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!

25% of EHR Budget Goes to EHR Training…At Least for the DoD EHR

Posted on August 14, 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.

In all of the news surrounding Leidos and Cerner winning the DoD EHR bid, I was really struck by this one piece from Healthcare IT News:

Training. As is often the case in massive software implementations, training eats up a lot of the costs and, in the DoD’s case, “over 25 percent of the contract goes to training users and clinicians,” Miller said.

Think about how much training you can get for $1+ billion. I get that training is not cheap. I also get that the DoD EHR implementation is a massive project, but that’s a lot of money for training. Do you think that most EHR implementations spend 1/4 of their budget on training?

Hopefully people will chime in with their answer to that question in the comments. My experience is that hospitals probably should budget 1/4 of their budget for training, but most don’t get anywhere near that amount. Plus, the EHR training budget often starts much larger and then when the budget overruns start to happen, EHR training is one of the first places they go to cut the budget.

How much EHR training is enough in your experience? Should it be 25% of the budget? I’m not sure how much is needed, but I do know that most organizations don’t purchase enough. Sounds like the DoD might be the exception.

What’s the Glue Holding EHR Migration and Conversion Projects Together? – Optimize Healthcare Integration Series

Posted on August 13, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Stephane Vigot, President of Caristix, a leading provider of healthcare integration products and services. This post is part of the Optimize Healthcare Integration series.
Stephane Vigot - Caristix
Are you considering migrating from an older EHR to a newer EHR or are you in the process of that conversion? If so, you are well aware of the complexity of this process. There are a lot of reasons that drive the EHR conversion decision, but the primary reason that organizations undertake EHR conversion is simply to improve patient care and safety by providing clinicians and caregivers with the right information at the right time.

It’s easy to think that this is all about the technology. EHR conversion is far more than an IT project. It is a central business issue that needs to be strategically sponsored and backed by upper level management. In our previous post, we addressed the issue of aligning integration goals for business and technology.  In a project of this magnitude, aligning business and technology goals becomes critical. Implementation takes hard work, time, and is very expensive. Effectively dealing with scope, budget & time creep, and change management matched to the stated business goals is the key to success. The complex planning needed is just one part of the story but the actual execution can be extremely problematic.

Since the primary reason for undertaking EHR conversion is to improve patient care and safety, clinical workflow is top-of-mind and coupled to data exchange and flow through your systems. On the IT side, your analysts define the project requirements and your developers build the interfaces based on those requirements. But the team that plays the most critical role is your quality team. Think of them as your project’s glue.

QA has layers of responsibilities. They are the ones that hold the requirements as the project blueprint and make sure that those requirements, driven by the pre-identified business needs, are being met. They also make sure that all defined processes are being followed. Where processes are not followed, QA defines the resulting risks that must be accommodated for in the system. A subset of responsibility for QA is in the final gate-keeping of a project, the testing and validation processes that address the functionality and metrics of a project.

Analysts work to build the interfaces and provide QA with expected workflows. If those workflows are not correctly defined, QA steps in to clarify them and the expected data exchange, and builds test cases to best represent that evolving knowledge. Identifying workflow is often done blindly with little or no existing information. Once the interface is built, those test cases become the basis for testing. QA also plays an important role in maintenance and in contributing to the library of artifacts that contribute to guaranteeing interoperability over time.

Though it is difficult to estimate the actual costs of interfacing due to the variance implicit in such projects, functional and integrated testing is often up to 3x more time consuming than development. It’s important to note that this most likely represents defects in the process. Normally, in traditional software development those numbers are inversed with QA taking about 1/3 of development time. It’s quite common that requirements are not complete by the time the project lands in QA’s lap. New requirements are continually discovered during testing. These are usually considered to be bugs but should have been identified before the development phase started. Another major reason for the lengthy time needed is that all testing is commonly done manually. A 25 minute fix may require hours of testing when done manually.

