US Electronic Health Records Rollout: So Far, A Mixed Diagnosis

Many doctors and patients satisfied with their EHR systems, but others less than thrilled

3 min read
US Electronic Health Records Rollout: So Far, A Mixed Diagnosis

The rollout of electronic heath records (EHR) continues in the U.S., with doctor and patient ratings running the gamut from "great" to "needs a do-over."  For instance, Information Week reports the results of a study in the American Journal of Managed Careindicating that Kaiser Permanente members who used the health insurer’s My Health Manager personal health record (PHR) service were more than twice as likely to stay with Kaiser as those who did not.  The AJMC study concludes that online access to medical data and advice may becoming a factor in choosing a health plan.

According to a Kaiser press release, some 63 percent of the nearly 4 million eligible users of My Health Manager are active users; more than “1 million secure email messages are sent to Kaiser Permanente doctors and clinicians each month, and nearly 2.5 million lab test results are viewed online.” Kaiser completed the rollout of its EHR system in March 2010.

Despite the seeming popularity of Kaiser’s EHR/PHR system, the American public at large still seems generally wary of digital medical records. A recent survey by Xerox Healthcare, for instance, showed that while 40 percent of Americans believe EHRs “will deliver better, more efficient care”—a low percentage in and of itself—only 28 percent of respondents want EHRs. Just as many (26 percent) say they aren’t interested in them, with nearly half of that group claiming that  they are frightened by the prospect of their medical records exist in digital form. The biggest worry expressed by the dissenters is that EHRs are vulnerable to electronic theft or misuse. Interestingly, survey respondents said that patients had the least to gain from EHRs; healthcare professionals, they thought, benefited the most.

Xerox says that what healthcare organizations must do to overcome this wariness is "continue to educate Americans on the value of EHRs."

A number of doctors may also need convincing of their value. Some of the more recent data (pdf) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicate that 55 percent of doctors are adopters of EHRs. But while an increasing number of doctors and hospitals seem to accept the necessity (or inevitability) of adopting EHRs, not all are necessarily happy about it.  The CDC survey indicates that 38 percent of doctors who are using EHRs are very satisfied with their systems, while 5 percent are very dissatisfied with them.  In addition, 47 percent of doctors say they are somewhat satisfied, while 10 percent indicate they are somewhat dissatisfied with their EHR system.

A recurring issue of concern for healthcare professionals is the steep EHR learning curve (often caused by their abysmal design) and the dip in healthcare facility productivity that a move to EHRs creates. For example, an Associated Press article reported that wait times in an Ohio hospital emergency room doubled as it switched to its new EHR system in June. The wait times are now being reduced, but have yet to reach pre-EHR levels.

Another recurring issue is that the implementation of EHR systems doesn’t always go smoothly for healthcare organizations large or small, as seen by the problems recently reported in Vermont, Pennsylvania and Kansas.

A looming implementation concern is what will happen when U.S. government EHR incentive money runs out. According to a Modern Healthcare article, “as of July 5, there were 816 different EHR vendors offering 1,477 'unique' certified products.” All of them have managed to make it onto the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology’s official Certified Health IT Product List. And more EHR vendors are expected to appear over the next few years. No doubt, a large number of these vendors will not survive, especially as the EHR market hits the saturation point. Then the "fun" will really begin as doctors and hospitals have to change EHR systems on their own nickel.

The Conversation (0)

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less