Digitized Medicine

Twitter Chats and Physicians (#eRx630)

Today I (as @drmattmurray) and @TexMed moderated our first Twitter Chat that focused on the topic of e-prescribing. To participate in a Twitter Chat a physician must have a Twitter account and must know the date, time and Twitter hashtag for the Twitter Chat.  In our case the hashtag-- #eRx630--refers to e-prescribing and the date, June 30th, by which time physicians must meet the CMS requirements regarding the use e-prescribing. Physicians who fail to use a qualified e-prescribing system or certified EHR to enter at least 10 e-prescriptions during eligible Medicare encounters will incur a 1% penalty on 2012 Medicare claims.    On the other hand, those who meet this requirement are eligible for a 1% bonus. 

Despite the high importance of this subject matter, there were not any other physicians participating on this particular Twitter Chat.   At least none that we heard from.   It was lonely.  

However, we considered this to be an experiment and a chance to experience what it is like to actually moderate a Twitter Chat.    Without a lot of participating "chit-chat", it was difficult to coordinate questions and answers with my friends @TexMed and @TexMedHIT.     We basically asked each other questions or even asked ourselves for our own answers.  I think we did get out some excellent information, but this would have been more valuable with some active back-and-forth dialogue.   Again, though, the purpose of this venture was to dip our toes in the water to see how this type of format could be used in the future. 

Twitter Chat among physicians will certainly have challenges, but I think it will find it's place as a useful mode of communication for specific purposes and in certain situations.  The format will need to be refined, and this means we will have to try it (like today!), experiment with it, refine it and keep doing that PDSA thing to it (Plan-Do-Study-Act).   Eventually it will find a place where it serves as an effective way to communicate some things.     I already have found Twitter useful at large medical conferences that use a hashtag to communicate real-time information.    It is a matter of finding the right niches. 

One of the useful aspects of a Twitter Chat is that a transcript can be created of the entire conversation.  This means that you don't have to be "online" and engaged in the Twitter stream for the entire duration of the chat.   Since most physicians are hard pressed to find an un-interrupted hour, they would find it very helpful to be able to access and peruse the transcript at their leisure.

Here is a transcript of today's Twitter Chat #eRx630:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Help Available For Small Physician Practices to Overcome Technology Challenges

American Medical Association (AMA) President, Cecil B. Wilson, M.D., said in an AMA Commentary this week, "Physicians should take the time to explore their practice needs, assess their practice's readiness to adopt health IT and select the right system for the practice --and its patients".    This is wise advice that I wholeheartedly agree with.

I also agree that the successful adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) impose many new challenges onto physician practices and that overcoming these barriers is especially difficult for physicians in small practices or solo practices that are constrained by limited resources.   My only disappointment with Dr. Wilson's message to physicians is that it failed to highlight how Regional Extension Centers (RECs) can be leveraged by physicians to address these issues with EHR adoption and use.

The HITECH portion of the 2009 Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included over $677 million in grant funds to establish RECs across the nation to cover every geographic region.   The purpose of each REC is to provide consulting services to physicians that help them overcome many of the described barriers to the adoption and use of EHRs.   It is important for physicians to know that the RECs receive federal subsidies specifically based on and proportionate to the number of primary care physicians in solo or small group practices (<10 physicians) that they successfully help adopt, implement and meaningfully use an EHR.  In other words, RECs are financially dependent on providing effective health IT consulting services to a segment of physicians who have the greatest need for such services.

In Texas there are four RECs including the North Texas REC (NTREC) for which I volunteer time as Board Chairman.    Other Texas physicians volunteer their time to comprise 50% of the governing boards for each of the four RECs.   Our goal is to ensure that our RECs are physician-friendly and remained focused on providing high quality services that meet the technology needs of small physician practices in each region.   Texas RECs collaborated with each other to create a common business plan that leverages the federal subsidies to charge Texas physicians a token fee of $300 for IT consulting services worth over $5,000.    

