tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7510947223186447788.post1743780705590847709..comments2023-10-05T22:39:37.761-05:00Comments on A Physician on Job Search, Practice and more: Physicians Slow in Adopting Expensive and Inefficient EMRsObGynThoughtshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09968829807651784347noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7510947223186447788.post-69910988457851280882007-07-10T08:35:00.000-05:002007-07-10T08:35:00.000-05:00Dear 'A urologist' (Dr. Lin):we are looking at the...Dear 'A urologist' (Dr. Lin):<BR/>we are looking at the same issue from different angles. I agree with you in every aspect, but ant to emphasize that you focus on the long term view. Yes, the EMR is the future, it will come to the vast majority of offices and it will bring great benefits - then ones you mention and maybe more. EMRs will in the not so distant future allow us to compare our diagnoses and treatments with those of the most advanced colleagues in our fields, it may present us with instant updates on the newest literature most relevant to the patient and her present problem. For universities hospital wide EMRs will be akin to "paper generators", since it will be very easy to mine tens of thousands of charts for any kind of data. We all will be better off for it. These are the issues you focus on.<BR/><BR/>But in the meantime I am sitting in front of a system that makes it tedious for me to even send a letter to the referring physician, where charting and billing is not integrated, where the software does not work well with the tablet I am carrying into the exam room and on and on. That is what I am focusing on. The bumps in the road need to be taken care of, then the road will be what it was emant to be: a highway that will allow us to travel far with ease.<BR/>Your Matthias MuenzerObGynThoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09968829807651784347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7510947223186447788.post-18887719648198640892007-07-08T22:34:00.000-05:002007-07-08T22:34:00.000-05:00The reason for low EMR adoption among physicians i...The reason for low EMR adoption among physicians is multi-faceted. Cost, technophobia, reluctance to change, "hidden agendas", poor usability, lack of ROI, decreased efficiency, lack of industry standard, etc., are just some of the issues. I think the fundamental resistance is often the need to change. Change is stressful to not only the physician, but also the support staff.<BR/><BR/>A physician should look at the long-term gains and realize the short term costs in dollars, time, and effort is well worth it. A fully functional and integrated PM/EMR will allow him/her to leverage the data amassed through his EMR / Practice Management software to effectively evaluate his/her performance, production (in terms of dollars/pts seen/RVUs), patient outcome management, and perhaps better negotiate with insurers. These data can also be used to market his efforts in starting or growing a practice.<BR/><BR/>One only needs to look at recent efforts by Google's Adam Bosworth to realize that some form of electronic patient records is coming, despite reluctance by physicians to adopt. Patients will very quickly be electronically empowered despite poor adoption by physicians. EMR or not, will a physician be liable when a patient comes in with his PHR (Personal Health Record) and the physician fails to diagnose and treat because he did not fully evaluate that PHR? I would rather have an electronic medium whereby that PHR can be organized and manipulated instead of swimming in more static sheets of paper.<BR/><BR/>Realizing that the cost of NON-adoption will be greater to me in the long run for the above and multiple other efficiency and safety reasons, I have acquired a fully-integrated system that allows me to import/export CCR (Continuity of Care Record), is CCHIT certified, and will keep me interoperable as I mature my practice. The ability to customize the EMR (including changing the incoherent ICD-9 language into something understandable and relevant clinically, yet still being able to send that code to billing without error) is the minimum criterion when anyone evaluates a system. True electronic prescriptions (NOT faxing or simply printing out a piece of paper), easily generating and faxing a referring provider note, and being able to keep "social notes" are also what I consider "minimum standards" for an EMR.<BR/><BR/>Acquisition of EMRs should not be based on price or the number of clicks alone to complete a task. Ultimately, the product must be compatible with and be tailored to the long-term goals of the practitioner and be able to ensure good patient care.pp-mdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297195958053289665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7510947223186447788.post-21188594955249253612007-07-01T10:06:00.000-05:002007-07-01T10:06:00.000-05:00Dr. MuenzerI am not a physician, but have consulte...Dr. Muenzer<BR/><BR/>I am not a physician, but have consulted with a number of them in their<BR/>practices, and have encountered resistance to EMRs and all computer-based<BR/>record systems from as simple a reason as their not being able to type,<BR/>therefore use a keyboard well. I agree that the systems are anything but<BR/>easy to use in many cases, but on the other hand, I lack the talent to<BR/>create a truly simple and convenient system. My aim was only to mention<BR/>two logical reasons for physician resistance or at least reluctance in<BR/>addition to many others. In any case, I hope your EMR eventually helps<BR/>rather than annoys you.<BR/><BR/>ScottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com