User login
Restoring the promise of (really) meaningful use
When we started publishing the EHR Report several years ago, our very first column was a brief overview of a new federal incentive program known as Meaningful Use. At that time, the prospect of receiving thousands of dollars to adopt an electronic health record seemed exciting, and our dream of health care’s digital future appeared to be coming true.
Best of all, we as physicians would be paid to simply embrace it!
Unfortunately, it wasn’t long before that dream (for many at least) devolved into a nightmare. Electronic health records hadn’t been designed to fit into physicians’ long-established work flows, and just weren’t up to the challenge of increasing efficiency. In fact, EHRs quickly became virtual taskmasters, leaving physicians mired in a sea of clicks and slow-moving screens.
Frankly speaking, Meaningful Use hasn’t lived up to its promises. With measures obligating users to fill in a myriad of check-boxes and document often irrelevant information, the program has seemed less like an incentive and more like a penance.
To top it off, the all-or-nothing requirement has meant that – after a year of hard work – providers missing even one goal receive no payments at all, and instead are assessed financial penalties!
All of this has appropriately led physicians to become jaded – not excited – about the digital future.
Thankfully, there is reason for hope: 2017 marks the end of Meaningful Use under Medicare.
What’s new for 2017?
MACRA has a much grander scope and sets an even loftier goal: transforming care delivery to achieve better value and ultimately healthier patients.
Now, in case you’re not already confused by the number of programs cited above, there is one more we need to mention to explain the future of EHR incentives: the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, one of two tracks in the Quality Payment Program.
The majority of Medicare providers will choose this track, which focuses on four major components to determine reimbursement incentives: quality, improvement activities, advancing care information, and cost.
Depending on performance in each of these areas, participants will see a variable payment adjustment (upward or downward) in subsequent years (this is a percentage of Medicare payments that increases annually, beginning with a possible +/– 4% in 2019, to a maximum of +/– 9% in 2022).
Providers under MIPS who choose to attest for this year can select from three levels of participation:
1. Test: submission of only a minimal amount of 2017 data (such as one or two measures) to avoid penalty.
2. Partial: submission of 90 days’ worth of data, which may result in a neutral or positive payment adjustment (and may even earn the max adjustment).
3. Full: submission of a full year of data.
Here’s an example of how this will work: A provider who attests in March 2018 for the full 2017 year and does really well could see up to a 4% incentive bonus on Medicare payments in 2019. A provider who chooses not to attest would receive a penalty of 4%.
It’s worth noting here that MIPS expands upon the inclusion criteria set for Meaningful Use under Medicare. Medicare Part B clinicians are eligible to participate if they bill $30,000 in charges and see at least 100 Medicare patients annually. MIPS also broadens the list of eligible provider types. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists are all able to attest.
Advancing Care Information
Under MIPS, Meaningful Use is replaced by an initiative called Advancing Care Information, or ACI. In this new incarnation, there are fewer required measures, and they are much less onerous than they were under the former program.
Also, there are a number of optional measures. A provider may choose to attest to these nonrequired metrics to improve his or her chances of achieving the maximum incentive, but it isn’t necessary. There are also bonus measures involving public health registry reporting. These are optional but a sure bet to increase incentives. In all, the ACI component composes 25% of a provider’s final MIPS score.
For 2017, participants are able to choose one of two tracks in the ACI program, depending on their EHR’s certification year. (If you are confused by this or don’t know the status of your product, check with your vendor or go to https://chpl.healthit.gov to figure it out).
Providers with technology certified to the 2015 edition (or a combination of technologies from the 2014 and 2015 editions) can fully attest to the ACI objectives and measures or elect to use the transition objectives and measures. Those with 2014 edition software must choose the transition measures.
We will cover the specific measures in a future column, but for now we’ll note that both tracks are very similar and focus on protecting patient data, encouraging patient access to their own records, and sharing information electronically with other providers.
Rekindling the dream
We are certain that changing legislation won’t solve all of the problems inherent in current EHR systems, but we are always encouraged by any attempt to reduce the documentation burden on physicians. By eschewing thresholds, eliminating the all-or-nothing requirement, and reducing the number of required measures, the ACI program does seem to shift the focus away from volume and toward value.
That alone has the potential to restore our hope of a brighter future, and make our use of electronic health records significantly more meaningful.
Note: To learn more about Quality Payment Program and MIPS, we highly recommend an online resource published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that is easy to follow and is full of useful information. It can be found at https://qpp.cms.gov.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
When we started publishing the EHR Report several years ago, our very first column was a brief overview of a new federal incentive program known as Meaningful Use. At that time, the prospect of receiving thousands of dollars to adopt an electronic health record seemed exciting, and our dream of health care’s digital future appeared to be coming true.
Best of all, we as physicians would be paid to simply embrace it!
Unfortunately, it wasn’t long before that dream (for many at least) devolved into a nightmare. Electronic health records hadn’t been designed to fit into physicians’ long-established work flows, and just weren’t up to the challenge of increasing efficiency. In fact, EHRs quickly became virtual taskmasters, leaving physicians mired in a sea of clicks and slow-moving screens.
Frankly speaking, Meaningful Use hasn’t lived up to its promises. With measures obligating users to fill in a myriad of check-boxes and document often irrelevant information, the program has seemed less like an incentive and more like a penance.
To top it off, the all-or-nothing requirement has meant that – after a year of hard work – providers missing even one goal receive no payments at all, and instead are assessed financial penalties!
All of this has appropriately led physicians to become jaded – not excited – about the digital future.
Thankfully, there is reason for hope: 2017 marks the end of Meaningful Use under Medicare.
What’s new for 2017?
MACRA has a much grander scope and sets an even loftier goal: transforming care delivery to achieve better value and ultimately healthier patients.
Now, in case you’re not already confused by the number of programs cited above, there is one more we need to mention to explain the future of EHR incentives: the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, one of two tracks in the Quality Payment Program.
The majority of Medicare providers will choose this track, which focuses on four major components to determine reimbursement incentives: quality, improvement activities, advancing care information, and cost.
Depending on performance in each of these areas, participants will see a variable payment adjustment (upward or downward) in subsequent years (this is a percentage of Medicare payments that increases annually, beginning with a possible +/– 4% in 2019, to a maximum of +/– 9% in 2022).
Providers under MIPS who choose to attest for this year can select from three levels of participation:
1. Test: submission of only a minimal amount of 2017 data (such as one or two measures) to avoid penalty.
2. Partial: submission of 90 days’ worth of data, which may result in a neutral or positive payment adjustment (and may even earn the max adjustment).
3. Full: submission of a full year of data.
Here’s an example of how this will work: A provider who attests in March 2018 for the full 2017 year and does really well could see up to a 4% incentive bonus on Medicare payments in 2019. A provider who chooses not to attest would receive a penalty of 4%.
It’s worth noting here that MIPS expands upon the inclusion criteria set for Meaningful Use under Medicare. Medicare Part B clinicians are eligible to participate if they bill $30,000 in charges and see at least 100 Medicare patients annually. MIPS also broadens the list of eligible provider types. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists are all able to attest.
Advancing Care Information
Under MIPS, Meaningful Use is replaced by an initiative called Advancing Care Information, or ACI. In this new incarnation, there are fewer required measures, and they are much less onerous than they were under the former program.
Also, there are a number of optional measures. A provider may choose to attest to these nonrequired metrics to improve his or her chances of achieving the maximum incentive, but it isn’t necessary. There are also bonus measures involving public health registry reporting. These are optional but a sure bet to increase incentives. In all, the ACI component composes 25% of a provider’s final MIPS score.
For 2017, participants are able to choose one of two tracks in the ACI program, depending on their EHR’s certification year. (If you are confused by this or don’t know the status of your product, check with your vendor or go to https://chpl.healthit.gov to figure it out).
Providers with technology certified to the 2015 edition (or a combination of technologies from the 2014 and 2015 editions) can fully attest to the ACI objectives and measures or elect to use the transition objectives and measures. Those with 2014 edition software must choose the transition measures.
We will cover the specific measures in a future column, but for now we’ll note that both tracks are very similar and focus on protecting patient data, encouraging patient access to their own records, and sharing information electronically with other providers.
Rekindling the dream
We are certain that changing legislation won’t solve all of the problems inherent in current EHR systems, but we are always encouraged by any attempt to reduce the documentation burden on physicians. By eschewing thresholds, eliminating the all-or-nothing requirement, and reducing the number of required measures, the ACI program does seem to shift the focus away from volume and toward value.
That alone has the potential to restore our hope of a brighter future, and make our use of electronic health records significantly more meaningful.
Note: To learn more about Quality Payment Program and MIPS, we highly recommend an online resource published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that is easy to follow and is full of useful information. It can be found at https://qpp.cms.gov.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
When we started publishing the EHR Report several years ago, our very first column was a brief overview of a new federal incentive program known as Meaningful Use. At that time, the prospect of receiving thousands of dollars to adopt an electronic health record seemed exciting, and our dream of health care’s digital future appeared to be coming true.
Best of all, we as physicians would be paid to simply embrace it!
Unfortunately, it wasn’t long before that dream (for many at least) devolved into a nightmare. Electronic health records hadn’t been designed to fit into physicians’ long-established work flows, and just weren’t up to the challenge of increasing efficiency. In fact, EHRs quickly became virtual taskmasters, leaving physicians mired in a sea of clicks and slow-moving screens.
Frankly speaking, Meaningful Use hasn’t lived up to its promises. With measures obligating users to fill in a myriad of check-boxes and document often irrelevant information, the program has seemed less like an incentive and more like a penance.
To top it off, the all-or-nothing requirement has meant that – after a year of hard work – providers missing even one goal receive no payments at all, and instead are assessed financial penalties!
All of this has appropriately led physicians to become jaded – not excited – about the digital future.
Thankfully, there is reason for hope: 2017 marks the end of Meaningful Use under Medicare.
What’s new for 2017?
MACRA has a much grander scope and sets an even loftier goal: transforming care delivery to achieve better value and ultimately healthier patients.
Now, in case you’re not already confused by the number of programs cited above, there is one more we need to mention to explain the future of EHR incentives: the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, one of two tracks in the Quality Payment Program.