NTREC will receive 100% of their allotted subsidies if we successfully help 1,500 physicians adopt EHRs and achieve meaningful use.   Since last October more than 500 North Texas physicians have enrolled for NTREC services; over half of them have already successfully implemented an EHR and are now working on the achieving meaningful use of their investment.

My hope is that physicians in other states will emulate our efforts by actively engaging in the governance of their region's RECs to ensure that they are physician-centric and remain focused on addressing the unmet needs of the small physician practices.

 

Comparison of Web-based vs. Traditional EHRs For Physician Offices

An ambulatory electronic health record (EHR) can be provided to the physician practice through one of two different models:    

1. Web-based-- also referred to as a "hosted EHR" or the "ASP Model" where the physician accesses the EHR through an Internet connection
2. Client-Server (C/S)--  the traditional model where the EHR server may physically resides in the  physician's office

Both models are considered to be acceptable, but each has inherent pros and cons to consider.   The traditional model of choice has been the “client-server” model.   In this model the EMR software is installed on a server that is typically located in the physician’s office.  The physician and staff access the EMR through computer devices that are connected to the server through a local area network (LAN) set up in the office.  The computers may be connected wirelessly to the network if desired.   This model has a few similarities to loading Quicken on your home computer and then using Quicken to pay bills online: 

1. After loading Quicken onto your computer you will periodically be advised by Quicken to take "updates" to fix known "bugs" in the software.  Similarly, you will load the EHR software onto the server in your office and physically download any updates to fix "bugs" that the vendor discovers and fixes.     
2. Microsoft periodically advises you to take security updates on your home computer.  Similarly, the EHR server will need to take periodic updates from Microsoft.
3. You may later decide to upgrade Quicken to its latest version, and then purchase and install the Quicken upgrade on your computer.  Similarly, you will want to upgrade your EHR software periodically, usually every 12-18 months.
4. You may decide in the future to purchase a new home computer that is faster;  you will have to then load the Quicken software onto that new computer and transfer all of your old Quicken data to the new computer.  Similarly, you will need to periodically replace the EHR server with a newer one that is faster, stronger and/or meets future recommended requirements of the EHR software.  And make sure your data gets transferred as well.

The web-based model is gaining popularity.  In this model the EHR software is located on a server at a remote location designated and hosted by the EHR vendor.  The physician and staff access the EHR through the Internet on computer devices in the office.  This is analogous to online banking that you access on your home computer and use to pay your bills online (instead of using Quicken).  Using this analogy: 

1.  You will not physically have to take updates because the bank will update the software themselves
2.  Microsoft will not ask you to take Microsoft security updates to the online banking server because the bank hosts the server and will do that themselves
3. When there is an upgrade to the online banking software, you do not have to purchase and physically load that software on your computer because the bank does that on their server that you are simply accessing.
4. If the online banking server is too slow you will not have to purchase a new server, the bank will do that (if enough customers complain)...and they will migrate your data over to that new server)

Here is a comparison chart for these two EHR models:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, the business side of me is strongly averse to allowing a 3^rd party vendor to take care of the “heart and soul” of my practice (i.e. the revenue dollars and the clinical data).   Hence, in private practice I would strongly favor keeping the server in-house.     However, the clinic I currently work at is a small part of a large academic institution.   For our ambulatory EMR I am leaning toward recommending a web-based model.  The presence of an institutional IT Department whose primary purpose is to support the education of thousands of students, not to understand and dedicate the resources needed to provide a high level of clinical IT support required for a clinician using an EHR.  And I know who is most likely to get trumped down the road when conflicting priorities arise!

Why should primary care physicians enroll for Regional Extension Center services?

Why should primary care physicians sign up for REC services?   What are the unique selling points and assistance they will receive as compared to other consultant organizations?  

These are excellent questions I am hearing from physicians in Texas regarding the four RECs that cover our entire state.  The RECs are subsidized by the federal government through the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act which appropriated $640 million in REC grant funds to create 62 RECs across the nation, including the four in Texas. 

