Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Hospital Accused Of Firing Nurse For EMR Safety Complaints

Posted on June 29, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The former chief nursing officer of a California hospital is suing her former employer, alleging she was “forced out” of her position after questioning the safety of a little-known EMR donated by a major financial backer of the facility.

The suit filed by nurse Autumn AndRa also names Dan Smith, whose company donated the Harmoni software now used by Sebastopol, CA-based Sonoma West Medical Center. AndRa is claiming that Smith, who has contributed millions in donations and loans to the hospital, has used the hospital as a test bed for his company’s defective system. Smith is president of the medical center’s board of directors.

In an interview with a local newspaper, AndRa said that the Harmoni system has had major problems since the day it went live. Among other issues, the EMR was doing a poor job tracking and updating medications and was “intermingling” medical information between patients, her suit contends. According to AndRa, she went to hospital CEO Ray Hino a week before her dismissal and told him that the system was not safe. (Hino told the newspaper that Harmoni was fine and that no patients had been harmed by the system.)

E-Health Records International Inc., which makes the cloud-based system, primarily serves hospitals outside the U.S., including facilities in the Congo, Jamaica, India and the Philippines. Smith, whose first software development success came when he sold a construction management system to Intuit, serves as the company’s CEO, as well as chairman of telemedicine firm Offsite Care Resources.

Other than that, he seems to have little documented experience as an HIT developer. His other major business venture seems to have been operating a French restaurant with his wife, which he closed after being unable to get back $5.8 million he loaned the hospital.

Regardless of whether AndRa prevails in her suit, I think it’s safe to say that she came out on the wrong end of some questionable political maneuvering by hospital leaders, perhaps including Smith himself. When a hospital is forgiven a large loan, and then fires an executive who raises safety questions about the EMR developed by the lender, eyebrows should be raised.

Population Health Tech Will Lag Until Standards Emerge

Posted on June 22, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

There’s little doubt that healthcare organizations will continue to partner up with peers and acquire physician practices. The forces that drive healthcare network development are only intensifying as time goes by, particularly as the drive toward value-based payment moves ahead. But there’s a lot more to making such deals work than a handshake and a check. To make these deals work, it’s critical that networks become experts at population health management — and unfortunately, that’s going to be tough.

While merging health systems into ACOs or acquiring referring physicians has merit, this strategy won’t grow the steadily dropping pace of hospital admissions, notes William Faber, M.D., senior vice president of the GE Healthcare Camden Group. “Though clinically integrated networks do enlarge the patient base, one of their aims is also to reduce the percentage of admissions from that base,” making it unlikely that the networks will grow admissions, he points out.

To make a clinically integrated network successful, it certainly helps to take the initiative – to get to market more quickly than competitors – and to do a better job of controlling costs of care and demonstrating higher quality and service. Where things get stickier, however, is in managing that care across a large group. “The creation of a clinically integrated network must not be just a marketing or physician alignment strategy – it must truly enable effective population health management,” he writes.

And this, I’d argue, is where things get very tricky. Well, judge for yourself, but I’d argue that the HIT industry is ill-equipped to support these goals. Despite many years of paper-chart experimentation with population health, and several with population health technology, my sense is that the tech is far behind what it needs to be. Health IT vendors won’t get far until providers do a better job of defining what they need.

A different mindset

The truth is, this generation of EMRs is designed to track individual patients across an experience of care. While CIOs can add a layer of analytics technology to the mix, that is a far cry from creating tools that natively track population health trends. Looking at populations is simply a different mindset.

Admittedly, vendors will tell you that they’ve got the problem licked, but if they were completely candid many would have to admit that their products aren’t mature yet. Until someone creates an EMR or other basic tool which is designed, at its core, to track group health trends, I foresee more half-baked hacks than results.

What’s more, I doubt the health IT business will be able to help until it has at least an informal standard to which such products must adhere. Should such tools measure costs of care by diagnosis code? Compare such costs to national standards? Highlight patients in outpatient settings whose tests or exams suggest a crisis is about to happen? If so, which settings, and what cutoffs should be tracked for test scores? Does such a system need natural language processing to scour physician notes for trigger words, and if so which ones?

Without a doubt, medical and business executives leading integrated networks will come together and develop more answers to these questions. But until they do, health IT vendors won’t be able to help much with the population health challenge.