In technology projects, risk is always present. QA teams continuously work to confine and evaluate risk based on a predefined process and to report those issues. The question continually being asked is: what are the odds that X will be a problem? And how important is that impact if there is a problem? Here the devil is in the details. QA is constantly dancing with that devil. Risk is not an all or nothing kind of thing. If one were to try and eliminate all risk, projects would never be completed. QA adds order and definition to projects but there are always blind alleyways and unknown consequences that cannot be anticipated even with the most well defined requirements. Dealing with the unknown unknowns is a constant for QA teams. The question becomes how much risk can be tolerated to create the cleanest and most efficient exchange of date on an ongoing basis.

If QA is your glue, what are you doing to increase the quality of that glue, to turn that into super glue? What you can do is provide tools that offset the challenges your QA team faces. At the same time, these tools help contain project scope, time & budget creep, and maintain continual alignment with business goals. The right tools should help in the identification of requirements prior to interface development and throughout that process, identify the necessary workflows, and help in the QA process of building test cases. De-identification of PHI should be included so that production data can be used in testing. Tools should automate the testing and validation process and include the capability of running tests repetitively. In addition, these tools should provide easily shared traceability of the entire QA process by providing a central depository for all assets and documentation to provide continuity for the interoperability goals defined for the entire ecosystem.

What is your organization experiencing in your conversion projects? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Caristix, a leading healthcare integration company, is the sponsor of the Optimize Healthcare Integration blog post series.  Check out this free online demo of Caristix Workgroup product which helps you test your interface and speed up HL7 interface development.

About Stéphane Vigot
Stéphane Vigot, President of Caristix, has over 20 years of experience in product management and business development leadership roles in technology and healthcare IT. Formerly with CareFusion and Cardinal Health, his experience spans from major enterprises to startups. Caristix is one of the few companies in the health IT ecosystem that is uniquely focused on integrating, connecting, and exchanging data between systems. He can be reached at stephane.vigot@caristix.com

Why and Who Should Ensure Quality Health Data?

Posted on August 12, 2015 I Written By

Erin Head is the Director of Health Information Management (HIM) 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.

Contrary to common belief, technology does not own health data. Data exists as a result of the input of multiple sources of information throughout each patient’s healthcare continuum. The data does not exist only because of the technology but rather because of the careful selection of meaningful data items that need to be captured and at what frequency (ie. instantly, daily, weekly, etc.).

We in healthcare collect granular data on anything ranging from demographics, past medical, surgical, and social history, medication dosage and usage, health issues and problem lists, disease and comorbidity prevalence, vital statistics, and everything in between. We collect data on financial performance with benchmarks and reimbursement trends using individual data elements from accounting transactions. Healthcare organizations have been collecting the same or similar data for decades but never before have we been able to operate with such efficiency as we do now thanks to advances in technology.

We have become so data rich in the healthcare environment in a short amount of time and this data continues to multiply daily. But are we still information poor? When we continue to generate data but fail to aggregate the data into quality information, we are essentially wasting bandwidth and storage space with meaningless and disconnected data.

Every time patients have interactions with healthcare providers and facilities, data is generated. Over time, the data that is generated could (and should) be used to paint a picture of trends in patient demographics, population health, best practices in care, comorbidities and disease management, payment models, and clinical outcomes. This information becomes useful in meeting regulatory requirements, overcoming reimbursement hurdles, clinical quality initiatives, and even promotional and marketing material for healthcare organizations. This data could have opposite effects if not properly governed and utilized.

It goes back to the saying “garbage in, garbage out.” If the data cannot be standardized or trusted, it is useless. Input of data must be controlled with data models, hard-stops, templates, and collaborative development of clinical content. Capturing wrong or inconsistent data in healthcare can be dangerous to the patients and healthcare quality measurements as well as leading to unwanted legal actions for clinicians.

So who is the right person for the job of ensuring quality data and information? I have seen bidding wars take place over the ownership of the data and tasks surrounding data analysis, database administration, and data governance. Information Technology/Systems wants to provide data ownership due to the skills in the development and implementation of the technology needed to generate and access data. Clinical Informatics professionals feel they are appropriate for the task due to the understanding of clinical workflow and EHR system optimization. Financial, Accounting, Revenue Integrity, and Decision Support departments feel comfortable handling data but may have motives focused too heavily on the financial impact. Other areas may provide input on clinical quality initiatives and govern clinician education and compliance but may be primarily focused on the input of data instead of the entire data lifecycle.