Primary care physicians in Texas should use REC services because they will receive a steep discount for high quality services that are provided through a trustworthy, physician-centric organization that was specifically created to meet the technological needs of physicians in their region.

In Texas the four RECs have collaborated to develop a shared business plan that leverages the federal subsidies to provide onsite technical consulting for a token fee of $300.    For this $300 enrollment fee Texas physicians receive over $5,000 in consulting services which include:

• EHR implementation and project management;
• HIT education and training; 
• Vendor selection and financial consultation; 
• Practice and workflow redesign; 
• Privacy and security compliance education; 
• Meaningful use analysis, tracking, and monitoring; 
• Assistance in meeting meaningful use requirements for CMS incentives; 
• Collaboration with state and national health information exchange (HIE); 
• Ongoing technical assistance; and 
• Opportunities for CME credit hours

In addition to this steeply discounted enrollment fee, the Texas Medical Association (TMA) works closely with the RECs to help ensure that the RECs are physician-centric and focused on meeting physician needs.    Physicians hold 50% of the seats on each REC's governing board as a result of the TMA’s early efforts.

Another unique selling point is that the REC technical consultants are specifically focused on, and experienced with, the small physician practice.    Other IT consultants naturally give priority to large practices or healthcare systems where they get large amounts of money from a small number of contracts.    The REC consultants, on the other hand, only get a small amount of money per contract, but they get a large number of them.    This business strategy allows them to become more experienced with and more focused on the small practice.    The REC administrative staffs enable this strategy by facilitating the enrollment of a large number of physicians and by using the REC federal grant funds to offer physicians the steep discount.

The four RECs in Texas are:

• Gulf Coast Regional Extension Center (GCREC)
• CentrEast Regional Extension Center (CEREC)
• North Texas Regional Extension Center (NTREC)
• Texas Tech University Health Science Center

For Meaningful Use Payment: Goin' to the CHPL, Gonna Get a "CMS EHR ID"

Use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology is a core requirement for physicians and hospitals to become “meaningful users” and to be eligible for payments under the Medicare or Medicaid EHR incentive programs.    Operationally, CMS requires providers who apply for these payments to submit the "CMS EHR ID" that their certified EHR technology is assigned.   Physicians and hospitals will benefit from an awareness of several issues revolving around EHR certification and on this CMS EHR ID, especially when "goin' to the CHPL" as noted below.

Awareness Issue #1:  The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) in 2010 established a temporary certification program for EHR products.    A permanent certification program, which builds upon the current temporary program, is expected to be ready to launch by the end of 2011.   This program uses ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies to test and certify EHR products.   The list of certified EHRs is updated as new products are certified and posted on the Certified HIT Product List (CHPL) website.    CHPL is maintained by ONC and is the sole, designated authoritative list of currently certified EHR products.  

Awareness Issue #2:    ONC certification is different from that provided by the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT).    CCHIT certification is based on more comprehensive criteria.    CCHIT certification continues to be an important resource for those who are in the process of selecting an EMR because of this more comprehensive testing.    ONC certification testing, on the other hand, is specifically based on the CMS Meaningful Use criteria. 

Awareness Issue #3:   EHR products are tested and certified by ONC as either a Complete EHR or a Modular EHR.   A Complete EHR product is defined as an EHR product that meets all of the certification criteria for meaningful use.  A Modular EHR product is defined as an EHR product that meets at least one but not all meaningful use criteria.

Awareness Issue #4:   When a physician or hospital apply for their incentive payment they are asked to submit to CMS the "CMS EHR ID" that is assigned to their EHR product(s).  The CHPL website is the only place where this ID number can be found.  

Awareness Issue #5:    When looking for this CMS EHR ID number, it is helpful to know that this is not the same number ONC provides the EHR vendors when they are certified.    This is because some providers may decide to use a modular approach and combine Modular EHR products from different vendors in order to achieve meaningful use (i.e. a basic EMR without e-prescribing from one vendor and an e-prescribing module from another).  