E-Patient Update: If Hospitals Were Like Airports

Posted on June 6, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Almost everyone reading this blog has spent some time in an airport. And though not much of it is visible on the surface, airlines do an amazing job of managing people and things seamlessly while you sit reading the New York Times and drinking your latte. People are ushered on and off of flights, baggage is dispatched around the world and airplanes maintained and fueled at a miraculous pace. Although, you probably forget about that when it’s your flight that has delays or issues.

The hospitals many of us work for also do an amazing job of managing people and things, typically in a way that patients never need notice. While the carefully orchestrated dance of care plays out, patients simply eat their meals, sleep, visit with their friends and family and provide whatever bodily fluids are necessary to diagnose them. Meanwhile, multi-million dollar IT systems help see to it that the process works.

In some ways, however, the two industries are quite different in how they work with the people they serve. And in my opinion, the healthcare system would work better if it borrowed from the airlines when it comes to using IT to simplify the customer experience.

Status updates

One thing airlines do well is keep passengers informed about the status of their flight, or the flights of those for whom they might be waiting. Airlines began posting real-time schedules and allowing passengers to preregister for flights from early in the emergence of the commercial Internet.

In more recent times, the airlines have added a mobile dimension to their customer experience, offering small but valuable services like reminder texts and mobile-only information. While being able to check on your flight from your home desktop is great, it’s even better to know what’s up as you head for the airport, and mobile apps make this possible.

Traffic information

Unlike hospitals, airlines post scrolling information on key progress indicators — i.e. arrivals and departures. While you, as a consumer, typically only need to know the status of your own flight, having a comprehensive information source sometimes allows you to better understand delays, orient yourself to time and place and even make a mental note as to which destinations your chosen airline travels.

Such displays don’t disclose any personal information about passengers, but they still offer some value to individuals, if for no other reason than that having this information available helps to put airline staff and consumers on the same page.

Kiosks

These days, many airlines allow passengers to check in for their flights and print tickets without ever speaking to a human clerk. The process not only saves time, but also personal aggravation, as waiting in long airline ticketing queues can be quite tiring.

Checking in at a kiosk also offers passengers additional reassurance that they are indeed booked on the fight of their choice, allows them to confirm their seating choice and in some cases, even add additional flight options.

Transparency is key

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea. By exposing what might otherwise have been internal systems to consumers, airlines have substantially improved aspects of their customers’ experience. And they’ve done so without exposing individualized data or subjecting themselves to increased risk of hacking episodes. On the other hand, while health systems and hospitals have dabbled in these areas — for example, by posting ED waiting times on the web — it’s still something of a rarity for them to share live patient information.

Admittedly, hospitals may be leery of giving the patient too much visibility into the process they undergo. After all, their interaction with consumers is a good deal more complex than that of the airline industry, and they don’t have time to explain what they’re doing and why beyond a certain degree.

Still, as a patient who wants to know what the heck is going on with my care, a little transparency would go a long way. If you want patients to be prepared to care for themselves, treat them like adults and include them in what you’re doing.

Will Your EMR Go-Live Education Miss The Mark?

Posted on June 3, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

LinkedIn conversations can be quite the font of wisdom, and today was no exception. In comments on a post discussing how training can lead to buy-in, David Kelley, D.O. made it clear that such training often leaves participants cold:

[Have] been the recipient in a couple of Go Lives and been on a few Go Live support teams. The younger/tech-savvy people verbalize the pre-Go Live to have been not worth their time as it was targeted for below their knowledge base. In stark contrast, the more senior/less tech-savvy verbalize near-hatred of those pre-Go Live educational courses as they were so far above their heads as to equate to tech-gibberish.

By reposting these remarks, I’m by no means suggesting that go-live training is a waste of time. Nor am I suggesting that every time hospitals attempt to prepare staffers for EMR implementation, they bore the heck out of staffers while accomplishing nothing. But if Kelley’s experience is any guide, many such trainings are doing a lousy job of connecting with their audience.

His complaints also raise several questions for me, including the following:

  • Who was teaching the courses? Was it vendor reps? If so, it’s little wonder that they produced content only a developer could love.
  • What was the focus of the courses? From Kelley’s comments, it sounds like clinicians and staff typically got a general overview which didn’t do much to foster success.
  • Did the training offer hands-on instruction? And I don’t mean a quick look at basic functions, but rather specific guidance on how to perform key job functions.
  • Did instructors explain the advantages of the new systems? To get buy-in from clinicians and staff, instructors need to hammer home how the new technologies save time, improve efficiency and better patient care.

