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!

Pros and Cons of Healthcare IT Outsourcing

Posted on December 4, 2015 I Written By

David is a global digital healthcare leader that is focusing on the next era of healthcare IT.  Most recently David served as the CIO at an academic medical center where he was responsible for all technology related to the three missions of education, research and patient care. David has worked for various healthcare providers ranging from academic medical centers, non-profit, and the for-profit sectors. Subscribe to David's latest CXO Scene posts here.

Recently Black Book issued a report stating that CFOs, CIOs both favor outsourcing for technology. Outsourcing is not new to healthcare information technology and it has been practiced for decades. However, with the healthcare scenery changing rapidly, outsourcing of IT has again gained prominence. Introducing technology to a healthcare organization can be an expensive undertaking and thus, outsourcing may be the way to go. One of the main reasons why outsourcing is attractive is because it helps put together resources quickly and reduces the time to market when implementing technology.

Besides cost, other reasons for outsourcing include increased flexibility, organization inability to further develop staff quickly and there may be a cash flow problem in keeping an employee long term. Building a trusted relationship with a vendor is key and someone must monitor their performance to hold the vendor accountable. One needs to weigh the pros and cons before proceeding to outsourcing because it is not without risks.

Outsourcing Tips:

  1. Lower cost is often the single most influential factor when deciding on offshore outsourcing. Some of the world’s largest organization use contract employees or foreign labor to perform the commodity work. This also reduces the need for full time employees.
  2. Outsourcing is ideal when you need a 24×7 workforce. Outsourcing is an easier method to augment your existing staff in order to manage the 24 hour operation we require in healthcare.
  3. With outsourcing, it is usually easier to transition and move temporary staff because they do not have permanent ties with your organization
  4. In certain countries, there are rules and regulations that govern privacy and intellectual property; when you outsource outside of geographical boundaries, you will need to pay closer attention to data export regulations.
  5. You must manage the internal staff culture and feelings about outsourcing. Most personnel will view outsourcing as a threat to their job, so leaders must be transparent when they are outsourcing projects or tasks.
  6. The outsource contract must be clear and concise as to the roles and responsibilities of each party. The arrangement will fail quickly if both parties are not clear on this.

I believe that successful departments and organization can utilize outsourcing as a competitive advantage if it is managed appropriately, but there has to be a dedicated resource managing the vendor relationship. I have managed both an outsourced IT department along with insourced staff. The key is to have transparent leadership which treats every employee (outsource, and insource) the same. Clear communication is definitely required from the leader.

If you’d like to receive future health care C-Level executive posts by David in your inbox, you can subscribe to future Health Care CXO Scene posts here.

Interoperability Challenges (VA, DOD, Epic, CommonWell) – Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted on November 16, 2015 I Written By

David is a global digital healthcare leader that is focusing on the next era of healthcare IT.  Most recently David served as the CIO at an academic medical center where he was responsible for all technology related to the three missions of education, research and patient care. David has worked for various healthcare providers ranging from academic medical centers, non-profit, and the for-profit sectors. Subscribe to David's latest CXO Scene posts here.

The state of healthcare in the United States is fairly well known with the US healthcare spend between 17-18% of the GDP. It is one of the most expensive countries in the world for healthcare. America is also one of the few developed nations not to have a universal healthcare scheme, and one of the main barriers is interoperability challenges.

As we have just finished celebrating veteran’s day, one of the challenges in our federal system is interoperability. In order to provide these veterans with proper healthcare, the Veterans Association and the Department of Defense each proposed an update to the way medical records were stored. The proposed system involved purchasing or customizing an existing an EMR software, which would allow doctors to access patient files far more easily.

This would make it easier for veterans to switch doctors without having to worry about taking large amounts of paperwork along with them. It would also allow doctors to give their patients the best care possible without having to worry about red tape and legal hoops they have to jump through. While this makes sense to everyone, a decision has been made to have two separate systems.

We are also having the same discussion in the commercial EMR space recently where representatives from Cerner asked Epic to joing the CommonWell Health Alliance. Based on my experience Epic has done a great job at exchanging data with other Epic customers. At the request of the customer, Epic will work on creating interoperability with other non-Epic systems. The challenge is the need to create a special request for data sharing every time an Epic customer wants to communicate with a non Epic facility.

The House of Representatives have questioned the VA and DOD decisions to create these separate EHR systems. This makes perfect sense since I am also questioning the decision myself. What should have happened in this situation is the VA and DOD should have come together to collaborate on one EHR system. At the same time, the federal government should step in to create a standard for interoperability and mandate that we move towards collaboration.   If you think about the impact that meaningful use had on transforming the healthcare sector’s move towards digital, I believe the government could have the same impact on interoperability if they made it a requirement.