Awareness Issue #5:   As the website works today, the CMS EHR ID can only be found on the "Grocery Cart" page and only after the <Get CMS EHR ID> button is activated.    One first selects their EHR product(s), puts them in their "Grocery Cart" and then goes to their <Grocery Cart> page.    The button becomes available when one has either:

• selected a certified Complete EHR product

                                     or

• selected a set of certified Modular EHR products that meet all of the certification criteria      

It interesting and helpful that CHPL provides real-time feedback when selecting a set of Modular EHRs.  Once all of the criteria are met, the <Get CMS EHR ID> button becomes available.  

Awareness Issue #6:    Regarding the modular option, the CMS certification process does not include integrated testing of all the possible permutations of Modular EHR sets that can be selected.    So even though a set of Modular EHR products may produce a CMS EHR ID on the CHPL website, this does not mean that the selected set of products were tested as an integrated unit.   This does mean that the physician or hospital who is in the EHR selection process should not depend on the CMS EHR ID to determine whether the selected products can be interfaced or work together.     Due diligence will still be needed to ensure all of the selected Modular EHR products are compatible.   

In other words, if you're goin' to the CHPL and gonna' get an CMS EHR ID, it's best to know your EHR partners well before purchasing and implementing them!

How to Shame or Acclaim the Same EMR Through Work Flow

It is not uncommon to find physician groups who use the same version of the same electronic medical record (EMR) product but with significantly different degrees of satisfaction.  How can this be?  The following case study illustrates how successful EMR implementations leverage the capabilities of the EMR to streamline work flow and achieve specific goals.  This is the second of six case studies being used to describe the safe use of EMRs.

Work Flow and Communications Case Study:

A pediatric group in the final stages of selecting an EMR product sent their “physician champion” on site visits to two similar practices who had implemented identical versions of the same EMR.  At the first site visit the physicians are very pleased with the EMR and describe how clinical decision support tools help them achieve their goals.  For instance, during an 8 month-old Well Child visit the EMR defaults in a developmental history template that prompts age-appropriate questions.  With a single click on the order button an order set with routine orders for an 8 month-old Well Child visit displays.  The orders are completed in 30 seconds.  The pediatricians proudly tout the weight-based dosing option that calculates medication doses based on the patient’s current weight.

At the second site the physicians, parents and staff grumble about “going electronic” and complain about how long it takes to enter orders.  The visiting physician gains much insight while observing an 8 month-old Well Child visit.  The physicians rarely make eye contact with the parents as they struggle to find age-appropriate developmental screening questions from a long pick-list of questions they had built on a single developmental history template used for all patients.  They order each immunization, test and prescription separately.  Each test requires at least 5 clicks, three screens and a lot of scrolling.   They also manually calculate medication doses and type them onto the e-prescribing screen.   It takes several minutes to complete the orders.   When you ask why they don’t use the EMR’s weight-based dosing option, they reply that they discovered the weight-based dosing function is not safe to use.

Key Points:

• Successful EMR implementations leverage the capabilities of the EMR to streamline work flow and achieve specific goals

Most EMRs have at least some features that can be designed and configured to work in different ways, or not used at all, such as order sets, documentation templates, health care maintenance tools and other clinical decision support tools.  Understanding these capabilities and designing optimal ways to leverage them are critical for successful EMR implementations.  The first group knew their goals and designed the EMR to achieve them.  They were particularly adept at leveraging the EMR’s capabilities to streamline work flow.  The second group, on the other hand, is floundering with poor work flows and no apparent goals for the EMR other than “going electronic”.

