EHRs and meaningful use (MU) are getting so much publicity. There is the carrot (financial incentive) and stick (reduced reimbursement) approach to get them in place by 2014 with the promise of reducing costs, improving patient outcomes and patient safety. Through all of this publicity, seems we haven't heard enough from the chief care giver - the physician.
Many of the EHRs that have been approved by CCHIT don't include a dictation/transcription option. CCHIT may not ultimately be the approval body. Interestingly enough, MU definitions haven't been finalized. So there are goals to meet that haven't been fully defined and timelines that associations like the AMA and AHA along with a host of other national groups that have spoken clearly about how the all or nothing MU criteria plan is ill-advised. They agree that the timeline is not realistic.
We probably all can agree that EHR implementation without meaningful use doesn't get us to the goals promised. And we understand that it is a given to migrate away from paper records. However, the rush to get it done seems to put physicians and a practical improved approach to healthcare delivery in the system that we have, in the backseat.
Let's look at this from an objective perspective. Now we have healthcare reform. That's great news for so many who don't have healthcare today. It means that an additional 32 million (estimated) Americans will have access to healthcare who previously did not or did if their conditions became critical enough for them to present to the ER. What will healthcare reform do to physician case loads? To hospital census? Let us not forget that we have an aging population with baby-boomers approaching retirement. Do we have enough physicians for all this increased volume?
Now let's look at how many EHR systems approach healthcare documentation. They are designed for the physician to become the data entry clerk - and in truth, many are operating this way today. VA's VISTA system, Kaiser Permanente, and there are a host of EHRs designed for ambulatory settings and physician office practice that utilize the same approach.
Here's a thought. Do you see the president of a bank entering deposits and counting out cash at his bank? No, so why would we ask our most highly educated member of the healthcare delivery team to become a data entry clerk?
Currently 1.2 billion patient reports are created by expert medical transcriptionists who have trained and many have become credentialed in their field. Narrative dictation captures the unique circumstances of each individual patient. No two patients are alike in their history and even presenting symptoms. And to leave out important details of the patient's additional illnesses can most certainly impact hospital and physician revenue. So why would we A. slow physicians down entering the detail and B. risk lower reimbursements?
The purpose of this blog post is just simply this. Consider: The physicians who are mostly going to be time and resource-impacted by EHR implementation need to speak out in favor of the ability to continue to document patient encounters in the most efficient and complete way. Physicians' voices must be heard in this evolution to electronic records. What EHR systems must do is provide an avenue for physician choice in documentation practices.
If physicians want to self-enter - then that should be an option. However, for those physicians with a patient case-mix that is complex and those with multiple medical problems, their option to continue to dictate will mean the difference in their ability to increase the demand on their time as patient loads increase.
Physicians - please speak up - be sure that you have options in how you document patient encounters. You are the CEO of the healthcare delivery team and the process needs to provide better patient safety and ensure that your time is optimized while ensuring appropriate reimbursements for all you do.