Regardless, what I gather from Kelley’s story is that too often, hospitals often talk at future EMR users rather than helping them get productive and oriented. It would appear that those responsible for go-lives often fail to consider how the implementation impacts specific functions, and talk around the issues rather than blending training with problem-solving.

I’ve actually seen the effects of what seems to have been a questionable go-live training strategy here in metro DC. Now, the hospital talked a good change management game — even loading screen savers onto all computers stating that “[vendor] is coming!” and posting signs letting patients know about the upcoming shift — for months prior to the system kickoff.

But what do you suppose happened when I spent a few days as an inpatient later that year? I saw nurses and doctors desperately trying to make the system behave by sharing workarounds with each other. Now, you tell me: Would clinical staffers be going to these lengths if they’d had thorough, pitch-perfect, hands-on training?

EHRs Can Help Find Patients At High Risk Of Dying

Posted on June 1, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Much of the discussion around EMRs and EHRs these days focuses on achieving broad, long-term goals such as improved population health. But here’s some data suggesting that these systems can serve a far more immediate purpose – finding inpatients at imminent risk of death.

A study appearing in The American Journal of Medicine details how researchers from Arizona-based Banner Health created an algorithm looking for key indicators suggesting that patients were in immediate danger of death. It was set up to send an alert when patients met at least two of four systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, plus at least one over 14 acute organ dysfunction parameters. The algorithm was applied in real time to 312,214 patients across 24 hospitals in the Banner system.

Researchers found that the alert was able to identify the majority of high-risk patients within 48 hours of their admission to a hospital, allowing clinical staff to deliver early and targeted medical interventions.

This is not the first study to suggest that clinical data analysis can have a significant impact on patients’ health status. Research from last year on clinical decision support tools appearing in Generating Evidence & Methods to Improve Patient Outcomes found that such tools can be beefed up to help providers prevent stroke in vulnerable patients.

In that study, researchers from Ohio State University created the Stroke Prevention in Healthcare Delivery Environments tool to pull together and display data relevant to cardiovascular health. The idea behind the tool was to help clinicians have more effective discussions with patients and help address risk factors such as smoking and weight.

They found that the tool, which was tested at two outpatient settings at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, garnered a “high” level of satisfaction from providers. Also, patient outcomes improved in some areas, such as diabetes status and body mass index.

Despite their potential, few tools are in place today to achieve such immediate benefits as identifying inpatients at high risk of death. Certainly, clinicians are deluged with alerts, such as the ever-present med interaction warnings, but alerts analyzing specific patients’ clinical picture aren’t common. However, they should be. While drug warnings might irritate physicians, I can’t see them ignoring an alert warning them that the patient might die.

And I can hardly imagine a better use of EMR data than leveraging it to predict adverse events among sick inpatients. After all, few hospitals would spend dozens or hundreds of millions of dollars to implement the system which creates a repository that simply mimics paper records.

In addition to preventing adverse events, real-time EMR data analytics will also support the movement to value-based care. If the system can predict which patients are likely to develop expensive complications, physicians can do a better job of preventing them. While clinicians, understandably, aren’t thrilled will being told how to deliver care, they are trained to respond to problems and solve them.

I’m hoping to read more about technologies that leverage EMR data to solve day-to-day care problems. This is a huge opportunity.

Epic Install Triggers Loss At MD Anderson

Posted on May 31, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Surprising pretty much no one, another healthcare organization has attributed adverse financial outcomes largely to its Epic installation. In this case, the complaining party is the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, which attributes its recent shortfall to both EMR costs and lower revenues. The news follows a long series of cost overruns, losses and budget crises by other healthcare providers implementing Epic of late.

According to Becker’s Hospital CFO, MD Anderson reported adjusted income of $122.9 million during that period a 56.6% drop over the seven-month period ending March 31. During that period, the cancer center’s wages and salaries climbed, and Epic-related consulting costs were climbed as well. This follows a $9.9 million operating loss for the first quarter of the 2016 fiscal year, which the University of Texas attributed to higher-than-expected EMR expenses.

