Uncategorized

So, Are EHRs a Waste of Time and Money?

The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) authorized incentive payments, potentially totaling some $27 billion over ten years, to clinicians and hospitals when they implement electronic health records in such a way as to achieve “meaningful use,” in terms of advances in health care processes and outcomes.

But, are EHRs really “meaningfully useful” or are they more likely to be costly and ineffective?

The latter seems to be one possible interpretation of a recent RAND study of EHR adoption in US hospitals.

The RAND study statistics are impressive: five study authors tallied 17 “quality measures” for three medical conditions against three possible levels of EHR capability (no EHR, basic EHR, advanced EHR) for more than two thousand hospitals for each of 2003 and 2007. They then related changes in quality over the four year timeframe against changes in EHR status (for example, from no EHR to an advanced EHR).

The reported results were disappointing to EHR proponents. Among the hospitals whose EHR capability remained unchanged over the four years, there was no statistically measurable difference in quality improvement between hospitals with EHR capability and those without. For hospitals which upgraded their EHR capability, the performance improvement was generally less than for those who didn’t change, including those with no EHR at all.

So, should we forget about EHRs? Maybe defund HITECH?

Not necessarily.

As the study’s authors point out, there are a several possible explanations for their results other than ineffectiveness of EHRs. Implementation of an EHR—a very demanding effort—might temporarily disrupt other quality improvement efforts. Hospitals with EHRs typically had higher quality measures to begin with, and—like trying to catch up with the speed of light—would likely find improving quality more challenging as 100 percent quality is approached. Results might have been different for other medical conditions. And the timeframe of the study may have been inadequate to measure the impact of new EHRs, some of which may have been implemented only just before the end of the time period.

It can also be argued that the measurement methodology was flawed. Using simplistic indicators of quality like whether or not aspirin was dispensed on arrival or discharge instructions were provided is a little like judging the quality of a meal by whether or not there was a caterpillar in the salad. Presence of a caterpillar definitely indicates a problem, but its absence says nothing about other aspects of the meal. The study authors indicate their awareness of this limitation in stating “we are concerned that the standard methods for measuring hospital quality will not be appropriate for measuring the clinical effects of EHR adoption.”
Perhaps most importantly, as with other IT systems, EHR success depends on the competence of the implementers and the willingness of the users to accept change, with poorly managed projects more likely to foul up existing processes than improve them. The RAND authors praise programs initiated by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to improve EHR implementation, and comment—in spite of the inconclusive results of their study—that “We believe that these programs are well conceived and anticipate that they will lead to more effective use of EHRs, which will in turn lead to improved quality in US hospitals.”

EHR systems are no panacea, and clearly there have been both successful and troubled EHR implementations. What is needed now is a closer look at what works and what doesn’t, how well EHRs perform over a longer timeframe than the RAND study, and a much less simplistic look at what is really happening to clinical quality as a result.

Roger Collier was formerly CEO of a national health care consulting firm. His experience includes the design and implementation of innovative health care programs for HMOs, health insurers, and state and federal agencies.  He is editor of Health Care REFORM UPDATE.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as: , ,

8
Leave a Reply

8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Dr. Dan JohnsonGary LampmanpcpDevon Herrick,National Center for Policy AnalysisJohn R. Graham Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Dr. Dan Johnson
Guest
Dr. Dan Johnson

The real bottom line is that some EHRs are ergonomic wastelands, and can only be used well with intelligence, dedication, and effort. Our hospital recently upgraded, and lost nursing notes (nurses are no longer asked or required to summarize the patient’s shift), med errors ballooned for various reasons having to do with the interface design, and physician and support staff time seems to have increased 20-50% for any given records interaction. The things it does well are things that cannot be done without database and connectivity. But the things that it does not do well — almost entirely related to… Read more »

Gary Lampman
Guest
Gary Lampman

Interesting enough on the eve of a GOP takeover. We now have a solution? During the year long squabble over Health Care reforms. The GOP worked hard to destroy and weaken Those reforms. If not stop it all together! Of Course ,They were doing the dirty work of the insurance companies. If they had not abused the powers entrusted in them and had not shown such malfeasance. This question could have been resolved at the time it was debated. These power brokers wasted energy and taxpayers dollars. You are so consumed by your profits that human life is a abstract… Read more »

pcp
Guest
pcp

“EMR systems designed to eliminate redundant medical tests”
Haven’t come across that unicorn yet. Physicians are just as, if not more, capable of ordering unnecessary tests via EMR as via paper.

Devon Herrick,National Center for Policy Analysis
Guest
Devon Herrick,National Center for Policy Analysis

The medical establishments that will most effectively implement health information technology are those firms were Health IT is an integral part of their business model. For instance, retail clinics and telemedicine firms need EMR to operate. Retail clinics don’t have the space for paper records and telemedicine clinics need a patient’s medical history before ordering therapies. Yet, hospitals that make money performing redundant tests cannot be expected successfully install EMR systems designed to eliminate redundant medical tests.

John R. Graham
Guest

I would go 180 degrees on this: As long as the government is funding implementation of health IT, it will have questionable consequences and poorly measured outcomes.
To achieve effective adoption, defund HITECH.

Dr. David E. Marcinko MBA
Guest

Vote on eMRs
Roger – Medicine may be the last industry to resist the digital revolution as many doctors still use paper medical records.
Framing the Debate
Privacy advocates worry that if the move to eMRs is rushed, patient privacy will suffer. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that health information technologies have advanced to the point that such concerns are vastly overblown. Any loss of privacy will, they insist, be more than offset by efficiency gains.
Who is right?
Vote here:
http://medicalexecutivepost.com/2010/12/24/emr-privacy-versus-healthcare-efficiency-a-voting-opinion-poll/
Ann Miller RN MHA
[Executive-Director]

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

“It can also be argued that the measurement methodology was flawed. Using simplistic indicators of quality like whether or not aspirin was dispensed on arrival or discharge instructions were provided is a little like judging the quality of a meal by whether or not there was a caterpillar in the salad.” Logically then, this argument should be extended to “measuring quality” in general. The same criteria, and even more simplistic ones for ambulatory care, are being used by CMS and Meaningful Use to measure hospitals and doctors. If these criteria are too simplistic to measure EHRs, aren’t they too simplistic… Read more »

pcp
Guest
pcp

“It can also be argued that the measurement methodology was flawed.”
The final refuge of intellectual frauds.