Matthew Holt

EMR use: on the steep part of the S curve, or being replaced by a new idea?

Ten plus years ago, I was giving talks suggesting that at some point relatively soon the EMR was going to become a reality. In 1999, at Harris Interactive I actually got the chance to launch a study which I hoped was going to soon show a relatively steep growth in EMR use in physicians’ practices. (The study was called Computing in the Physician’s Practice). Sadly because the study wasn’t a huge financial success and because I wandered off to do other things, it was only fielded in late 1999 and early 2001.

I developed a very complex metric of what computing was used in the physicians office, and in particular what doctors actually did and planned to do electronically. So for example, did they order lab tests electronically, did they look up test results or PACS images online, did they take notes electronically, etc, etc. By the second fielding, the questionnaire changed a little and sadly Harris started asking doctors if they were using an EMR—a pretty useless question as they didn’t define what it meant.

The results at that stage weren’t too encouraging. Because new data is out today, I went back and took a look. Around 25% of physicians were looking at some individual patient data using some type of a computer back then, but only around 8% were taking any clinical notes using one (pens and micro-cassettes were the order of the day). The juicy data is on page 80 onwards of the slideshare deck. Obviously, the total percentage of doctors using an all singing-all dancing EMR was very low.

For those of you really interested in the archaeology of the EMR I’ve put the 1999 study results up on SlideShare (Yes, it was proprietary then, but I can’t imagine anyone cares much about that now!).

So nine years ago you had about a quarter of doctors who at least came within sniffing distance of something like an EMR. And that was already a low number in terms of international comparisons. The docs in the N countries (New Zealand, Netherlands and Norway) were already on their way to 100% penetration then.

Fast forward to this past Friday.

CDC (which for some reason has taken on the mantle to find out
what’s what in physician computing use) has done a study of about 1,200
docs this year—updating the one they did in 2006. Only preliminary top line data is out but it is encouraging:

In the 2008 mail survey, 38.4% of the physicians reported using
full or partial EMR systems, not including billing records, in their
office-based practices. About 20.4% reported using a system described
as minimally functional and including the following features: orders
for prescriptions, orders for tests, viewing laboratory or imaging
results, and clinical notes. Comparable figures for the 2006 NAMCS, the
latest available for the full survey, were 29.2% and 12.4%,
respectively.

So now I’m going to make a giant leap and say that my 1999
data—the 28% who said that they looked at some clinical data about an
individual patient on a computer—is very roughly equivalent to
the 29% in 2006 who said that they were using a full or partial EMR
system. That suggests that not much changed between 2000 and 2006. (Yes,
I know that I don’t know the definitions in the CDC survey, but I have
asked that they respond to this post….)

So now, two years after 2006 we’ve gone from 29% to
38%—a relative leap of nearly 40% and an absolute increase of 9%. This
suggests that just maybe with the growth in all those EMR vendors like
Epic, eClinicalworks and many many more, we are now in the steep part
of the “S” curve growth.

And we have yet to come the $40 billion more to be invested that the Prez2Be has promised (OK, I’m mostly joking here….)

There’s just one problem. We’re using the wrong words and talking about the wrong thing.

While the EMR diffusion has been waiting to happen, what’s
going on out there in the wider world is a rash of different
applications being developed for physicians, patients, consumers, and
everyone else in between. What we now need to realize (to paraphrase David Kibbe writing on THCB a few weeks back) is that the EMR is not the be all and end all.

In fact the EMR doesn’t exist. Nor does the PHR, the
integrated compiled mainframe, and who knows what else. Instead, like in the
rest of the tech world there are data and there are applications.

In health care those applications are starting to form
tools that help both to record what is happening, and help to
personalize and analyze information. They next then help support
decisions and enable transactions. And those tools need data both about
general issues (e.g what’s the right treatment for these symptoms) and
specific individuals (e.g. what drugs is this person taking, and what
symptoms do they have?). Those data are increasingly coming from a
multitude of sources, and more and more are being opened up.

So the correct question is not, “are you the physician
using an EMR?” In fact the TLAs of EMR, PHR and the rest should be
scrapped.

The correct question is now, “how are you receiving data
about your patients, and what tools are you and they using together to
improve their care?”

I didn’t know how to ask that in 1999, but since the
growth of Health 2.0, I now do. And hopefully we’ll see the number of
physicians and patients able to answer that hit the steep part of
the “S” curve in the next two to five years.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Matthew Holt

Tagged as: , , ,

16
Leave a Reply

16 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
EMR Medicalinternal medicine emrperpsectoffTom HamiltonGretta Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
EMR Medical
Guest

The growing demand by patients, government entities and private sector companies over the last several years is driving demand for Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems. The complexity of information technology in general, combined with the additional intricacies of a patient’s interaction with the healthcare system, provides for significant challenges in effective integration and adoption of EMR systems.

internal medicine emr
Guest

Technology truly has a big impact on health in the
developing world and implementing EMR I think will definitely lead to better care..Advantages of electronic medical records include the ability to catch medication errors, check for adverse drug interactions, and track test results and schedule follow ups.

perpsectoff
Guest
perpsectoff

There is no mention of WorldVista in this thread: tailored, adaptable, free.
You guys spin your wheels while a good solution has been available for about 2 years.