• Automation of inefficient paper-based processes is a common risk to avoid

In the first office the physicians consider weight-based dosing to be a real time-saver and patient safety enhancement, but the second office considers it to be a patient safety risk.  It turns out that in the second office the nurse opens up and uses a single documentation template to enter documentation during the entire patient visit just like she did with paper records.  She keeps this template “open” because it takes too much time to submit part of the documentation, then re-open it to document more, then submit, re-open and so on.  So when the physicians used the weight-based dosing option, “today’s” weight would not display because the nurse had not yet submitted that data.  Thus, their poor work flow design and lack of synchronization not only slowed them down, but created a patient safety issue if the weight-based dosing option was used.  In the first office they avoided this by designing a “Vital Signs” template that the nurse used at check-in.  After the vital signs were entered into the template and “submitted” by the nurse the next logical documentation template conveniently popped-up to use. This group had used an IT consultant to help them redesign their work flow to take advantage of a paper-less environment.

• EMRs can interfere with physician-patient and physician-nurse communications

The lack of eye contact noted by patients in the second office is an example of how EMRs can impede communications in healthcare settings. It is prudent to be aware of the potential for such communication problems and to consider ways to avoid them.

I am using six case studies to illustrate that most EMR-related problems, even those involving hardware and software, can usually be traced back to some controllable factors.   The safe and meaningful use of EMRs is facilitated by leveraging these controllable factors to minimize these problems.  

Physicians, EMR Implementations and the Science of Project Management

For those who enjoy the ease and convenience of online shopping or use of self-pay kiosks for everyday activities like purchasing gasoline and groceries, it is hard to understand why medicine has remained so heavily paper-based.   On the other side, those who work closely with healthcare providers during and after technology projects recognize how complex and difficult it is.   Almost two thirds of technology projects fail as they run into problems such as unplanned costs, excessive delays, poor quality, expectations not being met and excessive numbers of unresolved issues.   When such “failures” are analyzed it is common to discover preventable causes such as poor planning, inadequate testing, poor work flow redesign, failure to identify and manage risks, poor communication, faulty implementation strategies, selection of the wrong technology products or the use of good technology in a way it was not designed to be used.   Although there are not simple recipes to follow that guarantee successful health IT implementations, there is a large body of knowledge regarding how best to manage technology projects in general.   A major resource for this knowledge is the Project Management Institute which promotes the science of project management throughout the world.   Although the details of project management are beyond the scope of blogging, there are eight knowledge areas that describe the principles of project management:

Procurement management	Obtain/purchase products and services, contract management, vendor management
Cost management	Budget and monitor costs
Project integration/communication	Objectives/goals, project plan, execution, monitoring status; managing changes; managing internal and external communications;  review/close project
Scope management	Establish scope of work needed, monitor and manage all processes and changes related to scope
Time management	Establish timeline based on work required, resource availability and scope; monitor and manage time constraints and schedule changes
Resource management	Who does what, when, where and how; establish project team; monitor and manage resource constraints and bottlenecks
Quality management	Test the application/product; follow project management principles
Risk management	Risk analysis, work flow analysis, risk mitigation planning, work flow redesign; change management

Understanding the basics of project management is more important for physicians than to understand the technology.  

Before selecting a technology product, these principles direct the physician to first identify the goals (or “objectives”) that are expected to be achieved by using the technology.   Defining the expected objectives allows the physician to then determine what the technology product specifically needs to do (the “requirements”) in order to achieve those goals.  This aligns technology purchases with the physician’s actual needs and expectations.  A common error is to select a technology product first and then figure out how to use it.   The risk with this faulty strategy is that, even if some value is gained, the physician’s actual goals and needs may remain unmet.  

The scope of a project is defined by what needs to be implemented in order to meet the identified goals and requirements.   A project plan and timeline can be created by determining how much work is required, within this defined scope, who is available to do that work (physicians, staff, temporary labor, vendor resources, consultants) and how much time those people have available to do project work.   Project management principles keep technology implementations “on track” by monitoring the scope and maintaining a balance between known work, known resource availability and established timelines.  It is easy for physicians or staff to become enamored with potentially valuable, but initially unplanned, uses of new technology during an implementation.  If these unplanned uses are piled onto the original scope of a project, then there is more work to do.   