HIM Professionals and the Patient Portal

Posted on October 21, 2015 I Written By

Erin Head is the Director of Health Information Management (HIM) and Quality for an acute care hospital in Titusville, FL. She is a renowned speaker on a variety of healthcare and social media topics and currently serves as CCHIIM Commissioner for AHIMA. She is heavily involved in many HIM and HIT initiatives such as information governance, health data analytics, and ICD-10 advocacy. She is active on social media on Twitter @ErinHead_HIM and LinkedIn. Subscribe to Erin's latest HIM Scene posts here.

One of the hot topics in healthcare that has been consistently developing and growing over the past few years is the patient portal. Since many different EMRs and portal platforms are used across hospitals and physician offices, each facility is left to develop policies and procedures for what will be released through the portals and how they will be used. There are no specific standards for patient portals, aside from those needed to meet Meaningful Use requirements, which results in different experiences and functionality for end users.

HIM involvement with patient portal implementations has been a little spotty over the years from what I gather from my peers. I heard someone say we “missed the boat” on patient portals. I don’t necessarily agree but I do see inconsistencies in the level of HIM involvement. When it comes to developing policies governing the content that will be released through the portal, HIM professionals are the experts on this initiative. HIM professionals have always been the stewards of the medical record and keeping release of information processes secure and appropriate. There has been a focus on encouraging patients to keep a personal health record long before EMRs and patient portals came to exist. So how could some HIM professionals get left out of the patient portal process?

My first assumption is that patient portals came to exist mostly, although not solely, as a result of Meaningful Use initiatives. If you have had similar experiences to mine, you have witnessed Meaningful Use initiatives typically being handled by IT professionals. As a result, patient portals have fallen under that umbrella from a technology standpoint but I see great opportunities for HIM professionals to be involved to optimize the content shared for the end users. Since the main intent of patient portals is to encourage patients to be engaged in their own care, these portal initiatives have much more benefit beyond attesting to Meaningful Use and should be incorporated into organizational strategic plans for patient engagement.

There has been a lot of discussion around the struggle of increasing patient portal participation. A common factor in patient portal adoption is the lack of patient competencies in using the technology involved. Some patient populations do not frequently use computers, email, or mobile applications which are all a part of the patient portal functionality. To address this at my facility, we created a position within the HIM department to coordinate all patient portal functions including enhancing the user experience by creating frequently asked questions and answers, troubleshooting issues that patients may have when attempting to login, and resetting portal passwords as needed among many other initiatives. Policies were developed to address who can have access to the portal information, how the patients confirm their identity to log in, what is released, and the duration of the availability of the information. We have an interdisciplinary team that contributes to the patient portal process but having the point person reside in the HIM department makes the most sense for governing the entire concept.

One thing to remember is that patient portals do not eliminate the need for traditional release of information processes because we release information to many different requestors for different purposes. The portal does not include every patient document due to the sensitive nature of some results therefore requests for entire charts and abstracts are still necessary in some cases. Patients should participate in the portal for the personal benefit of being proactive in their own healthcare but they should not expect it to replace release of information. I encourage HIM professionals to be involved in the patient portal process in an administrative capacity. The strides made with patient portal optimization are key in optimizing the transition to health information exchange (HIE) concepts which also require heavy HIM involvement.

If you’d like to receive future HIM posts by Erin in your inbox, you can subscribe to future HIM Scene posts here.

Thoughts on Leveraging EMRs Effectively

Posted on September 28, 2015 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.

Whenever I scan Twitter for #HIT ideas, I find something neat. For example, consider this intriguing tweet:

I say intriguing not because the formula outlined will surprise anyone, but rather, because it captures some very difficult problems in a concise and impactful manner.

Here’s some thoughts on the issues Portnoy raises:

* Optimization:  Of course, every healthcare IT organization works to optimize every technology it deploys. But doing so with EMRs is one of the most difficult problems it is likely to encounter. Not only do IT leaders need to optimize the EMR platform technically, they may also face external demands placed by ACOs, HIE partners and affiliated providers. And it’s also important to optimize for Meaningful Use functions.

* Workflows:  Building workflows that address the needs of various stakeholders is critical, as pre-designed vendor workflow options may be far from adequate. While implementing an EMR may be an opportunity for a hospital to redesign workflows, or to enshrine existing workflows in the EMR interface and logic, hospital leaders need to take charge of the workflow implementation process. Inefficiencies at this level can be costly and will erode the confidence of clinical teams.

