A gap exists between policy makers’ expectations that commercial EMRs can improve coordination of care and clinicians’ actual experiences with EMRs, according to a study by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC), published online in The Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Current commercial ambulatory care EMRs facilitate care coordination within a practice by making information available at the point of care, but are less helpful for exchanging information across physician practices and care settings, according to the study supported by the Commonwealth Fund.
Clinicians identified many areas where both the design of EMRs might be altered and office-based care processes modified, according to the study.
Additionally, while current commercial EMR design is driven by clinical documentation needs, there is a heavy emphasis on documentation to support billing rather than patient/provider needs related to clinical management, the study found. And, current fee-for-service reimbursement encourages EMR use for documentation of billable events — office visits, procedures — and not for care coordination, which is not a billable activity.
“There’s a real disconnect between policy makers’ expectations that current commercial EMRs can improve care coordination and physicians’ experiences with EMRs,” says HSC Senior Researcher Ann O’Malley, M.D., M.P.H., coauthor of the study.
Other key study findings include:
- EMRs may have unintended consequences for care coordination, such as creating information overload that complicates providers’ efforts to discern key clinical information. And managing information overflow from EMRs is a challenge for clinicians.
- Clinicians believe current EMRs have limited ability to capture dynamic planning and the medical decision-making process in a way that supports future coordination needs. Present EMRs focus on linear (moment-in-time) documentation while care coordination is dynamic and ongoing.
- Maximizing the potential of an EMR for coordination involves ongoing evolution of clinical care processes as well as clinician input on EMR design modifications and standards for data exchange to support those processes.
- Modifying reimbursement to encourage coordination of care by clinicians will likely drive clinicians to demand better EMR functioning to support coordination.
- Simply creating incentives to adopt EMRs as they currently exist, given the confines of the current payment system, may result in EMRs being designed for billing purposes primarily rather than for clinical relevance to patients and care coordination.
I have to disagree with the item above. As an advanced practice nurse using EMR in an outpatient setting I find that it greatly improves coordination of care. True there may be I information overload but the assessment and plan for all my patient encounters is clearly documented and legibility is not an issue as it is with paper charting. Our laboratory is also linked with the system and bloodwork is automatically sent to patients chart which reduces filing errors. The ease of accessing data is another area in which EMRs excel.
Peter Lorrie says
Was it difficult to get the EMR up and running? Did you have much support from the vendor or did you hire an outside consultant to help with the implementation?
I work for a solo practice and implementation was extremely difficult. We did not hire any outside consulting firm and support has been terrible. Still trying to have the company resolve issues from 5 months ago such as multiple spelling errors and templates not functioning appropriately. It significantly slowed the office down the first several months of implementation but has since improved.