MD Anderson announced its choice of Epic in spring 2013, and went live on the system in March of this year as anticipated. The cancer center’s rollout was guided by Epic veteran Chris Belmont, the center’s CIO, who implemented Epic across 10 hospitals and more than three dozen clinics for New Orleans-based Ochsner Health System.

The organization didn’t announce what it was spending on the Epic install, but we all know it doesn’t come cheap. However, one would think the University of Texas health system could afford the investment. According to EHR Intelligence, the Texas health system ranks in the 99th percentile for net patient revenue in the US, with total revenue topping $5.58 billion.

And UT leaders seem to have been prepared for the bump, reporting that they’d planned for a material impact to revenues and expenses as a result of the Epic implementation. The system didn’t announce any staff cuts, hiring freezes or other budget-trimming moves resulting from these financial issues.

Having said all this, however, no organization wants to see its income drop. So what actually happened?

For example, when the UT system reports that a drop in patient revenues contributed to the drop in income, what does that mean? Does this refer to scheduled drops in patient volume, planned for ahead of time, or problems billing for services? I’d be interested to know if the center managed to keep on top of revenue cycle management during the transition.

Another question I have is what caused the unanticipated expenses. Did they come from contract disputes with Epic? Unexpected technical problems? Markups on consulting services? Or did the organization have to pour money into the project to meet its go-live deadline? There’s a lot of ways to generate costs, and I’d love to get some granular information on what happened.

Also, I wonder what steps UT leaders will take to avoid unexpected expenses in the future. While it may have learned some lessons from the problems it’s had so far, there’s no guarantee that it won’t face of the costly problems going forward.

If, perchance, and the system has figured out how to stay in the black with its Epic investment, it could sell that secret to cover its IT expenses for years. I’m betting other systems would pay good money for that information!

Appointment Scheduling Site Zocdoc Connects With Epic

Posted on May 25, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

In a bid to capture hospital and health system business, appointment scheduling site Zocdoc announced that its customers can now connect the site to their Epic EMRs via an API. The updated Zocdoc platform targets the partners’ joint customers, which include Yale New Haven Health, NYU Langone Medical Center, Inova Health System and Hartford HealthCare. And I’ll admit it – I’m intrigued.

Typically, I don’t write stories about vendors other than the top EMR players. And on the surface, the deal may not appear very interesting. But the truth is, this partnership may turn out to offer a new model for digital health relationships. If nothing else, it’s a shrewd move.

Historically, Zocdoc has focused on connecting medical practices to patients. Physicians list their appointment schedule and biographical data on the site, as well as their specialty. Patients, who join for free, can search the site for doctors, see when their chosen physician’s next available appointment is and reserve a time of their choosing. If patients provide insurance information, they are only shown doctors who take their insurance.

As a patient, I find this to be pretty nifty. Particularly if you manage chronic conditions, it’s great be able to set timely medical appointments without making a bunch of phone calls. There are some glitches (for example, it appears that doctors often don’t get the drug list I entered), but when I report problems, the site’s customer service team does an excellent job of patching things up. So all told, it’s a very useful and consumer-friendly site.

That being said, there are probably limits to how much money Zocdoc can make this way. My guess is that onboarding doctors is somewhat costly, and that the site can’t charge enough to generate a high profit margin. After all, medical practices are not known for their lavish marketing spending.

On the other hand, working with health systems and hospitals solves both the onboarding problem and the margin problem. If a health system or hospital goes with Zocdoc, they’re likely to bring a high volume of physicians to the table, and what’s more, they are likely to train those doctors on the platform. Also, hospitals and health systems have larger marketing budgets than medical practices, and if they see Zocdoc as offering a real competitive advantage, they’ll probably pay more than physicians.

Now, it appears that Zocdoc had already attracted some health systems and hospitals to the table prior to the Epic linkage. But if it wants to be a major player in the enterprise space, connecting the service to Epic matters. Health systems and hospitals are desperate to connect disparate systems, and they’re more likely to do deals with partners that work with their mission-critical EMR.

To be fair, this approach may not stick. While connecting an EMR to Zocdoc’s systems may help health systems and hospitals build patient loyalty, appointment records don’t add anything to the patient’s clinical picture. So we’re not talking about the invention of the light bulb here.