* Revenue capture:  When properly implemented, EMRs can help providers generate more complete documentation for claims reimbursement, which leads to higher collections volume. As time has shown, difficult-to-use EMRs can lead to physician frustration, and in turn, cut-and-paste re-use of existing documentation — which is why carefully-designed workflow is so important. But if they are used appropriately, EMRs can boost revenue painlessly.

* Patient and provider engagement: True, IT needs to take the lead on getting the EMR in place, and must make some important deployment decisions on its own. Still, hospitals will have trouble meeting their goals if patients and providers aren’t invested in its success, and without patient interest in their data I’d argue that meeting long-term population health goals is unlikely. On the flip side, if clinicians and patients are engaged, the feedback they offer can help hospitals shape not only the future of their EMR, but also the rest of their clinical data infrastructure.

If there’s any common theme to all of this, I’d submit, it’s participation. Unlike most efforts corporate IT departments undertake, EMR rollouts are unlikely to work until everyone they touch gets on board. Hospitals can invest in any EMR technology they like, but if providers can’t use the system comfortably to document care, patients don’t log on to access their data, or revenue cycle managers don’t see how it can improve revenue capture, the project is unlikely to offer much ROI.

Interoperability Becoming Important To Consumers

Posted on June 26, 2015 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 other day, I was talking with my mother about her recent primary care visit — and she was pretty po’d. “I can’t understand why my cardiologist didn’t just send the information to my family doctor,” she said. “Can’t they do that online these days? Why isn’t my doctor part of it?”

Now, to understand why this matters you need to know that my mother, who’s extremely bright, is nonetheless such a technophobe that she literally won’t touch my father’s desktop PC. She’s never opened a brower and has sent perhaps two or three e-mails in her life. She doesn’t even know how to use the text function on her basic “dumb” phone.

But she understands what interoperability is — even if the term would be foreign — and has little patience for care providers that don’t have it in place.

If this was just about my 74-year-old mom, who’s never really cared for technology generally, it would just be a blip. But research suggests that she’s far from alone.

In fact, a study recently released by the Society for Participatory Medicine and conducted by ORC International suggests that most U.S. residents are in my mother’s camp. Nearly 75% of Americans surveyed by SPM said that it was very important that critical health information be shared between hospitals, doctors and other providers.

What’s more, respondents expect these transfers to be free. Eighty seven percent were dead-set against any fees being charged to either providers or patients for health data transfers. That flies in the face of current business practices, in which doctors may pay between $5,000 to $50,000 to connect with laboratories, HIEs or government, sometimes also paying fees each time they send or receive data.

There’s many things to think about here, but a couple stand out in my mind.

For one thing, providers should definitely be on notice that consumers have lost patience with cumbersome paper record transfers in the digital era. If my mom is demanding frictionless data sharing, then I can only imagine what Millenials are thinking. Doctors and hospitals may actually gain a marketing advantage by advertising how connected they are!

One other important issue to consider is that interoperability, arguably a fevered dream for many providers today, may eventually become the standard of care. You don’t want to be the hospital that stands out as having set patients adrift without adequate data sharing, and I’d argue that the day is coming sooner rather than later when that will mean electronic data sharing.

Admittedly, some consumers may remain exercised only as long as health data sharing is discussed on Good Morning America. But others have got it in their head that they deserve to have their doctors on the same page, with no hassles, and I can’t say the blame them. As we all know, it’s about time.

Five Signs You Need a New HIE Solution

Posted on February 17, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I’ve written a lot about the new EHR switching market. EHR implementation software has become quite mature and so we’re entering a new world where new EHR sales are going to come from hospitals switching EHR software. Yes, there are a few hospital EHR stragglers out there, but the majority of new EHR sales are going to come from switching.

While I’d seen this coming in the EHR market for a while, I hadn’t carried that over to the HIE market as well. In this case, I’m really referring to a private HIE that a hospital might employ versus a third party HIE provider. Is the HIE market in a similar “switching” market like EHR? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

This question came to mind when I found this eBook called, Five Signs You Need a New HIE Solution. It’s a free download if you want to check out the whole eBook. The 5 signs it suggests are worth some discussion:

  1. My data sharing solution isn’t meeting my needs, but the thought of replacing it is painful.
  2. My technology is old. We need an architectural update.
  3. I can’t access or share my data when I need to.
  4. I can’t make changes to my HIE solutions without my current vendor’s involvement. Plus, they take too long and charge too much.
  5. I don’t feel confident that my current HIE partner is well equipped to handle healthcare’s changes, challenges, and uncertainties.