When searching for an appropriate home for health data and information governance, organizations should look no further than Health Information Management (HIM) professionals. Information management is what HIM does and has always done. We have adapted and developed the data analytics skills needed to support the drive for quality data abstraction and data usage (just look at the education and credentialing criteria). HIM departments are a hub of information, both financial and clinical therefore governing data and information is an appropriate responsibility for this area. HIM also ensures an emphasis on HIPAA guidelines to keep data secure and in the right hands. Ensuring quality data is one of the most important tasks in healthcare today and trusting this task to HIM In collaboration with IT, Informatics, and other departments is the logical and appropriate choice.

Data is Good. Context is Better.

Posted on August 10, 2015 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin is a true believer in #HealthIT, social media and empowered patients. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He currently leads the marketing efforts for @PatientPrompt, a Stericycle product. Colin’s Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung

Last week I was asked by a colleague to explain a line I used during a presentation: “giving patients access to health data isn’t enough, we need to provide patients with context to go along with it. In fact context may be more valuable than the data itself”. My colleague, new to healthcare, didn’t understand the difference between data and context.

My usual go-to for explaining data vs context is this Wired Magazine article where they re-imagined standard medical lab tests. The blood test in particular clearly illustrates the concepts of data and context. On the standard blood test, vitamin D levels are simply shown as a number: 22 ng/mL. For most people, including me, this number means very little. Is it too low? Is it too high? Is it just right? In the re-imagined test, not only is the number presented, but it is placed on a scale that shows the patient what it truly means:
Reimagined Blood Test - Vitamin D

A few days ago, however, I found a more easy-to-understand example.

I happened to catch the nightly news on one of Toronto’s local television stations, Citynews. What caught my attention was their weather forecast. Citynews has always presented the weather by showing a variety of weather data: temperatures, humidity readings and barometric pressures. I’m sure many of you will find the following graphic very familiar:

CityTV Weather Graphic 5 - Normal Forecast

In the past few years, Citynews included more advanced weather metrics like UV readings, pollen counts and air quality indices. The latter two metrics are helpful to allergy suffers and those with respiratory issues. When pollen counts are high and air quality is low, people who are sensitive know to take medication and/or minimize their time outdoors.

But therein lies the problem with weather data. Presenting just the numbers means that the viewer has to put that information into their own context. For example, a 100F temperature combined with 40% humidity means that being outside is going to be uncomfortably sticky and hot. But see what you have to do there? You have to take the two data elements and then put them into context based on your own experience. The data only becomes useful when you are able to apply the right context.

Last week, however, I noticed that Citynews had moved past providing weather data and began providing true context about the weather. Here is the graphic that caught my eye:

CityTV Weather Graphic 3 - Context

To create this graphic, Citynews combined multiple data elements including:

  • Temperature
  • Humidex
  • UV
  • Pollen
  • Air quality
  • Chance of showers
  • Winds

I was blown away (excuse the weather pun) by what the Citynews weather team had done. They put weather data into context and the result was truly valuable information for viewers. Instead a collection of numbers, Citynews had provided context.

Now admittedly weather data is a bit simpler than clinical data, but if a local weather station can put data into context why can’t we do the same in healthcare?

Of course, healthcare and HealthIT vendors need to solve the problem of patient access to data first. But I don’t believe simply dumping data into the hands of patients and care givers is enough to change health behavior. To truly improve the health of patients and to drive down costs, patients need more than just number and facts. Patients need context.

Step 1: Access

Step 2: Context

The Power of Medical Device Data Infographic

Posted on August 6, 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.

One of the advantages of devices is that they’re really good at collecting vast amounts of data. One of the problems we have in healthcare is that our medical devices collect a lot more healthcare data than we actually use. It’s too bad since no doubt there is a lot more benefit we could receive from all the medical device data we’re collecting.