The consequence of more work is the need for more people or time to complete the project.   Sometimes the additional work results in unbudgeted costs such as paying a consultant for additional hours to do the unplanned work.   Unplanned “scope creep” like this is a common malady that derails technology projects but can be avoided or contained by adherence to project management principles.  

And finally, an important aspect of project management is attentiveness to policies and procedures.   Policies and procedures that successfully manage risk within a paper-based work flow will become obsolete if technology creates a new electronic work flow.   A comparison of current work flow to future work flow along with a risk assessment during the project will identify needed changes to policies and procedures.

Search this site for other blogs on EMR Selections and EMR Implementations

 

 

What Physicians Need to Know about Work Flow Analysis Before Selecting and Implementing an Ambulatory EMR

Work flow analysis is valuable when selecting and implementing an ambulatory electronic medical record (EMR).   The results of this analysis will help the physician identify which EMR products are best suited to meet their expectations.   Physicians should have an understanding of the effort involved and prepare their practice for this important assessment.

Work flow analysis is hard work and takes a lot of time.  With time pressures on physicians to see patients and a payment system that rewards them more for higher numbers of patient visits than for higher quality of care, many physicians find it difficult to carve out enough time in their day for efforts like this.    As a result, work flow analysis is often not performed or is less than comprehensive during an ambulatory EMR selection and implementation.

Physicians essentially have two options to obtain a work flow analysis:

1. Hire a consultant
2. Perform the work flow analysis themselves

Hiring an IT consultant who is experienced with work flow analysis at the beginning of the EMR selection process is a more expensive option but will likely result in a more comprehensive analysis.  The consultant will interview key physicians and staff, create work flow descriptions and maps, analyze the results, review them with the practice and develop recommendations.  The physicians and staff will spend time with the consultant during this process, but most of the time and effort necessary for the documentation and assessment will be done by the consultant.

Alternatively, physicians may decide to perform work flow analysis on their own.  If so, there are a variety of methods and tools available to assist the effort.  These include:

1. AHRQ’s Health IT Tool Box website
2. DOQ-IT Operational Redesign Workbook
3. PITO Physician Information Technology Office Needs Assessment

These tools will guide the physician through the documentation of current work flows, an analysis of them and then considerations of redesigned future work flows.  The initial tedious steps to document current work flows are to:

1. Collect all paper forms used in practice
2. Select a workflow guide to facilitate analysis (i.e. one of the three listed above)
3. Identify major processes to map out (key processes vs. all processes)
4. Gather information on each process by interviewing people involved in each process
5. Write detailed descriptions of each process
6. Create detailed work flow maps (at least for the major processes)

Collecting paper forms will help identify specific paper-based processes that are unique to the practice.  The purposes of paper-based processes are important to understand and account for when future work flows are redesigned.  If the new technology tools and work flows do not account for the purpose of a paper-based work flow, and that purpose remains pertinent, then a work-around will need to be discussed and designed.  The goal should be to convert all paper processes to electronic ones, but the limits of technology or the costs involved will limit the ability to fully achieve this.

A work flow analysis guide will help the practice identify other key work flow processes that are generally known to be important for physician practices to assess when selecting and implementing an EMR.  As shown in the snapshot below of part of the DOQ-IT Workbook, these guides will lead the practice through questions to ask about each process:

After interviews with people involved in the process are completed, a description for each process is documented and then used to synthesize current work flow maps. A work flow map serves as a visual representation of the described workflow.  As described in a previous blog, these maps are useful when analyzing current work flow and redesigning them into future work flows.  My next blog will describe how the results of work flow analysis will facilitate the selection of an EMR that meets the needs of the physician office.

Why Work Flow Analysis, Redesign Are Keys to Successful EMR Implementation...and EMR Selection

Work flow analysis and future work flow redesign are often cited as key factors of successful implementations of ambulatory electronic medical records (EMRs) in physician practices.  This is the first in a series of blogs to discuss the value of performing workflow analysis before selecting an ambulatory EMR.