It’s amazing how universal these signs are with any software. This list could have applied to EHR software as much as HIE. In the eBook, they discuss each of these in more detail. I’m sure that many of these issues resonate with readers.

As I look through this list, I wonder if switching software is the only way to solve the problem. I think in most cases the answer is that switching is the only solution. The reason many don’t switch is fear. Plus, that fear is exacerbated by colleagues from other organizations who have switched their system and not seen an improvement. That’s why so many organizations stick with The Devil You Know for much longer than they should. Hopefully the above list of signs will help people who are going through this evaluation. Just make sure that if you do need to switch HIE or other software that you take the time to make sure your new software won’t suffer the same issues.

John Glaser to Stay on as Senior VP of Cerner Upon Close of Acquisition

Posted on November 19, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In case you’re living under a rock (or more affectionately, you’re too busy working to follow the inside baseball of EHR company acquisition), Cerner is set to acquire Siemens in late winter or early spring pending all the needed approvals for companies this size. Watching the merging of these two companies is going to be very interesting indeed.

Neil Versel just reported that John Glaser, current CEO of Siemens Health Services, has announced that upon close of acquisition he’ll be joining the Cerner team as a Senior VP. I also love that John Glaser made this announcement on the Cerner blog.

I think this is a big deal since I believe John Glaser is at the point in his career that he could do just about anything (or nothing) if that’s what he desired. The few times I’ve interacted with John Glaser, he was sincerely interested in moving healthcare forward through the use of advanced IT. I imagine that’s what’s motivating him to stay with Cerner. No doubt, Cerner is sitting on a huge opportunity.

In John Glaser’s blog post, he provided an interesting insight into Neal Patterson’s comments at the Cerner user conference:

In his CHC keynote address, Cerner CEO Neal Patterson did a masterful job of conveying Cerner’s commitment to patient-centered care. Before he spoke, a patient and her nurse were introduced with explanation that the woman’s life was saved by a Cerner sepsis alerting system. Neal then shared the incredible challenges he and his wife have faced in her battle with cancer because of limited interoperability.

Neal’s keynote was very personal – about how we can make a loved one’s care journey easier by ensuring that all records – every detail – are available electronically and accurately wherever the patient receives care. It was the case for interoperability but also the case for making a patient’s life easier and the care better.

It’s hard for me to say how much of this was theatrics, but I’m glad they are at least talking the right talk. I really do hope that Neal’s personal experience will drive interoperability forward. Neil Versel suggested that interoperability would be John Glaser’s focus at Cerner. I hope he’s successful.

While at CHIME, I talked with Judy Faulkner, CEO of Epic, and we talked briefly about interoperability. At one point in our conversation I asked Judy, “Do you know the opportunity that you have available to you?” She looked at me with a bit of a blank stare (admittedly we were both getting our lunch). I then said, “You are big enough and have enough clout that you (Epic) could set the standard for interoperability and the masses would follow.” I’m not sure she’s processed this opportunity, but it’s a huge one that they have yet to capitalize on for the benefit of healthcare as we know it.

The same opportunity is available for Cerner as well. I really hope that both companies embrace open data, open APIs, and interoperability in a big way. Both have stated their interest in these areas, but I’d like to see a little less talk…a lot more action. They’re both well positioned to be able to make interoperability a reality. They just need to understand what that really means and go to work on it.

I’m hopeful that both companies are making progress on this. Having John Glaser focused on it should help that as well. The key will be that both companies have to realize that interoperability is what’s best for healthcare in general and in the end that will be what’s best for their customers as well.

Do Hospitals Want Interoperability?

Posted on November 17, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I’ve had this discussion come up over and over again today in a series of discussions that I’ve had at the NYeC’s Digital Health Conference in NYC. Many people are blaming the EHR vendors for not being interoperable. Other people are blaming standards. Some like to blame HIPAA (which is ironic since it was passed to make health data portable). There are many more reasons that people give for why healthcare isn’t exchanging data and that interoperability isn’t a reality.

Although, in all of these discussions, I keep going back to the core question of whether hospitals and healthcare organizations really want that healthcare data to be interoperable. As I look back on the past, I can think of some doctors who’ve wanted it for a while, but I think the healthcare industry as a whole didn’t really want interoperability to happen. They would never admit this in public, because we all know on face that there are benefits to the healthcare system and the patient for interoperability. However, interoperability would have been a bad thing financially for many healthcare organizations.