This point was really driven home when I saw the infographic below from Capsule which looked at The Power of Medical Device Data. Take a look and see what I mean and then ask yourself, how could we better use medical device data?
THE POWER OF MEDICAL DEVICE DATA to Healthcare

We Need More HIM Professionals Actively Using Twitter

Posted on August 3, 2015 I Written By

Erin Head is the Director of Health Information Management (HIM) 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.

We’d like to welcome a new guest blogger to our ranks. If you’re on social media and enjoy HIM topics, then you’ve probably seen Erin Head (@ErinHead_HIM) tweeting about those subjects. Erin is the HIM Director at an acute care hospital in Florida and a real advocate for the HIM profession. I’m excited to have her blogging with us from her unique perspective.

When I look around on Twitter, I don’t see enough Health Information Management (HIM) professionals. Most of the people I interact with have health IT or Informatics-focused careers and are not what we refer to as “traditional HIM professionals.” Don’t get me wrong, there are many engaged HIM professionals on Twitter; however the participation level is nowhere near matching the workforce population.

Why is that? I do not believe it is a generational difference as my Twitter interactions have been with people from all ages and backgrounds. There has to be another reason. Are HIM professionals really “too busy” to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and networking available on social media? Is it rude or disengaging to use social media in the physical presence of others?

This is no excuse – Twitter is very easy to navigate and the content is constantly updating so it is available no matter what time of day or how long you choose to login and interact. Following thought leaders on Twitter or a simple hashtag search will get you instantly connected with others and will get you comfortable using the application quickly. Do HIM professionals feel they are already subject matter experts and don’t need to join the Twitter conversation about new innovations, technology, and changing regulatory matters? If that is the case, I would certainly hope that traditional HIM professionals are garnering this knowledge somewhere else other than social media.

HIMers are a tight-knit group who look forward to annual conferences and events to catch up with fellow HIM professionals and gather information. This in-person interaction is great, but why wait for these events to network and converse? If you are unable to travel to attend an event, a great benefit is “live-Tweeting” where others will share the information that is being learned at an event with those who may not be able to attend in-person. But you must follow the event attendees by using the hashtag associated with the conference; in other words, you must be an active participant in social media to take advantage of this benefit.

Social media gives us an instant connection to other engaged professionals and gives us an opportunity to learn from each other, no matter where we are located physically. Selfishly, I want more interaction with HIM professionals through social media- traditional and non-traditional alike! I encourage all HIM professionals to create a Twitter account (or dust off an unused account) and start connecting. There really is no excuse to miss out on valuable, real-time HIM networking and information that is available at your fingertips.

What’s the Future of Health Information “Disposal”?

Posted on July 30, 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.

While at the HIM Summit, Deborah Green from AHIMA talked about the information lifecycle in healthcare. She showed a number of representations and flow charts of how information is collected and used in healthcare. Although, the part of the chart that intrigued me the most was the “disposal” element at the end. In fact, it prompted me to tweet the following:


As you look back at history disposal of paper charts was pretty straightforward. Most of the charts were organized by year and so you could have a 6 year retention policy. You’d collect all the charts that were older than 6 years and then either shred the old charts or move them to a more long term storage facility.

This concept gets much murkier in the world of EHR and digital charts. In fact, I talked with Deborah after her talk and asked if they’ve ever seen an EHR vendor which had a feature that would allow them to digitally “dispose” of an electronic chart. I’ve talked to hundreds of EHR vendors and I’ve never seen such a feature.

As a tech guy, I’ll admit that I wouldn’t want to be the programmer responsible for writing the code that “disposes” of an electronic chart. EHR software has been coded to never delete anything. At a maximum it might mark a record as inactive or essentially hide a record, but very few things in an EHR are ever really deleted. The concept of deletion is scary and has lots of consequences. Plus, what happens if your algorithm to delete old charts goes wrong and deletes the wrong information? You can fix that with some great backups, but I can imagine a lot of scenarios where even the backup could fail.

Technical challenges of an EHR delete feature aside, what does the future of digital chart “disposal” look like? What should digital chart disposal look like? Do we “shred” digital charts? Do we “shred” part of them? Do we keep them forever?