The majority of Medicare providers will choose this track, which focuses on four major components to determine reimbursement incentives: quality, improvement activities, advancing care information, and cost.
Depending on performance in each of these areas, participants will see a variable payment adjustment (upward or downward) in subsequent years (this is a percentage of Medicare payments that increases annually, beginning with a possible +/– 4% in 2019, to a maximum of +/– 9% in 2022).
Providers under MIPS who choose to attest for this year can select from three levels of participation:
1. Test: submission of only a minimal amount of 2017 data (such as one or two measures) to avoid penalty.
2. Partial: submission of 90 days’ worth of data, which may result in a neutral or positive payment adjustment (and may even earn the max adjustment).
3. Full: submission of a full year of data.
Here’s an example of how this will work: A provider who attests in March 2018 for the full 2017 year and does really well could see up to a 4% incentive bonus on Medicare payments in 2019. A provider who chooses not to attest would receive a penalty of 4%.
It’s worth noting here that MIPS expands upon the inclusion criteria set for Meaningful Use under Medicare. Medicare Part B clinicians are eligible to participate if they bill $30,000 in charges and see at least 100 Medicare patients annually. MIPS also broadens the list of eligible provider types. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists are all able to attest.
Advancing Care Information
Under MIPS, Meaningful Use is replaced by an initiative called Advancing Care Information, or ACI. In this new incarnation, there are fewer required measures, and they are much less onerous than they were under the former program.
Also, there are a number of optional measures. A provider may choose to attest to these nonrequired metrics to improve his or her chances of achieving the maximum incentive, but it isn’t necessary. There are also bonus measures involving public health registry reporting. These are optional but a sure bet to increase incentives. In all, the ACI component composes 25% of a provider’s final MIPS score.
For 2017, participants are able to choose one of two tracks in the ACI program, depending on their EHR’s certification year. (If you are confused by this or don’t know the status of your product, check with your vendor or go to https://chpl.healthit.gov to figure it out).
Providers with technology certified to the 2015 edition (or a combination of technologies from the 2014 and 2015 editions) can fully attest to the ACI objectives and measures or elect to use the transition objectives and measures. Those with 2014 edition software must choose the transition measures.
We will cover the specific measures in a future column, but for now we’ll note that both tracks are very similar and focus on protecting patient data, encouraging patient access to their own records, and sharing information electronically with other providers.
Rekindling the dream
We are certain that changing legislation won’t solve all of the problems inherent in current EHR systems, but we are always encouraged by any attempt to reduce the documentation burden on physicians. By eschewing thresholds, eliminating the all-or-nothing requirement, and reducing the number of required measures, the ACI program does seem to shift the focus away from volume and toward value.
That alone has the potential to restore our hope of a brighter future, and make our use of electronic health records significantly more meaningful.
Note: To learn more about Quality Payment Program and MIPS, we highly recommend an online resource published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that is easy to follow and is full of useful information. It can be found at https://qpp.cms.gov.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
The EHR Report: Communication, social media, and legal vulnerability
Social media is now a part of everyday life. From Twitter, with its 140 character limit, to Facebook to Linkedin, there is a world of possibilities for communicating with friends, family, colleagues, and others online. Communication is good, but electronic media is a minefield for medical professionals who do not think carefully before they post.
The stories in the news about health care professionals who have posted obviously inflammatory material online, perhaps in a fit of rage, and have had their careers impacted or ended are just the tip of the iceberg. HIPAA violations have received a good deal of attention, with a well-known example being the doctor who was accused of posting a selfie with Joan Rivers, who was unconscious on the operating table. These examples, however, represent obvious violations of HIPAA and are infractions that most physicians would readily identify. Other examples may not be as obvious.
We know of one case where a nurse on the staff of a physicians’ office posted on Facebook that work was grueling that day because he felt under the weather with suspected flu. This may seem, at first, to be an innocuous communication. And that’s all it was, until, the son of an immunosuppressed man who had an appointment at that doctor’s office was flabbergasted to hear from a mutual friend that one of the nurses in the office was at work despite having the flu. He demanded to speak with the office manager and made sure that his father was not seen by that nurse. It may seem like an unlikely coincidence, but, in medical-legal circles, unlikely events occur all the time.
Many people who use social media will check in or post when they are out with friends or colleagues blowing off steam. For example, you might post something on social media about a holiday party you are attending. But, consider what happens if, at work the next day, something goes wrong, your care is called into question, and a lawsuit ensues. Your post may be innocent, but it now falls into the hands of the patient’s attorney. When you are having your deposition taken, the lawyer pulls your social media post out of a stack of papers and grills you about where you were, what you were doing, how late you stayed out, whether you were drinking, how much, and so on. Maybe you explain to him that you were only at the holiday party for an hour and did not have a single drink. That attorney, however, is not required to take your word for it and can ask you who you were with. All of a sudden, your friends and colleagues are being served with subpoenas for their depositions and being examined about what you did that night. Possibly, the lawyer is sending a subpoena for your credit card receipt and the restaurant’s billing records to determine what you ordered that night.
You should never rely on the false assumption that even “private” messages sent directly to other people will truly remain private. One of us was recently involved in a case where this worked to our advantage. A 30-year-old woman claimed that her family doctor never recommended that she see a gastroenterologist. A friend of the patient testified in a deposition that the two of them had discussed her medical care in private messages on Facebook. After the court ordered that the patient turn over her private Facebook messages, we learned that she told her friend that the doctor had indeed made the recommendation for her to see that specialist.
This cautionary tale doesn’t just apply to social media. Keep in mind that, if you are involved in litigation, attorneys can subpoena the records from your cellular phone provider. All cell phone text message are archived by the cellular provider and can be retrieved under subpoena. You may innocently be blowing off steam to a spouse or friend about a difficult patient or bad outcome but later have those text messages used against you in litigation.
The various social media platforms can be great tools for all kinds of professionals to share interesting information and further their professional development. However, everybody, especially the medical professional, needs to think before they post or send a message. We must also remember that, once information is out in cyberspace, it remains there and can never be truly erased. In other words, you can never unring the proverbial bell. It is important to think about the potential impact of that communication before posting and electronically communicating. Only communicate something that you would be comfortable defending in court.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Mr. Shear is an associate attorney in the health care department at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Pittsburgh. He represents physicians, medical professionals, and hospitals in medical malpractice actions.
Social media is now a part of everyday life. From Twitter, with its 140 character limit, to Facebook to Linkedin, there is a world of possibilities for communicating with friends, family, colleagues, and others online. Communication is good, but electronic media is a minefield for medical professionals who do not think carefully before they post.
The stories in the news about health care professionals who have posted obviously inflammatory material online, perhaps in a fit of rage, and have had their careers impacted or ended are just the tip of the iceberg. HIPAA violations have received a good deal of attention, with a well-known example being the doctor who was accused of posting a selfie with Joan Rivers, who was unconscious on the operating table. These examples, however, represent obvious violations of HIPAA and are infractions that most physicians would readily identify. Other examples may not be as obvious.
We know of one case where a nurse on the staff of a physicians’ office posted on Facebook that work was grueling that day because he felt under the weather with suspected flu. This may seem, at first, to be an innocuous communication. And that’s all it was, until, the son of an immunosuppressed man who had an appointment at that doctor’s office was flabbergasted to hear from a mutual friend that one of the nurses in the office was at work despite having the flu. He demanded to speak with the office manager and made sure that his father was not seen by that nurse. It may seem like an unlikely coincidence, but, in medical-legal circles, unlikely events occur all the time.
Many people who use social media will check in or post when they are out with friends or colleagues blowing off steam. For example, you might post something on social media about a holiday party you are attending. But, consider what happens if, at work the next day, something goes wrong, your care is called into question, and a lawsuit ensues. Your post may be innocent, but it now falls into the hands of the patient’s attorney. When you are having your deposition taken, the lawyer pulls your social media post out of a stack of papers and grills you about where you were, what you were doing, how late you stayed out, whether you were drinking, how much, and so on. Maybe you explain to him that you were only at the holiday party for an hour and did not have a single drink. That attorney, however, is not required to take your word for it and can ask you who you were with. All of a sudden, your friends and colleagues are being served with subpoenas for their depositions and being examined about what you did that night. Possibly, the lawyer is sending a subpoena for your credit card receipt and the restaurant’s billing records to determine what you ordered that night.
You should never rely on the false assumption that even “private” messages sent directly to other people will truly remain private. One of us was recently involved in a case where this worked to our advantage. A 30-year-old woman claimed that her family doctor never recommended that she see a gastroenterologist. A friend of the patient testified in a deposition that the two of them had discussed her medical care in private messages on Facebook. After the court ordered that the patient turn over her private Facebook messages, we learned that she told her friend that the doctor had indeed made the recommendation for her to see that specialist.
This cautionary tale doesn’t just apply to social media. Keep in mind that, if you are involved in litigation, attorneys can subpoena the records from your cellular phone provider. All cell phone text message are archived by the cellular provider and can be retrieved under subpoena. You may innocently be blowing off steam to a spouse or friend about a difficult patient or bad outcome but later have those text messages used against you in litigation.
The various social media platforms can be great tools for all kinds of professionals to share interesting information and further their professional development. However, everybody, especially the medical professional, needs to think before they post or send a message. We must also remember that, once information is out in cyberspace, it remains there and can never be truly erased. In other words, you can never unring the proverbial bell. It is important to think about the potential impact of that communication before posting and electronically communicating. Only communicate something that you would be comfortable defending in court.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Mr. Shear is an associate attorney in the health care department at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Pittsburgh. He represents physicians, medical professionals, and hospitals in medical malpractice actions.
Social media is now a part of everyday life. From Twitter, with its 140 character limit, to Facebook to Linkedin, there is a world of possibilities for communicating with friends, family, colleagues, and others online. Communication is good, but electronic media is a minefield for medical professionals who do not think carefully before they post.
The stories in the news about health care professionals who have posted obviously inflammatory material online, perhaps in a fit of rage, and have had their careers impacted or ended are just the tip of the iceberg. HIPAA violations have received a good deal of attention, with a well-known example being the doctor who was accused of posting a selfie with Joan Rivers, who was unconscious on the operating table. These examples, however, represent obvious violations of HIPAA and are infractions that most physicians would readily identify. Other examples may not be as obvious.