It’s one of the dirty little secrets of healthcare. Sure, the EHR vendors never provided the interoperability functionality, but that’s largely because the healthcare providers never asked for it and largely didn’t want that functionality. They were all a little complicit in hiding the dirty little secret that healthcare organizations were benefiting from the inefficiency of the system.

I’m extremely hopeful that we’re starting to see a shift away from the above approach. I think the wheels are turning where hospitals are starting to see why their organization is going to need to be interoperable or their reimbursement will be affected. ACOs are leading this charge as the hospitals are going to need the data from other providers in order to improve the care they provide and lower costs.

Now, I think the biggest barrier to interoperability for most hospitals is figuring out the right way to approach it. Will their EHR vendor handle it? Do they need to create their own solution? Are CCD’s enough? Should they use Direct? Should they use a local HIE? Should they do a private HIE? Of course, this doesn’t even talk about the complexities of the hospital system and outside providers. Plus, there’s no one catch all answer.

I hope that we’re entering a new era of healthcare interoperability. I certainly think we’re heading in that direction. What are you seeing in your organizations?

Sutter Health Ready To Deploy HIE, But Can It Succeed?

Posted on June 30, 2014 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.

Sutter Health doesn’t have a great reputation when it comes to EMR implementation. Late last year, when we reported that Sutter’s Epic EMR crashed for an entire day, comments came pouring in about the company’s questionable approach to training its staff on using the system.

According to Epic consultants who’d been involved in the project, Sutter leaders decided that Epic experts were there to “facilitate” training done by inexperienced in-house teams, rather than actually teach key users what they need to know. The result was strife, disorder and anxiety, according to several consultants who’d been involved. Since then, Sutter has connected its EMR to five medical foundations and 17 hospital campuses; by next year, it expects the EMR to connect to information on 3 million patients. But there’s no reason to think it’s changed its training strategy, which could cast a bit of a pall over the new project.

Now, Sutter Health is building out a health information exchange, working with Orion Health, which will tie together hospitals and doctors both inside and outside of its network across northern California. Sutter plans to begin deploying the HIE in phases this summer, starting with data integration with the Epic EMR and extending to testing exchange of inbound and outbound data. If the project works out, it seems likely that it will be a plus for every provider that does business with Sutter.

The question is, will Sutter do a better job of managing this process than it did in rolling out its EMR? While it’s easy to boast that your plans are going to be a “gamechanger” for the market, it’s hard to take that claim at face value when your EMR implementation hasn’t gone so splendidly.

Certainly, Orion is a reputable HIE vendor which has been praised for having strong products and service. And Sutter certainly has the financial wherewithal to see such an effort through. The thing is, if Sutter leaders (seemingly) took a wrongheaded approach to the all-important issue of EMR training, who knows what curveballs they might throw into the process of rolling out an HIE? Even if its EMR has stabilized and Sutter has somehow gotten past its training hurdles, its past missteps don’t inspire confidence.

If I were with Orion, I’d draw a firm line where training was concerned, as Sutter’s past strategy only seems to have cast its last major HIT vendor in a bad light. If not, I’d make sure the contract had a workable bailout clause…or be prepared for some serious headaches.

Hospitals Need to Diversify – What’s It Mean for EHR?

Posted on May 27, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In a recent article on Health CXO, they made the following comment:

In the report “Building Value: Investments Aimed at New Priorities Create Opportunities for Not-For-Profit Hospitals,” experts at the New York-based financial firm note that the decline in inpatient volumes seen over the past several quarters is no fluke but rather a long-term trend driven by health reform. This means that hospitals that want to remain successful need to look beyond just inpatient services and become full-service health systems that are able to follow the patients to the lower cost and frequently higher value outpatient setting. [emphasis added]

This trend is definitely worth noting. We’ve discussed the acquisition of outpatient clinics a number of times, but never the trend of declining inpatient volumes. The article suggests that the key to viability for a hospital will be to diversify into outpatient services. I’m not sure all hospitals want to become full-service health systems and so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Assuming this trend continues, I’ll be interested to see what this means for a hospital’s EHR strategy. Will they go with the one big EHR across their hospital and ambulatory environment? If you look at these recently posted EHR market share statistics, you can see that this method is happening a lot. As the deals get larger, I think we’ll see push back against moving to one unified EHR software. That presents an interesting opportunity for what Alan Portela and Airstrip are doing. Not to mention the need for a private HIE.