The reality is that the decision of what to do with the electronic chart is also dependent on the culture of the hospital. Research organizations want to keep all of the data forever and never ever delete anything. That old data might be a benefit to their research. Rural organizations often want to keep their data as long as possible as well. The idea of deleting their friends and neighbors data is foreign to them. In a larger urban area many organizations want to dispose of the chart as soon as the retention requirements are met. Having the old chart is a liability to them. Not having the chart helps remove that liability from their organization. Those are a few, but EHR vendors are going to have to deal with the wide variety of requirements.

If you think of the bigger picture, what’s the consequence if we shred something that could benefit the patient later? Will we need all of the historical patient information in order to provide a patient the best care possible?

These are challenging issues and I don’t think EHR vendors have really tackled them. This is largely because most organizations haven’t had an EHR long enough that they’re ready to start purging digital charts. However, that day is fast approaching. It will be interesting to see the wide variety of requests that organizations make when it comes to disposing of digital charts. It will also be interesting to see how EHR vendors implement these requests.

Would Cerner DoD Loss Seal Its Fate As An Also-Ran?

Posted on July 29, 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.

Update: Cerner has been announced as the winner of the DoD EHR Contract.

As everyone knows, Epic has attained a near-unbeatable place in the race for U.S. hospital market share. By one important criterion, Meaningful Use attestations, Epic has the lead hands down, with about 186,000 attestations as of March 2015 compared with 120,331 attestations on Cerner systems.

That being said, Cerner is hardly an insignificant force in the hospital EMR marketplace. It’s a multibillion-dollar powerhouse which still holds a strong #2 position and, if a casual survey of Web and social media commentary is to be believed, has done far less to alienate its customers with high-handed tactics. And while Cerner systems are far from cheap, you don’t regularly see headlines citing a Cerner investment as pivotal in a hospital’s credit rating taking a pratfall. Also, Cerner has the most contracts with MU-eligible hospitals, holding contracts with about 20% of them.

Nonetheless, there’s an event looming which could tip the scales substantially further in Epic’s direction. As many readers know, Epic is part of a team competing for the Department of Defense’s $11B Healthcare Management Systems Modernization contract (Word on the street is that we could hear the winner of the DoD EHR bid this week). I’d argue that if Epic wins this deal, it might have the leverage to push Cerner’s head under water once and for all.  Cerner, too, is fighting for the deal, but if it wins that probably won’t be enough to close the gap with Epic, as it’s harder to play catch up than to zoom ahead in a space you already control.

Now my colleague John argues that winning the DoD contract might actually be bad for Epic. As he sees it, losing the DoD deal wouldn’t do much damage to its reputation, as most hospital leaders would understand that military healthcare bears little resemblance to commercial healthcare delivery. In fact, he contends that if Epic wins the contract, it could be bad for its customers, as the Verona, Wisc.-based giant may be forced to divert significant resources away from hospital projects. His reasoning makes sense.

But losing the DoD contract would almost certainly have a negative impact on Cerner. While Epic might not suffer much of an image loss if it loses the contest, Cerner might. After all, it doesn’t have quite the marquee list of customers that Epic does (such as the Cleveland Clinic, Massachusetts General Hospital, Mayo Clinic and the Johns Hopkins Hospital). And if Cerner’s rep suffers, look out. As a surgeon writing for investor site Seeking Alpha notes, the comparatively low cost of switching TO Cerner can just as easily be used as a reason to switch AWAY FROM Cerner.

What’s more, while Cerner’s acquisition of Siemens’ health IT business — adding the Soarian product to its stable — is likely to help the company differentiate itself further going forward, but that’s going to take a while.  If Cerner loses the DoD bid, the financial and PR hit could dampen the impact of the acquisition.

Net-net, I doubt that Cerner is going to lie down and play dead under any circumstances, nor should it. Epic may have a substantial advantage but there’s certainly room for Cerner to keep trucking. Still, if Cerner loses the DoD bid it could have a big impact on its business. Now is the time for Cerner to reassure current and potential customers that it’s not planning to scale back if Epic wins.

Why Not “Meaningful Interoperability” For EMR Vendors?

Posted on July 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.