Tom Hamilton
Guest

EMR Software and Dragon NaturallySpeaking are being utilized together in more practices and by more physicians every year as they move toward a paperless office. In light of that fact I would like to invite any forum members, lurkers, or passersby to come register and join the KnowBrainer Speech Recognition Forum http://www.knowbrainer.com/PubForum/ to learn about all the nuts and bolts of Medical Voice recognition. If you are interested in Medical speech recognition this is THE forum to either get the most accuracy and productivity out of your current system or do research to decide whether you might be interested in… Read more »

Tom Hamilton
Guest

EMR Software and Dragon NaturallySpeaking are being utilized together in more practices and by more physicians every year as they move toward a paperless office. In light of that fact I would like to invite any forum members, lurkers, or passersby to come register and join the KnowBrainer Speech Recognition Forum http://www.knowbrainer.com/PubForum/ to learn about all the nuts and bolts of Medical Voice recognition. If you are interested in Medical speech recognition this is THE forum to either get the most accuracy and productivity out of your current system or do research to decide whether you might be interested in… Read more »

Gretta
Guest

Check out this blog about electronic medical records – I’ve never seen anything like it:
http://iopracticeware.blogspot.com

Janet
Guest
Janet

Suzanne Houck, you wrote, “The good news is that ever so slowly, progress is being made. Payers are beginning to see the failure of pay for volume vs. quality…” This good news has not yet sifted down to us in the Great Plains. Can you tell me what signs you are seeing?

j. bolduc kittredge
Guest

matthew
I whole-heartedly agree with your post- especially the part about the correct question to ask is what tools are you and patients using to improve their care. this post has generated a lot of good conversation. hopefully leaders in the industry will keep the conversation going and find solitions so that all constituents of healthcare will be better off.

Suzanne Houck
Guest

Great, thoughtful piece. Your question “how are you receiving data about your patients, and what tools are you and they using together to improve their care?” appropriately refocuses on the goal of improving care delivery. I would expand the question from the process goal of how are you improving care to the more explicit outcome goals of, “to heal, enable, and delight patients at the lowest possible cost?” Healthcare encounters from self care to open heart surgery include four key steps: information gathering, analysis, decision making, and action (including treatment). The right “vehicle” would be a virtual activity hub where… Read more »

Stead Burwell
Guest

Great post, Matthew. My favorite part is your close: So the correct question is not, “are you the physician using an EMR?” In fact the TLAs of EMR, PHR and the rest should be scrapped. The correct question is now, “how are you receiving data about your patients, and what tools are you and they using together to improve their care?” I couldn’t agree more. EMRs or Clincian Data Tools will help digitize patient data. Let’s hope Data Portability will put data in the hands of patients. Ultimately, it will be up to the patients to promote the use of… Read more »

J Bean
Guest
J Bean

As Janet points out the current crop of EMRs attempt to be too general. When you try to write software that does everything for everybody, it’s hard not to make it cumbersome. To date medical software hasn’t attracted any insightful designers. I’m interested in seeing what the Behemoth of Redmond will produce from their medical records project. They aren’t known for their brilliant design, either though.

Janet
Guest
Janet

My husband is a Family Medicine doc and one of his partners took a stab at EMR about five years back. And it was disastrous. They were cumbersome and not at all time saving. Since the rubric in Family Medicine (as I see it) is to see a lot of people very fast in order to make money AND to document excellently computers would seem to have a role. However, my husband has an older patient population where complex multiple problems are the rule. (These patients are preferentially off-loaded by younger physicians who understand my first sentence well and understand… Read more »

Jeff Goldsmith
Guest
Jeff Goldsmith

EMR’s were supposed to make it simpler to practice medicine by freeing caregivers from the burdens of charting, paper orders, missing information, missed connections and lack of relevant clinical evidence. Had this been the case, there would have been a significant productivity gain, which would, in turn, have translated into more income (either realized in cash or shorter work days for the same amount of clinical effort). See Kibbe’s earlier post (Confessions of a Physician EMR Champion) for a far more detailed and thoughtful analysis of this problem. Thought the toolset has advanced dramatically in the past decade, EMRs are… Read more »

Jay Srinivasan
Guest
Jay Srinivasan

In all my readings on, and about, EMR I have never clearly appreciated who gains – is it the patient, the physician, or some payer? The inability of EMR to gain traction, I believe, can be sourced to this fundamental problem. Where is value generated and whom is it appropriated by? There have been no clear answers to this question. The “S” curve reasoning may be applicable if we understand that to mean the 29% or so of physicians who have embraced EMR are the early adopters and the individual gains – one presumes, monetary, since there has been a… Read more »

David C. Kibbe, MD MBA
Guest

Good post, Matthew. And Jeff’s term “clinical groupware” is terrific. That’s the transition you’re describing in a nutshell, from stand-alone client-server EMR software application from a single vendor, to “clinical groupware” (web-based) capable of assembling relevant patient data, sometimes from multiple sources, and communicating between and among care providers, patients, and appropriate others. The outputs are coordination and continuity. What we’re seeing in the “EMR space” was predicted by Clay Christensen according to his “law of the conservation of modularity.” Namely, that EMR components or modules would emerge as the products improved, creating options for medical practices to purchase these… Read more »