It is unfortunate that work flow analysis, if performed at all, is typically not done until an EMR has been selected and the implementation initiated.  Although physicians intuitively understand the value of good workflows in the office, how workflow analysis helps the physician choose an EMR is not so obvious. 

Workflow analysis can provide the physician practice insights on what to look for in their new EMR product if done early in the selection process.  To get the most out of a work flow analysis it is best to start with a clear purpose in mind.   Some important reasons for initiating work flow analysis before selecting an EMR are to:

• Identify current office inefficiencies
• Initiate critical thinking about desired future work flows
• Develop a prioritized list of desired future workflows (what are the most important ways an EMR is expected to help the practice?)
• Develop a prioritized list of the most important EMR functionalities that are needed in order to realize these desired future work flows
• Set realistic expectations on how the EMR is expected to help achieve goals and attain better workflows 

When a work flow analysis is completed the physician practice should expect to see: 

• Detailed descriptions of current office work flow
• Detailed work flow maps of key office processes
• An analysis that identifies current inefficiencies, bottlenecks and opportunities for improvements
• A high-level outline of desired future workflow redesigns (how the office will work when a EMR is operational)
• A list of changes that could be made now...even before selecting an EMR

A workflow analysis will initially result in written descriptions of the key processes that the physician practice thrives on each day.  These written descriptions are then synthesized into a workflow map that may look something like this:

 

This current workflow map can be used by the practice to design better workflows.  Using the current workflow example from above, the draft development of a future workflow map might initially look something like this:

Developing workflow descriptions and critically thinking about desired future workflows will help identify what an EMR needs to be able to do well for the practice.  Knowing what the EMR needs to do well will help the practice identify and prioritize needed EMR functionalities.  This knowledge will simplify the comparison of EMR products as discussed in the next several blogs.

Using an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Vendor Comparison Scorecard to Evaluate Products

Selecting an EMR: Ready, Set…Go Compare!  is a series of blogs that serves as a resource for physicians who have decided to select and implement an ambulatory electronic medical record (EMR).

Using a vendor comparison scorecard to evaluate ambulatory EMR products is a useful way to identify an EMR product that is a good fit for a physician practice.  An important assumption, however, is that the scorecard is customized to the individual practice.  This hyperlinked example of an EMR Comparison Scorecard adopts the "Best Uses" of EMRs as recommended by DOQ-IT resources as well as other recommendations that frequently surface in reports on successful EMR implementations. In order to customize a vendor comparison scorecard the physician should:

1. Perform a comprehensive work flow analysis of their practice
2. Identify current processes that are "bottlenecks" and other key processes that the practice desires to improve
3. Review lists of "Best Uses" of EMRs such as:
   • DOQ-IT
   • AHRQ.gov (Health IT Toolbox)
   • CCHIT.org (Certification Commission for Health IT)
   • Networking with colleagues (especially those in same specialty)
   • Medical and specialty organization's resources such as websites and listservs
4. Identify how an EMR could be used to improve the identified key processes
5. List any other desired uses of an EMR 
6. Prioritize all of these intended uses of an EMR
7. Identify what an EMR needs to be able to do in order to be used in these ways
8. Prioritize these EMR needs
9. Modify the EMR Product Comparison Scorecard to align with customized EMR needs
10. Focus the EMR comparison on the top priorities

CCHIT certification provides some comfort to physicians that the certified EMR can meet all of the EMR functional requirements that are listed on the CCHIT website.  What CCHIT certification does not tell physicians is how well the EMR works for each function.  If an EMR comparison is limited to CCHIT-certified EMR products, then the physician can focus primarily on their own "Top Ten" list of things the EMR must do well for their practice rather than worry about all of the hundreds of other things the EMR is certified for.  By taking time upfront to clearly identify a prioritized list of the top things an EMR must do well, the physician practice will be well-prepared to select an EMR that will meet their unique needs.   

EMR Selection Guide provides an outline of additional topics on the selection  process

 EMR Implementation Guide provides an outline of topics on the implementation  process