We know of one case where a nurse on the staff of a physicians’ office posted on Facebook that work was grueling that day because he felt under the weather with suspected flu. This may seem, at first, to be an innocuous communication. And that’s all it was, until, the son of an immunosuppressed man who had an appointment at that doctor’s office was flabbergasted to hear from a mutual friend that one of the nurses in the office was at work despite having the flu. He demanded to speak with the office manager and made sure that his father was not seen by that nurse. It may seem like an unlikely coincidence, but, in medical-legal circles, unlikely events occur all the time.
Many people who use social media will check in or post when they are out with friends or colleagues blowing off steam. For example, you might post something on social media about a holiday party you are attending. But, consider what happens if, at work the next day, something goes wrong, your care is called into question, and a lawsuit ensues. Your post may be innocent, but it now falls into the hands of the patient’s attorney. When you are having your deposition taken, the lawyer pulls your social media post out of a stack of papers and grills you about where you were, what you were doing, how late you stayed out, whether you were drinking, how much, and so on. Maybe you explain to him that you were only at the holiday party for an hour and did not have a single drink. That attorney, however, is not required to take your word for it and can ask you who you were with. All of a sudden, your friends and colleagues are being served with subpoenas for their depositions and being examined about what you did that night. Possibly, the lawyer is sending a subpoena for your credit card receipt and the restaurant’s billing records to determine what you ordered that night.
You should never rely on the false assumption that even “private” messages sent directly to other people will truly remain private. One of us was recently involved in a case where this worked to our advantage. A 30-year-old woman claimed that her family doctor never recommended that she see a gastroenterologist. A friend of the patient testified in a deposition that the two of them had discussed her medical care in private messages on Facebook. After the court ordered that the patient turn over her private Facebook messages, we learned that she told her friend that the doctor had indeed made the recommendation for her to see that specialist.
This cautionary tale doesn’t just apply to social media. Keep in mind that, if you are involved in litigation, attorneys can subpoena the records from your cellular phone provider. All cell phone text message are archived by the cellular provider and can be retrieved under subpoena. You may innocently be blowing off steam to a spouse or friend about a difficult patient or bad outcome but later have those text messages used against you in litigation.
The various social media platforms can be great tools for all kinds of professionals to share interesting information and further their professional development. However, everybody, especially the medical professional, needs to think before they post or send a message. We must also remember that, once information is out in cyberspace, it remains there and can never be truly erased. In other words, you can never unring the proverbial bell. It is important to think about the potential impact of that communication before posting and electronically communicating. Only communicate something that you would be comfortable defending in court.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Mr. Shear is an associate attorney in the health care department at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Pittsburgh. He represents physicians, medical professionals, and hospitals in medical malpractice actions.
Two boys, a dog, and our electronic health records
“Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
One of our favorite stories is that of two boys talking to one another with a dog sitting nearby. One boy says to the other, “I taught my dog how to whistle.” Skeptically, the other boy responds, “Really? I don’t hear him whistling.” The first boys then replies, “I said I taught him. I didn’t say he learned!”
We spend a lot of time as physicians going over information with our patients, yet, according to the best data available, they retain only a small portion of what we tell them. Medication adherence rates for chronic disease range from 30% to 70%, showing that many doses of important medications are missed. Patients often don’t even remember the last instructions we give them as they are walking out of the office. This raises questions about both the way we explain information and how we can use the tools at our disposal to enhance the communication so vital to patient outcomes.
Obviously, we need to consider our words carefully and focus on teaching, not just speaking. What sets teaching apart from speaking is consideration of the learner. The better we understand our patients’ perspectives, the better the knowledge transfer will be. A simple way to address this may be better eye contact.
We have all heard the expression “the eyes are a window to the soul.” Yet, we now have computers that acts as a virtual shades, covering that window and drawing our gaze away from our patients. These shades can blind us to important clues, impeding communication and leading to misunderstanding, missed opportunity, and even patient harm. This is why some practices have chosen to use scribes to handle documentation, freeing up physicians’ eyes and addressing another obstacle to communication: time.
One of the most cited complaints from physicians is lack of time. There is an ever-growing demand on us to see more patients, manage more data, and “check off more boxes” to meet bureaucratic requirements. It should come as no surprise that these impede good patient care. We are thankful that attempts to modernize payment models are recognizing this problem. For example, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) helps to blaze the trail by focusing on care quality, practice improvement, and patient satisfaction for incentive payments. While these are early steps, they certainly point to a future more concerned with value than with volume.
As we move toward that future, we need to acknowledge that information technology can be both the problem and the answer. The current state of health IT is far from perfect. The tools we use have been designed, seemingly, around financial performance or developed to meet government requirements. It appears that neither physicians nor patients were consulted to ensure their usability or utility. Step No. 1 was getting EHRs out there. Steps 2-10 will be making them useful to clinicians, patients, and health care systems. Part of that utility will come in their ability to enhance communication.
Take patient portals, for example. The “meaningful use program” set as a requirement the ability for patients to “view, download, or transmit” their health information through electronic means. EHR vendors complied with this request but seem to have missed the intent of the measure. Patients accessing the information often are confronted with a morass of technical jargon and unfamiliar medical terms, which may even be offensive. For example, we recently spoke to a parent of a teenager with moderate intellectual disabilities. A hold-out ICD-9 code on the teen’s chart translated to her portal as “318.0 – Imbecile.” Her mother was appropriately upset, and she decided to leave the practice.
As we begin to understand technology’s advantages – and learn its pitfalls – we believe EHR vendors must enhance their offerings while engaging both providers and patients in the process of improvement. We also believe physicians need to leverage the entire care team to realize the software’s full potential. This approach may present new challenges in communication, but it also presents new opportunities. We hope that this collaborative approach will allow physicians to have more time to spend connecting with patients, leading to enhanced understanding and satisfaction.
Our knowledge of human health and disease is growing more sophisticated and so is the challenge of imparting that knowledge to patients. It is critical to find ways to do so that are relevant and understandable and give patients the tools they need to reinforce and remember what we say. This is one of the promises that we are just beginning to see fulfilled by modern EHR technology. Unlike the boy who was trying to teach his dog to whistle, our words have deep impact, and our roles as educators have never been more important.
This article was updated 3/24/17.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
“Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
One of our favorite stories is that of two boys talking to one another with a dog sitting nearby. One boy says to the other, “I taught my dog how to whistle.” Skeptically, the other boy responds, “Really? I don’t hear him whistling.” The first boys then replies, “I said I taught him. I didn’t say he learned!”
We spend a lot of time as physicians going over information with our patients, yet, according to the best data available, they retain only a small portion of what we tell them. Medication adherence rates for chronic disease range from 30% to 70%, showing that many doses of important medications are missed. Patients often don’t even remember the last instructions we give them as they are walking out of the office. This raises questions about both the way we explain information and how we can use the tools at our disposal to enhance the communication so vital to patient outcomes.
Obviously, we need to consider our words carefully and focus on teaching, not just speaking. What sets teaching apart from speaking is consideration of the learner. The better we understand our patients’ perspectives, the better the knowledge transfer will be. A simple way to address this may be better eye contact.
We have all heard the expression “the eyes are a window to the soul.” Yet, we now have computers that acts as a virtual shades, covering that window and drawing our gaze away from our patients. These shades can blind us to important clues, impeding communication and leading to misunderstanding, missed opportunity, and even patient harm. This is why some practices have chosen to use scribes to handle documentation, freeing up physicians’ eyes and addressing another obstacle to communication: time.
One of the most cited complaints from physicians is lack of time. There is an ever-growing demand on us to see more patients, manage more data, and “check off more boxes” to meet bureaucratic requirements. It should come as no surprise that these impede good patient care. We are thankful that attempts to modernize payment models are recognizing this problem. For example, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) helps to blaze the trail by focusing on care quality, practice improvement, and patient satisfaction for incentive payments. While these are early steps, they certainly point to a future more concerned with value than with volume.
As we move toward that future, we need to acknowledge that information technology can be both the problem and the answer. The current state of health IT is far from perfect. The tools we use have been designed, seemingly, around financial performance or developed to meet government requirements. It appears that neither physicians nor patients were consulted to ensure their usability or utility. Step No. 1 was getting EHRs out there. Steps 2-10 will be making them useful to clinicians, patients, and health care systems. Part of that utility will come in their ability to enhance communication.
Take patient portals, for example. The “meaningful use program” set as a requirement the ability for patients to “view, download, or transmit” their health information through electronic means. EHR vendors complied with this request but seem to have missed the intent of the measure. Patients accessing the information often are confronted with a morass of technical jargon and unfamiliar medical terms, which may even be offensive. For example, we recently spoke to a parent of a teenager with moderate intellectual disabilities. A hold-out ICD-9 code on the teen’s chart translated to her portal as “318.0 – Imbecile.” Her mother was appropriately upset, and she decided to leave the practice.
As we begin to understand technology’s advantages – and learn its pitfalls – we believe EHR vendors must enhance their offerings while engaging both providers and patients in the process of improvement. We also believe physicians need to leverage the entire care team to realize the software’s full potential. This approach may present new challenges in communication, but it also presents new opportunities. We hope that this collaborative approach will allow physicians to have more time to spend connecting with patients, leading to enhanced understanding and satisfaction.
Our knowledge of human health and disease is growing more sophisticated and so is the challenge of imparting that knowledge to patients. It is critical to find ways to do so that are relevant and understandable and give patients the tools they need to reinforce and remember what we say. This is one of the promises that we are just beginning to see fulfilled by modern EHR technology. Unlike the boy who was trying to teach his dog to whistle, our words have deep impact, and our roles as educators have never been more important.
This article was updated 3/24/17.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
“Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
One of our favorite stories is that of two boys talking to one another with a dog sitting nearby. One boy says to the other, “I taught my dog how to whistle.” Skeptically, the other boy responds, “Really? I don’t hear him whistling.” The first boys then replies, “I said I taught him. I didn’t say he learned!”