Still, I could see other ancillary service vendors, particularly web-based vendors, following in Zocdoc’s footsteps if they can. As health systems and hospitals work to provide value-based healthcare, they’ll be less and less tolerant of complexity, and an Epic connection may simplify things. All told, Zocdoc’s deal is driven by an idea whose time has come.

Avoiding Revenue Crunches During EMR Transitions

Posted on May 23, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Most healthcare leaders know, well before their EMR rollouts, that clinical productivity and billings may fall for a while as the implementation proceeds. That being said, it seems a surprising number are caught off guard by the extent to which payments can be lost or delayed due to technical issues during the transition. This is particularly alarming as more and more hospitals are looking at switching EHR.

Far too often, those responsible for revenue cycle issues live in a silo that doesn’t communicate well with hospital IT leadership, and the results can be devastating financially. For example, consider the case of Maine Medical Center, which took a major loss after it launched its Epic EMR in 2012, due in part to substantial problems with billing for services.

But according to McKesson execs, there’s a few steps health systems and hospitals can take to reduce the impact this transition has in your revenue cycle. Their recommendations include the following:

  • Involve revenue cycle managers in your EMR migration. Doing so can help integrate RCM and EMR technologies successfully.
  • Create a revenue cycle EMR team. The team should include the CFO, revenue cycle leaders from patient access and reimbursement, vendor reps and someone familiar with revenue cycle systems. Once this team is assembled, establish a meeting schedule, team roles and goals for participants. It’s particularly important to designate a project manager for the revenue cycle portion of your EMR rollout.
  • Before the implementation, research how RCM processes will be affected by the by the rollout, particularly how the new EMR will impact claims management workflow, speed of payment and staff workloads. Check out how the implementation will affect processes such as eligibility verification, registration data quality assurance, preauthorization and medical necessity management, pre-claim editing and remittance management.
  • Pay close attention to key performance indicators throughout the transition. These include service-to-payment velocity, Days Not Final Billed, charge trends and denial rates.

The article also recommends bringing on consultants to help with the transition. Being that McKesson is a health IT vendor, I’m not at all surprised that this is the case. But there’s something to the idea nonetheless. Self-serving though such a recommendation may be, it may help to bring in a consultant who has an outside view of these issues and is not blinkered by departmental loyalties.

That being said, over the longer term healthcare leaders need to think about ways to help RCM and IT execs see eye to eye. It’s all well and good to create temporary teams to smooth the transition to EMR use. But my guess is that these teams will dissolve quickly once the worst of the rollout is over. After all, while IT and revenue cycle management departments have common interests, their jobs differ significantly.

The bottom line is that to avoid needless RCM issues, the IT department and revenue cycle leaders need to be aligned in their larger goals. This can be fostered by financial rewards, common performance goals, cultural expectations and more, but regardless of how it happens, these departments need to be interested in working together. However, unless rewards and expectations change, they have little incentive to do so. It’s about time hospital and health system leaders address problem directly.

Are Current Population Health Tools Becoming Outdated?

Posted on May 18, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

These days, virtually all hospitals and health systems are looking at ways to manage population health. Most of their approaches assume that it’s a matter of identifying the right big data tools and crunching the numbers, using the data already in-house. Doing this may be costly and time-consuming, but it can be done using existing databases, integration engines and the appropriate business analytics tools, or so the conventional wisdom holds.

However, at least one health IT leader disagrees. Adrian Zai, MD, clinical director of population informatics at Massachusetts General Hospital, argues that current tools designed to enable population health management can’t do the job effectively. “All of the health IT tools companies call population health today will be irrelevant because the data they look at can only see what goes through hospital, which is far too narrow in scope.”

Zai points out that most healthcare organizations attempt to leverage claims data in doing population health management analyses. But that approach is far from ideal, he told Healthcare IT News. Claims data, he points out, is typically one to two months old, which significantly limits the value healthcare providers can generate from the data. Also, most hospitals’ claims data only covers about 20% to 30% of the area’s population, he notes.

Instead, organizations need to study real-time data drawn from a significantly broader population if they hope to achieve population health management goals, Zai argues. For example, it’s important to look at the Medicaid population, whose members may get most of their care through community health centers. It’s also important to collect data from other consumer touch points. (Zai doesn’t specify which touch points he means, but mobile health and remote patient monitoring data come to mind immediately.)

I think Zai make some excellent points here. In particular, while achieving true real-time analysis is probably well the future for most healthcare organizations, the fresher data you can use the better. Certainly, analyzing archival data has a purpose, but to have a major impact on outcomes, it’s important to foster behavior change in the present.