At this point, arguably, Meaningful Use has done virtually all of the work that it was designed to do. But as we all know, vendors are behind the curve. If they aren’t forced to guarantee interoperability — or at least meet a standard that satisfies most interconnectivity demands — they’re simply not going to bother.

While there’s obviously a certification process in place for EMR vendors which requires them to meet certain standards, interoperability seemingly didn’t make the cut. And while there’s many ways vendors could have shown they’re on board, none have done anything that really unifies the industry.

PR-driven efforts like the CommonWell Alliance don’t impress me much, as I’m skeptical that they’ll get anywhere. And the only example I can think of where a vendor  is doing something to improve interoperability, Epic’s Care Everywhere, is intended only to connect between Epic implementations. It’s not exactly an efficient solution.

A case in point: One of own my Epic-based providers logged on to Care Everywhere a couple of weeks ago to request my chart from another institution, but as of yet, no chart has arrived. That’s not exactly an effective way to coordinate care! (Of course, Epic in particular only recently dropped its fees for clinical data sharing, which weren’t exactly care coordination-friendly either.)

Increasingly, I’ve begun to think that the next stage of EMR maturation will come from some kind of “Meaningful Interoperability” incentive paid to vendors who really go the extra mile. Yes, this is iffy financially, but I believe it has to be done. As time and experience have shown, EMR vendors have approximately zero compelling reasons to foster universal interoperability, and perhaps a zillion to keep their systems closed.

Of course, the problem with rewarding interoperability is to decide which standards would be the accepted ones. Mandating interoperability would also force regulators to decide whether variations from the core standard were acceptable, and how to define what “acceptable” interoperability was. None of this is trivial.

The feds would also have to decide how to phase in vendor interoperability requirements, a process which would have to run on its own tracks, as provider Meaningful Use concerns itself with entirely different issues. And while ONC might be the first choice that comes to mind in supervising this process, it’s possible a separate entity would be better given the differences in what needs to be accomplished here.

I realize that some readers might believe that I’m dreaming if I believe this will ever happen. After all, given the many billions spent coaxing (or hammering) providers to comply with Meaningful Use, the Congress may prefer to lean on the stick rather than the carrot. Also, vendors aren’t dependent on CMS, whose involvement made it important for providers to get on board. And it may seem more sensible to rejigger certification programs — but if that worked they’d have done it already.

But regardless of how it goes down, the federal government is likely to take action at some point on this issue. The ongoing lack of interoperability between EMRs has become a sore spot with at least some members of Congress, for good reasons. After all, the lack of free and easy sharing of clinical data has arguably limited the return on the $30B spent on Meaningful Use. But throwing the book at vendors isn’t going to cut it, in my view. As reluctant as Congressional leaders may be to throw more money at the problem, it may be the only way to convince recalcitrant EMR vendors to invest significant development resources in creating interoperable systems.

Hospital to Turn Off EHR Access for Doctors Who Haven’t Finished ICD-10 Training

Posted on July 27, 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.


This article is pretty shocking. I can imagine how well this would go over at most hospitals. I hope we get to hear how well this strategy works and who will win what appears like a game of chicken between the doctors and hospital. Does the hospital need the doctors more or do the doctors need the hospital more?

Here’s an excerpt from the article linked above that describes what they’re doing:

“There is a ‘go live’ date for these changes that is Oct. 1 for everyone across the country, including us, so we felt it was very important that all medical providers be trained,” Groves said. “We set a date of July 27, which is Monday — if they have not done the training by then, their access to Soarian will be cut off.”

If they don’t have access to the EHR, that’s basically saying that a doctor can’t practice at that hospital, no? It’s interesting that access to the EHR is being used as essentially revoking privileges to be a doctor at a hospital. I can hear many doctors initial reaction being that they didn’t want to access the EHR anyway. Although, it’s a lot more complex than that response would describe. Can you practice medicine at a hospital that has an EHR without having access to the EHR? I believe the answer is no unless the hospital makes some extraordinary concessions to a doctor (not likely to happen in the hospital mentioned above).

What do you think about using EHR access as a way to motivate doctors to do something? Is that a good strategy? Will we see it happen more?