We spend a lot of time as physicians going over information with our patients, yet, according to the best data available, they retain only a small portion of what we tell them. Medication adherence rates for chronic disease range from 30% to 70%, showing that many doses of important medications are missed. Patients often don’t even remember the last instructions we give them as they are walking out of the office. This raises questions about both the way we explain information and how we can use the tools at our disposal to enhance the communication so vital to patient outcomes.
Obviously, we need to consider our words carefully and focus on teaching, not just speaking. What sets teaching apart from speaking is consideration of the learner. The better we understand our patients’ perspectives, the better the knowledge transfer will be. A simple way to address this may be better eye contact.
We have all heard the expression “the eyes are a window to the soul.” Yet, we now have computers that acts as a virtual shades, covering that window and drawing our gaze away from our patients. These shades can blind us to important clues, impeding communication and leading to misunderstanding, missed opportunity, and even patient harm. This is why some practices have chosen to use scribes to handle documentation, freeing up physicians’ eyes and addressing another obstacle to communication: time.
One of the most cited complaints from physicians is lack of time. There is an ever-growing demand on us to see more patients, manage more data, and “check off more boxes” to meet bureaucratic requirements. It should come as no surprise that these impede good patient care. We are thankful that attempts to modernize payment models are recognizing this problem. For example, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) helps to blaze the trail by focusing on care quality, practice improvement, and patient satisfaction for incentive payments. While these are early steps, they certainly point to a future more concerned with value than with volume.
As we move toward that future, we need to acknowledge that information technology can be both the problem and the answer. The current state of health IT is far from perfect. The tools we use have been designed, seemingly, around financial performance or developed to meet government requirements. It appears that neither physicians nor patients were consulted to ensure their usability or utility. Step No. 1 was getting EHRs out there. Steps 2-10 will be making them useful to clinicians, patients, and health care systems. Part of that utility will come in their ability to enhance communication.
Take patient portals, for example. The “meaningful use program” set as a requirement the ability for patients to “view, download, or transmit” their health information through electronic means. EHR vendors complied with this request but seem to have missed the intent of the measure. Patients accessing the information often are confronted with a morass of technical jargon and unfamiliar medical terms, which may even be offensive. For example, we recently spoke to a parent of a teenager with moderate intellectual disabilities. A hold-out ICD-9 code on the teen’s chart translated to her portal as “318.0 – Imbecile.” Her mother was appropriately upset, and she decided to leave the practice.
As we begin to understand technology’s advantages – and learn its pitfalls – we believe EHR vendors must enhance their offerings while engaging both providers and patients in the process of improvement. We also believe physicians need to leverage the entire care team to realize the software’s full potential. This approach may present new challenges in communication, but it also presents new opportunities. We hope that this collaborative approach will allow physicians to have more time to spend connecting with patients, leading to enhanced understanding and satisfaction.
Our knowledge of human health and disease is growing more sophisticated and so is the challenge of imparting that knowledge to patients. It is critical to find ways to do so that are relevant and understandable and give patients the tools they need to reinforce and remember what we say. This is one of the promises that we are just beginning to see fulfilled by modern EHR technology. Unlike the boy who was trying to teach his dog to whistle, our words have deep impact, and our roles as educators have never been more important.
This article was updated 3/24/17.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Our new year’s resolutions
Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better person.
– Benjamin Franklin
Traditionally, the new year is a time for reflection, looking back to review what could have been done better, and looking forward to the opportunity to rectify those inadequacies over the coming year. We thought we would take this opportunity to look at our use of the electronic health record and think about the things we might do over the next year to make our lives easier and our charting better.
Top of our list is a renewed commitment to finish our notes by the end of each session. Too many physicians we know rush through patient hours and then are left with 10-20 notes to finish at the end of the day. Realistically, this is when we least feel like completing notes. Such work encroaches on personal and family time, likely contributes to the burnout that has been increasing among physicians, and is much less likely to accurately represent the encounter than notes completed in real time.
As we have spoken with many of our colleagues, it has become clear to us that many clinicians have learned how to be “just proficient enough” in their use of their EHR; they are not pulling out their hair every 5 minutes in frustration, but they have not taken the extra time and effort that are needed to optimize their productivity. To efficiently use an EHR requires some time spent designing templates and macros to make it easy to repetitively carry out common tasks.
A lot of physicians – particularly physicians over 40 years of age – are still typing their notes with the ol’ two-finger hunt-and-peck technique. This is incredibly time consuming, inefficient, and frustrating.
While many solutions have been proposed, including having a scribe walk around with the doctor, the simplest and easiest to implement is voice transcription. Even though medical transcription software is expensive, the return on investment is large for those who do not type well. After a short period of training on the software, notes are generally of higher quality and are finished considerably faster than when typing. The technology also has the ability to learn the names of frequently used consultants, medications, and procedures, so users don’t even have to type uncommon names or words.
Another area in which we hope to advance over the next year is working more effectively as a team to share the documentation burden. Nurses and medical assistants – within the boundaries of their licensing – can be empowered to document in predefined areas of the chart as much as possible.
For example, given the fact that the prevalence of depression is about twice as high in patients with diabetes as it is in the general population, our medical assistants now screen our diabetes patients with a PHQ-2 depression screen and record the results in the chart. This has been good for our patients, satisfying for our medical assistants, and has offloaded this task from the doctors.
We need to think of more areas where we can facilitate team care and really make everyone – physicians, nurses, front staff, and patients – more satisfied with the care that is being given.
Most EHRs have a reminder function – the ability to prompt a user to follow up on an abnormal x-ray or lab results in case a patient does not come back into the office as recommended. Our sense is that most of us are not using this function. It is worth finding out how to use it and giving it a try.
Patient portals have gained a lot of traction over the past few years. For a little while, we were really making an effort to have patients register, so that currently many (but by far not most) of our patients have signed up. We want to make better use of this fantastic resource.
We say “fantastic” because when we talk to patients (or friends or family) who use the portal, they have shared that it really makes their lives easier. They are able to see their labs, ponder the meaning of their results (perhaps of a slightly high glucose or an LDL cholesterol level), and if they have questions, they can correspond electronically with their care providers. It enhances care and allows us to spend less time on the phone, while giving patients better access to information.
New year’s resolutions are an opportunity for reflection and optimism. As we look back on the past year, we should learn from our experience and approach the year in front of us with greater enthusiasm, in the hope that through that enthusiasm we can continue to grow, be better and healthier, and simply be more like the people we want to be.
The electronic health record affects all of our interactions with patients and colleagues, and, when not used optimally, encroaches into our personal and family lives. It is a perfect place to focus during the new year to enable us to have more productive, effective, and happier times both in the office and at home.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better person.
– Benjamin Franklin
Traditionally, the new year is a time for reflection, looking back to review what could have been done better, and looking forward to the opportunity to rectify those inadequacies over the coming year. We thought we would take this opportunity to look at our use of the electronic health record and think about the things we might do over the next year to make our lives easier and our charting better.
Top of our list is a renewed commitment to finish our notes by the end of each session. Too many physicians we know rush through patient hours and then are left with 10-20 notes to finish at the end of the day. Realistically, this is when we least feel like completing notes. Such work encroaches on personal and family time, likely contributes to the burnout that has been increasing among physicians, and is much less likely to accurately represent the encounter than notes completed in real time.
As we have spoken with many of our colleagues, it has become clear to us that many clinicians have learned how to be “just proficient enough” in their use of their EHR; they are not pulling out their hair every 5 minutes in frustration, but they have not taken the extra time and effort that are needed to optimize their productivity. To efficiently use an EHR requires some time spent designing templates and macros to make it easy to repetitively carry out common tasks.
A lot of physicians – particularly physicians over 40 years of age – are still typing their notes with the ol’ two-finger hunt-and-peck technique. This is incredibly time consuming, inefficient, and frustrating.
While many solutions have been proposed, including having a scribe walk around with the doctor, the simplest and easiest to implement is voice transcription. Even though medical transcription software is expensive, the return on investment is large for those who do not type well. After a short period of training on the software, notes are generally of higher quality and are finished considerably faster than when typing. The technology also has the ability to learn the names of frequently used consultants, medications, and procedures, so users don’t even have to type uncommon names or words.
Another area in which we hope to advance over the next year is working more effectively as a team to share the documentation burden. Nurses and medical assistants – within the boundaries of their licensing – can be empowered to document in predefined areas of the chart as much as possible.
For example, given the fact that the prevalence of depression is about twice as high in patients with diabetes as it is in the general population, our medical assistants now screen our diabetes patients with a PHQ-2 depression screen and record the results in the chart. This has been good for our patients, satisfying for our medical assistants, and has offloaded this task from the doctors.
We need to think of more areas where we can facilitate team care and really make everyone – physicians, nurses, front staff, and patients – more satisfied with the care that is being given.
Most EHRs have a reminder function – the ability to prompt a user to follow up on an abnormal x-ray or lab results in case a patient does not come back into the office as recommended. Our sense is that most of us are not using this function. It is worth finding out how to use it and giving it a try.
Patient portals have gained a lot of traction over the past few years. For a little while, we were really making an effort to have patients register, so that currently many (but by far not most) of our patients have signed up. We want to make better use of this fantastic resource.
We say “fantastic” because when we talk to patients (or friends or family) who use the portal, they have shared that it really makes their lives easier. They are able to see their labs, ponder the meaning of their results (perhaps of a slightly high glucose or an LDL cholesterol level), and if they have questions, they can correspond electronically with their care providers. It enhances care and allows us to spend less time on the phone, while giving patients better access to information.
New year’s resolutions are an opportunity for reflection and optimism. As we look back on the past year, we should learn from our experience and approach the year in front of us with greater enthusiasm, in the hope that through that enthusiasm we can continue to grow, be better and healthier, and simply be more like the people we want to be.
The electronic health record affects all of our interactions with patients and colleagues, and, when not used optimally, encroaches into our personal and family lives. It is a perfect place to focus during the new year to enable us to have more productive, effective, and happier times both in the office and at home.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better person.
– Benjamin Franklin
Traditionally, the new year is a time for reflection, looking back to review what could have been done better, and looking forward to the opportunity to rectify those inadequacies over the coming year. We thought we would take this opportunity to look at our use of the electronic health record and think about the things we might do over the next year to make our lives easier and our charting better.
