2015.”

However EMR adoption happens, it’s critical that it happen sooner rather than later. The health care industry’s ability to provide efficient, coordinated, safe and high-quality care is only enhanced by the rapid availability of accurate data. And with the availability of solid data, researchers can also use the EMR to analyze large amounts of patient information more efficiently, speeding the application of new research findings and vastly improving patient care in the future.

Just as Dr. Plummer saw beyond the information exchange limitations of his era, we can see the benefits of using the latest technologies for the practice of continuity in 21st century medicine. But the goal, just as it was in Dr. Plummer’s time, or even going as far back as Hippocrates and his famous oath, is still nobly laudable: “First, do no harm.”

Dr. Scott Ransom is president and professor in obstetrics, gynecology, health management and policy at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth.

Above article published on http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=11302

If the state’s governor gets his way, Kentucky will soon be home to a statewide electronic health records system. To foster that goal, State Gov. Steve Beshear (D) has created the Governor’s Office of Electronic Health Information.

The state is creating the office to make sure it gets its share of the Obama administration’s stimulus funding package for EHRs, which goes to states who adopt them by 2014.

To get those funds, states are required to create a department that oversees its EMR project. These state offices serve as single points-of-contact for federal and state agencies helping to get the EMR ball rolling. In this case, the office will also work with the state’s three regional health information organizations, healthcare providers, consumers, insurers and the whole kit and kaboodle involved in sharing health data.

It will be interesting to see if any of this comes to fruition. Despite some big talk, RHIOs aren’t going great guns, and getting a state’s worth of EMRs in place by 2014 sounds a tad optimistic at best. But hey, press releases wouldn’t exist if people weren’t optimistic!

Above article published on

http://www.fierceemr.com/story/kentucky-launches-initiative-designed-foster-statewide-emr-system/2009-08-20

By Brian Smith / Register News Writer

The days of a white-coated doctor taking a pen from his pocket and making notations in a file are long gone.

With computers becoming smaller, cheaper and more portable, health care professionals are replacing paper records with electronic records that can be instantly accessed.

The Madison County Health Department’s home health division, MEPCO Home Health, is in the process of implementing an electronic medical records (EMR) system, department spokesperson Christie Green said, and will begin using the system on Sept. 1.

“EMRs will make things faster, more efficient and will provide a huge space savings,” Green said. “For example, MEPCO will be moving from nearly 200 square feet of filing space to electronic records housed in a server room of less than 40 feet.”

Federal health care reform efforts have focused on transitioning health care providers to EMR systems to increase efficiency and reduce spending.

Local public health director Jim Rousey said that an EMR system frees personnel to spend more time treating patients instead of making records.

“Every year, our home health nurses were spending more and more time fulfilling documentation requirements for patient care,” Rousey said.

“This interfered with what nurses really wanted to be doing, which was taking care of patients.

“Employing an electronic medical record system should reduce the amount of time it takes to document the care and ultimately provide more time with the patients,” he said.

Rousey said that using an EMR can take some adjustment for practitioners experienced in maintaining paper records.

“At the beginning, there is a steep learning curve for everyone. Sometimes it actually takes longer to use the EMR in the beginning, but the efficiency becomes apparent as everyone gets accustomed to the system,” Rousey said.

At Pattie A. Clay Regional Medical Center, which switched to an EMR system in 2004, the system has paid large benefits, said Joy Barnes, information technology director.

“The nurse at the bedside may need to spend more time to initially gather and document patient information, but the administration and reporting side of nursing has seen efficiency improvements in both time and accuracy of the patient chart,” Barnes said.

Cost is still a concern when transitioning to an EMR system, Green said, despite the decrease in equipment costs over the past few years.

“Less than a tenth of our total outlay for an electronic medical records system in MEPCO was for the hardware,” Green said. “The cost of installing, licensing, and maintaining a quality system is still extremely high — in the 100s of thousands of dollars, even for a small family practice.”

Security can be another concern, said Martin Hensley, information technology specialist for the health department.

“Controlling access and ensuring security is a problem that exists on a bigger scale than it did in the past,” Hensley said. “In the past, we could just lock a file room and the charts would be secure. Now, everyone in the agency must be more conscious of security. Each computer terminal or laptop can be a doorway to confidential medical information.”

Barnes and Green also both pointed to making wise choices about the systems that are implemented as a key component of implementing an EMR system.

“In the past, we used carts with laptop computers that were wheeled into each patient room,” Barnes said. “The carts were cumbersome and not the best option, especially in a semi-private room with two patients.

“With the new renovations in place, the nursing staff are testing hand-held computers developed specifically for the health care environment,” Barnes said.

“We have to be aware of the potential for the computer to come between the provider and the patient,” Green said. “For example, large screens may block a patient’s view, or a computer’s location in the room may cause the provider to turn her back to the patient.”

Despite the costs and concerns, Green said EMRs and other health technology have a benefit to patients.

“In the long run, electronic records will increase the speed and accuracy of the flow of information between providers,” Green said.

“This translates into improved quality of care for patients, as various providers can communicate about an individual’s health needs.”

Above article published on

http://www.richmondregister.com/localnews/local_story_236085613.html?keyword=secondarystory