However, I’d argue that few providers are ready to roll ahead with this approach. After all, to achieve his goals means establishing some new definitions as to what data should be included in population health analysis. And that’s not as simple as it sounds. (For a recent look at how providers look at population health, check out this survey from last summer.)

First, providers need to take a fresh look at how they define the term “population,” and develop a definition that takes in a more comprehensive view of patient data. Certainly, claims data analysis is start, but that by definition is limited to insured patients seen at the hospital. Zai recommends that population health management efforts embrace all patients seen at the hospital, insured or not. In other words, he’s recommending hospitals address the community in which they are physically located, not just the community of patients for whom they have provided care.

Just as importantly, hospitals and health systems need to consider how to collect, incorporate and analyze the exponentially-growing field of digital health data. While some middleware solutions offer to serve as a gateway for such data, it seems likely that providers will still need to do a lot of hands-on work to make use of these data sources.

Finally, providers need to continually improve the algorithms they use to pinpoint problems in a given population, as well as the ways in which they create actionable subsets of the population. For example, it may be appropriate to target patients by disease state today, but other ways of improving outcomes might arise, and providers’ IT solutions need to be flexible enough to evolve with the times.

Over time, the industry will evolve best practices for population health management, and definedthe IT tools best suited to accomplish reasons. And while some existing tools may work, I’d be surprised if most survive the transition.

EMR Replacement Frenzy Has Major Downsides

Posted on May 16, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Now that they’ve gotten an EMR in shape to collect Meaningful Use payouts, hospitals are examining what those incentive bucks have gotten them. And apparently, many aren’t happy with what they see. In fact, it looks like a substantial number of hospitals are ripping and replacing existing EMRs with yet another massive system.

But if they thought that the latest forklift upgrade would be the charm, many were wrong. A new study by Black Book Research suggests that in the frenzy to replace their current EMR, many hospitals aren’t getting what they thought they were getting. In fact, things seem to be going horribly wrong.

Black Book recently surveyed 1,204 hospital executives and 2,133 user-level IT staffers that had been through at least one large EMR system switch to see if they were happy with the outcome. The results suggest that many of these system switches have been quite a disappointment.

According to researchers, hospitals doing new EMR implementations have encountered a host of troubles, including higher-than-expected costs, layoffs, declining inpatient revenues and frustrated clinicians. In fact, hospitals went in to these upgrades knowing that they would not be back to their pre-EMR implementation patient volumes for at least another five years, but in some cases it seems that they haven’t even been keeping up with that pace.

Fourteen percent of all hospitals that replaced their original EMR since 2011 were losing inpatient revenue at a pace that would not support the total cost of the replacement EMR, Black Book found. And 87% of financially threatened hospitals now regret the executive decision to change systems.

Some metrics differed significantly depending on whether the respondent was an executive or a staff member.

For example, 62% of non-managerial IT staffers reported that there was a significantly negative impact on healthcare delivery directly attributable to an EMR replacement initiative. And 90% of nurses said that the EMR process changes diminished their ability to deliver hands-on care at the same effectiveness level. In a striking contrast, only 5% of hospital leaders felt the impacted care negatively.

Other concerns resonated more with executives and staff-level respondents. Take job security. While 63% of executive-level respondents noted that they, or their peers, felt that their employment was in jeopardy to the EMR replacement process, only 19% of respondents said EMR switches resulted in intermittent or permanent staff layoffs.

Meanwhile, there seemed to be broad agreement regarding interoperability problems. Sixty-six percent of system users told Black Book that interoperability and patient data exchange functions got worse after EMR replacements.

What’s more, hospital leaders often haven’t succeeded in buying the loyalty of clinicians by going with a fashionable vendor. According to Black Book, 78% of nonphysician executives surveyed admitted that they were disappointed by the level of clinician buy-in after the replacement EMR was launched. In fact, 88% of hospitals with replacement EMRs weren’t aware of gaining any competitive advantage in attracting doctors with their new system.

Now, we all know that once a tactic such as EMR replacement reaches a tipping point, it gains momentum of its own. So even if they read this story, my guess is that hospital executives planning an EMR switch will assume their rollout will beat the odds. But if it doesn’t, they can’t say they weren’t warned!