Top of our list is a renewed commitment to finish our notes by the end of each session. Too many physicians we know rush through patient hours and then are left with 10-20 notes to finish at the end of the day. Realistically, this is when we least feel like completing notes. Such work encroaches on personal and family time, likely contributes to the burnout that has been increasing among physicians, and is much less likely to accurately represent the encounter than notes completed in real time.
As we have spoken with many of our colleagues, it has become clear to us that many clinicians have learned how to be “just proficient enough” in their use of their EHR; they are not pulling out their hair every 5 minutes in frustration, but they have not taken the extra time and effort that are needed to optimize their productivity. To efficiently use an EHR requires some time spent designing templates and macros to make it easy to repetitively carry out common tasks.
A lot of physicians – particularly physicians over 40 years of age – are still typing their notes with the ol’ two-finger hunt-and-peck technique. This is incredibly time consuming, inefficient, and frustrating.
While many solutions have been proposed, including having a scribe walk around with the doctor, the simplest and easiest to implement is voice transcription. Even though medical transcription software is expensive, the return on investment is large for those who do not type well. After a short period of training on the software, notes are generally of higher quality and are finished considerably faster than when typing. The technology also has the ability to learn the names of frequently used consultants, medications, and procedures, so users don’t even have to type uncommon names or words.
Another area in which we hope to advance over the next year is working more effectively as a team to share the documentation burden. Nurses and medical assistants – within the boundaries of their licensing – can be empowered to document in predefined areas of the chart as much as possible.
For example, given the fact that the prevalence of depression is about twice as high in patients with diabetes as it is in the general population, our medical assistants now screen our diabetes patients with a PHQ-2 depression screen and record the results in the chart. This has been good for our patients, satisfying for our medical assistants, and has offloaded this task from the doctors.
We need to think of more areas where we can facilitate team care and really make everyone – physicians, nurses, front staff, and patients – more satisfied with the care that is being given.
Most EHRs have a reminder function – the ability to prompt a user to follow up on an abnormal x-ray or lab results in case a patient does not come back into the office as recommended. Our sense is that most of us are not using this function. It is worth finding out how to use it and giving it a try.
Patient portals have gained a lot of traction over the past few years. For a little while, we were really making an effort to have patients register, so that currently many (but by far not most) of our patients have signed up. We want to make better use of this fantastic resource.
We say “fantastic” because when we talk to patients (or friends or family) who use the portal, they have shared that it really makes their lives easier. They are able to see their labs, ponder the meaning of their results (perhaps of a slightly high glucose or an LDL cholesterol level), and if they have questions, they can correspond electronically with their care providers. It enhances care and allows us to spend less time on the phone, while giving patients better access to information.
New year’s resolutions are an opportunity for reflection and optimism. As we look back on the past year, we should learn from our experience and approach the year in front of us with greater enthusiasm, in the hope that through that enthusiasm we can continue to grow, be better and healthier, and simply be more like the people we want to be.
The electronic health record affects all of our interactions with patients and colleagues, and, when not used optimally, encroaches into our personal and family lives. It is a perfect place to focus during the new year to enable us to have more productive, effective, and happier times both in the office and at home.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Here on Earth
We live inundated with promises that technology will solve our most challenging problems, yet we are regularly disappointed when it does not. New technological solutions seem to appear daily, and we feel like we are falling behind if we do not jump to join the people who are implementing, selling, or imposing new solutions. Often these solutions are offered before the problem is even fully understood, and no assessment has been made to determine if the solution actually helps to solve the challenge identified. With 80% of us now having transitioned to EHRs, we know full well their benefits as well as their pitfalls. While we have mostly accommodated to electronic documentation, we are now at the point where we are beginning to explore some of the most exciting potential benefits of our EHRs – population health, enhanced data on medication adherence, and improved patient communication. As we look at this next stage of growth, we are reminded of a lesson from an old joke:
A rabbi dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there he is given an old robe and a wooden walking stick and is told to get in line to the entrance to heaven. While the rabbi waits in the long line, a taxi driver walks up and is greeted by a group of angels blowing their horns announcing his arrival. One of the angels walks over to the driver and gives him a flowing white satin robe and a golden walking stick. Another angel then escorts him to the front of the line.
The angel turned toward him, smiled, and shook his head. “Yes, yes,” the angel replied, “We know all that. But, here in heaven we care about results, not intent. While you gave your sermons, people slept. When the cab driver drove, people prayed.”
As we look ahead to the next generation of electronic health records, there are going to be many creative ideas of how to use them to help patients improve their health and take care of their diseases. One of the more notable new technologies over the last 5 years is the development of wearable health devices. Innovations like the Apple Watch, Fitbit, and other wearables allow us to track our activity and diet, and encourage us to behave better. They do this by providing constant feedback on how we are doing, and they offer the ability to use social groups to encourage sustained behavioral change. Some devices tell us regularly how far we have walked while others let us know when we have been sitting too long. As we input information about diet, the devices and their associated apps give us feedback on how we are adhering to our dietary goals. Some even allow data to be funneled into the EHR so that physicians can review the behavioral changes and track patient progress. The challenge that arises is that the technology itself is so fascinating and so filled with promise that it is easy to forget what is most important: ensuring it works not just to keep us engaged and busy but also to help us accomplish the real goals we have defined for its use.
Wearable technology is now the most recent and dramatic example of how the excitement over technology may be outpacing its utility. Most of us have tried (or have patients, friends and family who have tried) wearable technology solutions to track and encourage behavioral change. A recent article published in JAMA looked at more than 400 individuals randomized to a standard behavioral weight-loss intervention vs. a technology-enhanced weight loss intervention using a wearable device over 24 months. It was fairly obvious that the group with the wearable device would do better, and have improved fitness and more weight loss. It was obvious … except that is not what happened. Both groups improved equally in fitness, and the standard intervention group lost significantly more weight over 24 months than did the wearable technology group.
There are many reasons that this might have happened. It may be that the idea of this quick feedback loop is in itself flawed, or it may be that the devices and/or the dietary input is simply imprecise, causing people to think that they are doing better than they really are (and then modifying their behavior in the wrong direction). Whatever the explanation, seeing those results, I think again of the moral handed down though generations by that old joke – that here on earth we need to care less about intent and more about results.
Reference
Jakicic JM, et al. Effect of Wearable Technology Combined With a Lifestyle Intervention on Long-term Weight Loss The IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316[11]:1161-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12858
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
We live inundated with promises that technology will solve our most challenging problems, yet we are regularly disappointed when it does not. New technological solutions seem to appear daily, and we feel like we are falling behind if we do not jump to join the people who are implementing, selling, or imposing new solutions. Often these solutions are offered before the problem is even fully understood, and no assessment has been made to determine if the solution actually helps to solve the challenge identified. With 80% of us now having transitioned to EHRs, we know full well their benefits as well as their pitfalls. While we have mostly accommodated to electronic documentation, we are now at the point where we are beginning to explore some of the most exciting potential benefits of our EHRs – population health, enhanced data on medication adherence, and improved patient communication. As we look at this next stage of growth, we are reminded of a lesson from an old joke:
A rabbi dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there he is given an old robe and a wooden walking stick and is told to get in line to the entrance to heaven. While the rabbi waits in the long line, a taxi driver walks up and is greeted by a group of angels blowing their horns announcing his arrival. One of the angels walks over to the driver and gives him a flowing white satin robe and a golden walking stick. Another angel then escorts him to the front of the line.
The angel turned toward him, smiled, and shook his head. “Yes, yes,” the angel replied, “We know all that. But, here in heaven we care about results, not intent. While you gave your sermons, people slept. When the cab driver drove, people prayed.”
As we look ahead to the next generation of electronic health records, there are going to be many creative ideas of how to use them to help patients improve their health and take care of their diseases. One of the more notable new technologies over the last 5 years is the development of wearable health devices. Innovations like the Apple Watch, Fitbit, and other wearables allow us to track our activity and diet, and encourage us to behave better. They do this by providing constant feedback on how we are doing, and they offer the ability to use social groups to encourage sustained behavioral change. Some devices tell us regularly how far we have walked while others let us know when we have been sitting too long. As we input information about diet, the devices and their associated apps give us feedback on how we are adhering to our dietary goals. Some even allow data to be funneled into the EHR so that physicians can review the behavioral changes and track patient progress. The challenge that arises is that the technology itself is so fascinating and so filled with promise that it is easy to forget what is most important: ensuring it works not just to keep us engaged and busy but also to help us accomplish the real goals we have defined for its use.
Wearable technology is now the most recent and dramatic example of how the excitement over technology may be outpacing its utility. Most of us have tried (or have patients, friends and family who have tried) wearable technology solutions to track and encourage behavioral change. A recent article published in JAMA looked at more than 400 individuals randomized to a standard behavioral weight-loss intervention vs. a technology-enhanced weight loss intervention using a wearable device over 24 months. It was fairly obvious that the group with the wearable device would do better, and have improved fitness and more weight loss. It was obvious … except that is not what happened. Both groups improved equally in fitness, and the standard intervention group lost significantly more weight over 24 months than did the wearable technology group.
There are many reasons that this might have happened. It may be that the idea of this quick feedback loop is in itself flawed, or it may be that the devices and/or the dietary input is simply imprecise, causing people to think that they are doing better than they really are (and then modifying their behavior in the wrong direction). Whatever the explanation, seeing those results, I think again of the moral handed down though generations by that old joke – that here on earth we need to care less about intent and more about results.
Reference
Jakicic JM, et al. Effect of Wearable Technology Combined With a Lifestyle Intervention on Long-term Weight Loss The IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316[11]:1161-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12858
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
We live inundated with promises that technology will solve our most challenging problems, yet we are regularly disappointed when it does not. New technological solutions seem to appear daily, and we feel like we are falling behind if we do not jump to join the people who are implementing, selling, or imposing new solutions. Often these solutions are offered before the problem is even fully understood, and no assessment has been made to determine if the solution actually helps to solve the challenge identified. With 80% of us now having transitioned to EHRs, we know full well their benefits as well as their pitfalls. While we have mostly accommodated to electronic documentation, we are now at the point where we are beginning to explore some of the most exciting potential benefits of our EHRs – population health, enhanced data on medication adherence, and improved patient communication. As we look at this next stage of growth, we are reminded of a lesson from an old joke:
A rabbi dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there he is given an old robe and a wooden walking stick and is told to get in line to the entrance to heaven. While the rabbi waits in the long line, a taxi driver walks up and is greeted by a group of angels blowing their horns announcing his arrival. One of the angels walks over to the driver and gives him a flowing white satin robe and a golden walking stick. Another angel then escorts him to the front of the line.
The angel turned toward him, smiled, and shook his head. “Yes, yes,” the angel replied, “We know all that. But, here in heaven we care about results, not intent. While you gave your sermons, people slept. When the cab driver drove, people prayed.”
As we look ahead to the next generation of electronic health records, there are going to be many creative ideas of how to use them to help patients improve their health and take care of their diseases. One of the more notable new technologies over the last 5 years is the development of wearable health devices. Innovations like the Apple Watch, Fitbit, and other wearables allow us to track our activity and diet, and encourage us to behave better. They do this by providing constant feedback on how we are doing, and they offer the ability to use social groups to encourage sustained behavioral change. Some devices tell us regularly how far we have walked while others let us know when we have been sitting too long. As we input information about diet, the devices and their associated apps give us feedback on how we are adhering to our dietary goals. Some even allow data to be funneled into the EHR so that physicians can review the behavioral changes and track patient progress. The challenge that arises is that the technology itself is so fascinating and so filled with promise that it is easy to forget what is most important: ensuring it works not just to keep us engaged and busy but also to help us accomplish the real goals we have defined for its use.
Wearable technology is now the most recent and dramatic example of how the excitement over technology may be outpacing its utility. Most of us have tried (or have patients, friends and family who have tried) wearable technology solutions to track and encourage behavioral change. A recent article published in JAMA looked at more than 400 individuals randomized to a standard behavioral weight-loss intervention vs. a technology-enhanced weight loss intervention using a wearable device over 24 months. It was fairly obvious that the group with the wearable device would do better, and have improved fitness and more weight loss. It was obvious … except that is not what happened. Both groups improved equally in fitness, and the standard intervention group lost significantly more weight over 24 months than did the wearable technology group.
There are many reasons that this might have happened. It may be that the idea of this quick feedback loop is in itself flawed, or it may be that the devices and/or the dietary input is simply imprecise, causing people to think that they are doing better than they really are (and then modifying their behavior in the wrong direction). Whatever the explanation, seeing those results, I think again of the moral handed down though generations by that old joke – that here on earth we need to care less about intent and more about results.
Reference
Jakicic JM, et al. Effect of Wearable Technology Combined With a Lifestyle Intervention on Long-term Weight Loss The IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316[11]:1161-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12858
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
The EHR Report: The vortex that sucks you in
Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.
The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.
Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).1 This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.2 The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.
In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.
This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.
The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”
So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.
References
1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.
2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.
The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.
Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).1 This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.2 The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.
In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.
This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.
The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”
So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.
References
1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.
2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.
The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.
Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).1 This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.2 The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.
In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.
This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.
The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”
So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.
References
1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.
2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.
EHR Report: Take your medicine!
“Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”
–C. Everett Koop, M.D.
While it would be hard to imagine accountable care organizations being able to get the data they need to manage care without electronic health records, and EHRs are critical as payment has evolved to emphasize the outcomes of treatment, one area remains the holy grail of disease management: how to get patients to take the medications that are prescribed.
Poor adherence to medications is a critical issue in the management of chronic disease. The causes for suboptimal adherence are numerous, including the cost of medications, patient-physician communication, patient education, motivation, and simple forgetfulness.
Approximately 1.5 billion prescriptions, at a cost of more than $250 billion, are dispensed each year in the United States. A large body of evidence supports the use of these medications. For patients with diabetes, for instance, correct medication use can lower blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and by so doing, decrease morbidity and mortality from both microvascular and macrovascular disease.
The act of taking medications is influenced by many factors, and all of these factors come together at a point in time when patients are not directly engaged with the health care system. It is at that moment that patients remember and decide whether to take their medications.
Numerous studies show that individuals often do not take their medicines as prescribed. Adherence rates for medications for chronic disease show that patients on average take only about 50% of prescribed doses. For patients with diabetes, the average adherence rate is about 70%, with rates ranging in different studies from 31% to 87%.
When patients do not take their medications correctly, there can be severe consequences. Poor medication adherence can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, including increased hospitalizations. One large dataset of more than 56,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes covered by employer-sponsored health insurance showed that increased adherence to medications significantly reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. When adherence rates increased, the hospitalization rate fell 23%, and the rate of emergency department visits decreased 46%, resulting in significant cost savings for the health system.1
In response to this issue, many strategies have emerged. We now regularly get correspondence from insurance companies alerting us to nonadherence of individual patients. This information tends to be of little benefit, because the information is received long after the decision to take or not take the medication is made. Our response in the office to our patients is generally to remind them to take their medications, which is not much different from the discussion we have with them without that information.
Recently, a new set of apps for smartphones and tablets has emerged to help patients organize their approach to taking medications. Examples of some of these apps include Care4Today, Dosecast, Medisafe, MedSimple, MyMedREc, MyMeds, and OnTimeRx. Most of these apps allow a patient to put in their medication schedule and are organized to provide reminders when it is time to take medications.
The problem with reminders, of course, is that they don’t always happen at a time when it is convenient for a person to take their medications. For example, if your app reminds you to take your medicines at 9 p.m. each night, and you are at the movies on a Saturday night, you may extinguish the reminder and not remember to take the medications when you get home.
Many of the apps also track adherence rates so that patients can see how well they are doing in taking their medications. The results are often startling to patients, and it is hoped that such information would encourage more effort in taking medications.
One problem with many of the apps currently available is that they essentially function as sophisticated alarm clocks. They do not get at some of the fundamental reasons that people do not take their medications, which would require more behavioral input.
In fact, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at 166 medication adherence apps and concluded that current apps contained little in the way of evidence-based behavioral change techniques that have been shown to help change behavior. In fact, only about one-third of apps contained any feedback on behavior at all.2
While adherence apps still have a way to go, they can be helpful, and many contain interesting, novel features. Some allow the patient to input the name of a medication by scanning the name from the medication’s pill bottle. Some have the ability not only to remind a patient to take a medication, but also to text that patient’s caregiver (or parent, in the case of a teenager) if the medication is not taken.
While not perfect, these adherence apps are worth learning more about. They may be helpful additions to our efforts to achieve the best outcomes for our patients by helping them to actually take the medications that we so carefully prescribe.
References
1. Encinosa, W.E.; Bernard, D.; Dor, A. Does prescription drug adherence reduce hospitalizations and costs? The case of diabetes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 22, pp. 151-73, 2010 (AHRQ Publication No. 11-R008).
2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov 17. pii: S0749-3797(15)00637-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.034.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
“Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”
–C. Everett Koop, M.D.
While it would be hard to imagine accountable care organizations being able to get the data they need to manage care without electronic health records, and EHRs are critical as payment has evolved to emphasize the outcomes of treatment, one area remains the holy grail of disease management: how to get patients to take the medications that are prescribed.
Poor adherence to medications is a critical issue in the management of chronic disease. The causes for suboptimal adherence are numerous, including the cost of medications, patient-physician communication, patient education, motivation, and simple forgetfulness.
Approximately 1.5 billion prescriptions, at a cost of more than $250 billion, are dispensed each year in the United States. A large body of evidence supports the use of these medications. For patients with diabetes, for instance, correct medication use can lower blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and by so doing, decrease morbidity and mortality from both microvascular and macrovascular disease.
The act of taking medications is influenced by many factors, and all of these factors come together at a point in time when patients are not directly engaged with the health care system. It is at that moment that patients remember and decide whether to take their medications.
Numerous studies show that individuals often do not take their medicines as prescribed. Adherence rates for medications for chronic disease show that patients on average take only about 50% of prescribed doses. For patients with diabetes, the average adherence rate is about 70%, with rates ranging in different studies from 31% to 87%.
When patients do not take their medications correctly, there can be severe consequences. Poor medication adherence can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, including increased hospitalizations. One large dataset of more than 56,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes covered by employer-sponsored health insurance showed that increased adherence to medications significantly reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. When adherence rates increased, the hospitalization rate fell 23%, and the rate of emergency department visits decreased 46%, resulting in significant cost savings for the health system.1
In response to this issue, many strategies have emerged. We now regularly get correspondence from insurance companies alerting us to nonadherence of individual patients. This information tends to be of little benefit, because the information is received long after the decision to take or not take the medication is made. Our response in the office to our patients is generally to remind them to take their medications, which is not much different from the discussion we have with them without that information.
Recently, a new set of apps for smartphones and tablets has emerged to help patients organize their approach to taking medications. Examples of some of these apps include Care4Today, Dosecast, Medisafe, MedSimple, MyMedREc, MyMeds, and OnTimeRx. Most of these apps allow a patient to put in their medication schedule and are organized to provide reminders when it is time to take medications.
The problem with reminders, of course, is that they don’t always happen at a time when it is convenient for a person to take their medications. For example, if your app reminds you to take your medicines at 9 p.m. each night, and you are at the movies on a Saturday night, you may extinguish the reminder and not remember to take the medications when you get home.
Many of the apps also track adherence rates so that patients can see how well they are doing in taking their medications. The results are often startling to patients, and it is hoped that such information would encourage more effort in taking medications.
One problem with many of the apps currently available is that they essentially function as sophisticated alarm clocks. They do not get at some of the fundamental reasons that people do not take their medications, which would require more behavioral input.
In fact, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at 166 medication adherence apps and concluded that current apps contained little in the way of evidence-based behavioral change techniques that have been shown to help change behavior. In fact, only about one-third of apps contained any feedback on behavior at all.2
While adherence apps still have a way to go, they can be helpful, and many contain interesting, novel features. Some allow the patient to input the name of a medication by scanning the name from the medication’s pill bottle. Some have the ability not only to remind a patient to take a medication, but also to text that patient’s caregiver (or parent, in the case of a teenager) if the medication is not taken.
While not perfect, these adherence apps are worth learning more about. They may be helpful additions to our efforts to achieve the best outcomes for our patients by helping them to actually take the medications that we so carefully prescribe.
References
1. Encinosa, W.E.; Bernard, D.; Dor, A. Does prescription drug adherence reduce hospitalizations and costs? The case of diabetes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 22, pp. 151-73, 2010 (AHRQ Publication No. 11-R008).
2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov 17. pii: S0749-3797(15)00637-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.034.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
“Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”
–C. Everett Koop, M.D.
While it would be hard to imagine accountable care organizations being able to get the data they need to manage care without electronic health records, and EHRs are critical as payment has evolved to emphasize the outcomes of treatment, one area remains the holy grail of disease management: how to get patients to take the medications that are prescribed.
Poor adherence to medications is a critical issue in the management of chronic disease. The causes for suboptimal adherence are numerous, including the cost of medications, patient-physician communication, patient education, motivation, and simple forgetfulness.
Approximately 1.5 billion prescriptions, at a cost of more than $250 billion, are dispensed each year in the United States. A large body of evidence supports the use of these medications. For patients with diabetes, for instance, correct medication use can lower blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and by so doing, decrease morbidity and mortality from both microvascular and macrovascular disease.
The act of taking medications is influenced by many factors, and all of these factors come together at a point in time when patients are not directly engaged with the health care system. It is at that moment that patients remember and decide whether to take their medications.
Numerous studies show that individuals often do not take their medicines as prescribed. Adherence rates for medications for chronic disease show that patients on average take only about 50% of prescribed doses. For patients with diabetes, the average adherence rate is about 70%, with rates ranging in different studies from 31% to 87%.
When patients do not take their medications correctly, there can be severe consequences. Poor medication adherence can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, including increased hospitalizations. One large dataset of more than 56,000 individuals with type 2 diabetes covered by employer-sponsored health insurance showed that increased adherence to medications significantly reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits. When adherence rates increased, the hospitalization rate fell 23%, and the rate of emergency department visits decreased 46%, resulting in significant cost savings for the health system.1
In response to this issue, many strategies have emerged. We now regularly get correspondence from insurance companies alerting us to nonadherence of individual patients. This information tends to be of little benefit, because the information is received long after the decision to take or not take the medication is made. Our response in the office to our patients is generally to remind them to take their medications, which is not much different from the discussion we have with them without that information.
Recently, a new set of apps for smartphones and tablets has emerged to help patients organize their approach to taking medications. Examples of some of these apps include Care4Today, Dosecast, Medisafe, MedSimple, MyMedREc, MyMeds, and OnTimeRx. Most of these apps allow a patient to put in their medication schedule and are organized to provide reminders when it is time to take medications.
The problem with reminders, of course, is that they don’t always happen at a time when it is convenient for a person to take their medications. For example, if your app reminds you to take your medicines at 9 p.m. each night, and you are at the movies on a Saturday night, you may extinguish the reminder and not remember to take the medications when you get home.
Many of the apps also track adherence rates so that patients can see how well they are doing in taking their medications. The results are often startling to patients, and it is hoped that such information would encourage more effort in taking medications.
One problem with many of the apps currently available is that they essentially function as sophisticated alarm clocks. They do not get at some of the fundamental reasons that people do not take their medications, which would require more behavioral input.
In fact, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at 166 medication adherence apps and concluded that current apps contained little in the way of evidence-based behavioral change techniques that have been shown to help change behavior. In fact, only about one-third of apps contained any feedback on behavior at all.2
While adherence apps still have a way to go, they can be helpful, and many contain interesting, novel features. Some allow the patient to input the name of a medication by scanning the name from the medication’s pill bottle. Some have the ability not only to remind a patient to take a medication, but also to text that patient’s caregiver (or parent, in the case of a teenager) if the medication is not taken.
While not perfect, these adherence apps are worth learning more about. They may be helpful additions to our efforts to achieve the best outcomes for our patients by helping them to actually take the medications that we so carefully prescribe.
References
1. Encinosa, W.E.; Bernard, D.; Dor, A. Does prescription drug adherence reduce hospitalizations and costs? The case of diabetes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 22, pp. 151-73, 2010 (AHRQ Publication No. 11-R008).
2. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov 17. pii: S0749-3797(15)00637-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.034.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
EHR Report: How Zika virus reveals the fault in our EHRs
It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.
Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.
With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?
As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.
In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.
In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …
Change needs to be faster than Zika
Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.
Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.
Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.
On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.
This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.
Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”
We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!
Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …
It is time for smarter EHRs!
For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.
If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.
Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?
It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.
Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.
Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).
Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.
Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.
Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.
Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.
With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?
As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.
In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.
In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …
Change needs to be faster than Zika
Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.
Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.
Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.
On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.
This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.
Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”
We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!
Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …
It is time for smarter EHRs!
For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.
If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.
Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?
It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.
Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.
Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).
Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.
Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.
Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.
Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.
With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?
As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.
In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.
In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …
Change needs to be faster than Zika
Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.
Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.
Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.
On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.
This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.
Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”
We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!
Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …
It is time for smarter EHRs!
For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.
If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.
Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?
It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.
Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.
Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).
Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.
Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.
Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
CMS formally proposes changes to EHR reporting period for 2015
Physicians and other health care professionals would need to attest to meeting criteria for the meaningful use of electronic health records for 90 days in 2015, under a proposed change announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services April 10.
The agency included a number of other changes in the proposed rule, including reducing the attestation period for those new to the meaningful use program in 2015 and 2016 to 90 days. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published April 15 in the Federal Register.
The proposed rule is designed to align the stage 1 and stage 2 meaningful use criteria with the proposed stage 3 criteria issued earlier this year.
Other changes include moving the hospital meaningful use attestation period to a calendar year for 2015, away from the current fiscal year period. This would give hospitals an additional 3 months to attest to meeting the meaningful use criteria in 2015.
The proposed rule also would reduce the number of patients who must access their patient portal from 5% of patients to “equal to or greater than 1.” The measure tracking secure messaging would be changed from a percentage-based measure to attesting that the secure messaging function is “fully enabled.”
Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov are due June 15.
Physicians and other health care professionals would need to attest to meeting criteria for the meaningful use of electronic health records for 90 days in 2015, under a proposed change announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services April 10.
The agency included a number of other changes in the proposed rule, including reducing the attestation period for those new to the meaningful use program in 2015 and 2016 to 90 days. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published April 15 in the Federal Register.
The proposed rule is designed to align the stage 1 and stage 2 meaningful use criteria with the proposed stage 3 criteria issued earlier this year.
Other changes include moving the hospital meaningful use attestation period to a calendar year for 2015, away from the current fiscal year period. This would give hospitals an additional 3 months to attest to meeting the meaningful use criteria in 2015.
The proposed rule also would reduce the number of patients who must access their patient portal from 5% of patients to “equal to or greater than 1.” The measure tracking secure messaging would be changed from a percentage-based measure to attesting that the secure messaging function is “fully enabled.”
Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov are due June 15.
Physicians and other health care professionals would need to attest to meeting criteria for the meaningful use of electronic health records for 90 days in 2015, under a proposed change announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services April 10.
The agency included a number of other changes in the proposed rule, including reducing the attestation period for those new to the meaningful use program in 2015 and 2016 to 90 days. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published April 15 in the Federal Register.
The proposed rule is designed to align the stage 1 and stage 2 meaningful use criteria with the proposed stage 3 criteria issued earlier this year.
Other changes include moving the hospital meaningful use attestation period to a calendar year for 2015, away from the current fiscal year period. This would give hospitals an additional 3 months to attest to meeting the meaningful use criteria in 2015.
The proposed rule also would reduce the number of patients who must access their patient portal from 5% of patients to “equal to or greater than 1.” The measure tracking secure messaging would be changed from a percentage-based measure to attesting that the secure messaging function is “fully enabled.”
Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov are due June 15.
EHR Report: Across the ages
Eighty percent of physicians are now using electronic health records in their offices. We have been impressed that the younger physicians to whom we have spoken often view their experience with EHRs very differently from older physicians. Is such a difference inevitable, perhaps, not just because change is more difficult for many people as they get older but also because expectations are influenced by experience. Noticing these different thoughts and feelings, we’ve asked two physicians more than 55 years old and two younger physicians to share some thoughts on their experiences with electronic records.
Mathew Clark (family physician)
I’ve been in practice for 31 years and using an EHR system for just under 5. I’m not thrilled with it, but I accept that it’s an unavoidable part of my practice now, and so I don’t waste energy being upset about it. I’ve learned to function efficiently with an EHR, doing the best I can. I remember physicians, before the days of SOAP notes, who would write pithy, useful notes such as "probable strep, Pen VK 500 bid for 10 days" on 3x5 index cards. Such notes lacked detail, and it’s not hard to imagine the problems this lack of detail might create, but they were readable at a glance, and told you what you needed to know. On the other hand, the massively detailed, bloated notes we see with our EHRs, obscured by "copy-forward" text and fictional (in other words, never really asked or examined) information, present very significant practical and legal issues of their own, and take hours of physician time to complete. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the index cards.
Natalie McGann (family physician)
I have been a family physician in practice for 4 years since graduating from residency. The advent of the EHR hasn’t been an overwhelming transition for those of us in the early stages of our careers. Much of our schooling to date has included laptops and other electronic devices that for many prove an easier means of communication. Despite that fact that EHRs require a host of extraneous clicks and check boxes, it is still less cumbersome than documenting encounters on paper. For the generation of young physicians accustomed to having answers at their fingertips, the idea of flipping through paper charts to collate a patient’s medical record seems far more complicated than clicking a few tabs without ever leaving your chair. I, and most colleagues in my peer group to whom I’ve spoken, agree that we would not be likely to a join a practice that doesn’t utilize an EHR or have a current plan to adopt one. Anything less would feel like a step back at this point.
Danielle Carcia (intern, family medicine residency)
Overall, I enjoy using electronic medical records. I feel that it places all pertinent information about the patient in an easy-to-follow and concise manner. The ability to read through past providers and even at times specialists visits with a patient can be very helpful when navigating an appointment with a new patient. As a young physician, electronics have been an extension of myself for my entire adult life, so a computer in front of me during an office visit is comforting. I do not feel it distracts from my interaction with patients, or takes away from their experience at all, just the opposite, it allows me to more confidently care for them with up to date, and organized information at my fingertips.
Dave Depietro (family physician)
I have been a family physician for 25 years and feel that the EHRs have affected my office in a number of ways. It has definitely improved the efficacy of office tasks such as doing prescription refills, interoffice communication, and scheduling. Also before EHRs, the turnaround time for a dictated note was about a week, and now most notes are completed by the end of the day. This makes it easier if I am taking care of one of my partner’s patients or dealing with a patient I recently saw. Also in this day of pay for performance we can now gather data much easier. This would be almost impossible to do if we still had paper charts.
EHRs unfortunately also have their downsides. The main problem I see is that they add a significant amount of time for providers to complete tasks. When I dictated a note, I could have completed a note within 1-2 minutes where now with EHRs, it can take maybe 3-5 minutes/patient. Also to approve labs, x-rays, etc. it just takes longer. I feel that EHRs have added about 1½ hr to my day. I feel most of my colleagues have the same complaint. They routinely take work home at night and spend 1-2 hours at home completing notes. Many of my peers seem stressed and frustrated. Even though EHRs make the office more efficient, I feel that the provider pays the price. My other complaint is the cost of IT support to keep the EHRs running smoothly. The promise of EHRs is that they would save physicians’ money and reduce staffing, however I have not seen that happen.
I ask myself, at the end of the day, would I go back to paper charts? The answer is no. Despite their downsides, I feel that the positives of EHRs outweigh the negatives. Older doctors just need to adapt to this new way of practicing medicine.
The Bottom Line
Clearly there is a range of opinion about the effect of electronic health records on our practices and our lives, with those opinions at least partly segregated by age. We are interested in your thoughts and plan to publish some of those thoughts in future columns, so please let us know at info@ehrpc.com. Thanks.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of Redi-Reference Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.
Eighty percent of physicians are now using electronic health records in their offices. We have been impressed that the younger physicians to whom we have spoken often view their experience with EHRs very differently from older physicians. Is such a difference inevitable, perhaps, not just because change is more difficult for many people as they get older but also because expectations are influenced by experience. Noticing these different thoughts and feelings, we’ve asked two physicians more than 55 years old and two younger physicians to share some thoughts on their experiences with electronic records.
Mathew Clark (family physician)
I’ve been in practice for 31 years and using an EHR system for just under 5. I’m not thrilled with it, but I accept that it’s an unavoidable part of my practice now, and so I don’t waste energy being upset about it. I’ve learned to function efficiently with an EHR, doing the best I can. I remember physicians, before the days of SOAP notes, who would write pithy, useful notes such as "probable strep, Pen VK 500 bid for 10 days" on 3x5 index cards. Such notes lacked detail, and it’s not hard to imagine the problems this lack of detail might create, but they were readable at a glance, and told you what you needed to know. On the other hand, the massively detailed, bloated notes we see with our EHRs, obscured by "copy-forward" text and fictional (in other words, never really asked or examined) information, present very significant practical and legal issues of their own, and take hours of physician time to complete. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the index cards.
Natalie McGann (family physician)
I have been a family physician in practice for 4 years since graduating from residency. The advent of the EHR hasn’t been an overwhelming transition for those of us in the early stages of our careers. Much of our schooling to date has included laptops and other electronic devices that for many prove an easier means of communication. Despite that fact that EHRs require a host of extraneous clicks and check boxes, it is still less cumbersome than documenting encounters on paper. For the generation of young physicians accustomed to having answers at their fingertips, the idea of flipping through paper charts to collate a patient’s medical record seems far more complicated than clicking a few tabs without ever leaving your chair. I, and most colleagues in my peer group to whom I’ve spoken, agree that we would not be likely to a join a practice that doesn’t utilize an EHR or have a current plan to adopt one. Anything less would feel like a step back at this point.
Danielle Carcia (intern, family medicine residency)
Overall, I enjoy using electronic medical records. I feel that it places all pertinent information about the patient in an easy-to-follow and concise manner. The ability to read through past providers and even at times specialists visits with a patient can be very helpful when navigating an appointment with a new patient. As a young physician, electronics have been an extension of myself for my entire adult life, so a computer in front of me during an office visit is comforting. I do not feel it distracts from my interaction with patients, or takes away from their experience at all, just the opposite, it allows me to more confidently care for them with up to date, and organized information at my fingertips.
Dave Depietro (family physician)
I have been a family physician for 25 years and feel that the EHRs have affected my office in a number of ways. It has definitely improved the efficacy of office tasks such as doing prescription refills, interoffice communication, and scheduling. Also before EHRs, the turnaround time for a dictated note was about a week, and now most notes are completed by the end of the day. This makes it easier if I am taking care of one of my partner’s patients or dealing with a patient I recently saw. Also in this day of pay for performance we can now gather data much easier. This would be almost impossible to do if we still had paper charts.
EHRs unfortunately also have their downsides. The main problem I see is that they add a significant amount of time for providers to complete tasks. When I dictated a note, I could have completed a note within 1-2 minutes where now with EHRs, it can take maybe 3-5 minutes/patient. Also to approve labs, x-rays, etc. it just takes longer. I feel that EHRs have added about 1½ hr to my day. I feel most of my colleagues have the same complaint. They routinely take work home at night and spend 1-2 hours at home completing notes. Many of my peers seem stressed and frustrated. Even though EHRs make the office more efficient, I feel that the provider pays the price. My other complaint is the cost of IT support to keep the EHRs running smoothly. The promise of EHRs is that they would save physicians’ money and reduce staffing, however I have not seen that happen.
I ask myself, at the end of the day, would I go back to paper charts? The answer is no. Despite their downsides, I feel that the positives of EHRs outweigh the negatives. Older doctors just need to adapt to this new way of practicing medicine.
The Bottom Line
Clearly there is a range of opinion about the effect of electronic health records on our practices and our lives, with those opinions at least partly segregated by age. We are interested in your thoughts and plan to publish some of those thoughts in future columns, so please let us know at info@ehrpc.com. Thanks.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of Redi-Reference Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.
Eighty percent of physicians are now using electronic health records in their offices. We have been impressed that the younger physicians to whom we have spoken often view their experience with EHRs very differently from older physicians. Is such a difference inevitable, perhaps, not just because change is more difficult for many people as they get older but also because expectations are influenced by experience. Noticing these different thoughts and feelings, we’ve asked two physicians more than 55 years old and two younger physicians to share some thoughts on their experiences with electronic records.
Mathew Clark (family physician)
I’ve been in practice for 31 years and using an EHR system for just under 5. I’m not thrilled with it, but I accept that it’s an unavoidable part of my practice now, and so I don’t waste energy being upset about it. I’ve learned to function efficiently with an EHR, doing the best I can. I remember physicians, before the days of SOAP notes, who would write pithy, useful notes such as "probable strep, Pen VK 500 bid for 10 days" on 3x5 index cards. Such notes lacked detail, and it’s not hard to imagine the problems this lack of detail might create, but they were readable at a glance, and told you what you needed to know. On the other hand, the massively detailed, bloated notes we see with our EHRs, obscured by "copy-forward" text and fictional (in other words, never really asked or examined) information, present very significant practical and legal issues of their own, and take hours of physician time to complete. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the index cards.
Natalie McGann (family physician)
I have been a family physician in practice for 4 years since graduating from residency. The advent of the EHR hasn’t been an overwhelming transition for those of us in the early stages of our careers. Much of our schooling to date has included laptops and other electronic devices that for many prove an easier means of communication. Despite that fact that EHRs require a host of extraneous clicks and check boxes, it is still less cumbersome than documenting encounters on paper. For the generation of young physicians accustomed to having answers at their fingertips, the idea of flipping through paper charts to collate a patient’s medical record seems far more complicated than clicking a few tabs without ever leaving your chair. I, and most colleagues in my peer group to whom I’ve spoken, agree that we would not be likely to a join a practice that doesn’t utilize an EHR or have a current plan to adopt one. Anything less would feel like a step back at this point.
Danielle Carcia (intern, family medicine residency)
Overall, I enjoy using electronic medical records. I feel that it places all pertinent information about the patient in an easy-to-follow and concise manner. The ability to read through past providers and even at times specialists visits with a patient can be very helpful when navigating an appointment with a new patient. As a young physician, electronics have been an extension of myself for my entire adult life, so a computer in front of me during an office visit is comforting. I do not feel it distracts from my interaction with patients, or takes away from their experience at all, just the opposite, it allows me to more confidently care for them with up to date, and organized information at my fingertips.
Dave Depietro (family physician)
I have been a family physician for 25 years and feel that the EHRs have affected my office in a number of ways. It has definitely improved the efficacy of office tasks such as doing prescription refills, interoffice communication, and scheduling. Also before EHRs, the turnaround time for a dictated note was about a week, and now most notes are completed by the end of the day. This makes it easier if I am taking care of one of my partner’s patients or dealing with a patient I recently saw. Also in this day of pay for performance we can now gather data much easier. This would be almost impossible to do if we still had paper charts.
EHRs unfortunately also have their downsides. The main problem I see is that they add a significant amount of time for providers to complete tasks. When I dictated a note, I could have completed a note within 1-2 minutes where now with EHRs, it can take maybe 3-5 minutes/patient. Also to approve labs, x-rays, etc. it just takes longer. I feel that EHRs have added about 1½ hr to my day. I feel most of my colleagues have the same complaint. They routinely take work home at night and spend 1-2 hours at home completing notes. Many of my peers seem stressed and frustrated. Even though EHRs make the office more efficient, I feel that the provider pays the price. My other complaint is the cost of IT support to keep the EHRs running smoothly. The promise of EHRs is that they would save physicians’ money and reduce staffing, however I have not seen that happen.
I ask myself, at the end of the day, would I go back to paper charts? The answer is no. Despite their downsides, I feel that the positives of EHRs outweigh the negatives. Older doctors just need to adapt to this new way of practicing medicine.
The Bottom Line
Clearly there is a range of opinion about the effect of electronic health records on our practices and our lives, with those opinions at least partly segregated by age. We are interested in your thoughts and plan to publish some of those thoughts in future columns, so please let us know at info@ehrpc.com. Thanks.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of Redi-Reference Inc., a software company that creates mobile apps.
