EMR (Electronic medical records) specifically for wounds could substantially cut amputation rates for diabetes patients with foot ulcers, a study recently presented at the American College of Surgeons 96th Annual Clinical Congress determined.
Records pulled from an online wound EMR (OWEMR) system set up at by Dr. Jason Maggi at New York University Langone Medical Center’s Department of Surgery over a six-month span showed that there were up to 137 variables for each record, reports Medscape Medical News. Automated alerts sent out to all doctors involved with a particular patient’s care help doctors to sort through that information and integrate quantitative measures like healing rates in real time, according to Maggi, the study’s senior author.
“Effective management of this information and analysis of data in a timely fashion can mean the difference between limb salvage and amputation,” Maggi said, according to Medscape.
The OWEMR combined information like medications, medical history and lab results with digital photos of patient progress to help doctors “centralize information” onto a single page.
Dr. Danielle Katz, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at SUNY Upstate Medical University who moderated Maggi’s presentation, hailed the study as potentially being “the future of medicine.”
Said Katz, “I think more and more there will be a push to have applicable practice guidelines [and] methods for tracking outcomes, and I think this really demonstrates a very potentially useful tool.”
Source : http://www.emrspecialists.com/2010/10/wound-emr-could-reduce-amputation-rates-for-diabetics/
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
EMR Development Debate Focuses On Standards, Competition
Lest anyone think the issue has been settled, national health IT coordinator Dr. David Blumenthal says there is a “raging debate” in scientific and policy circles about whether standards or competition should drive EMR development, MassDevice reports.
“There is a raging debate in the computer science world, which I have only lifted the lid on because I’m not a computer scientist, but it goes basically like this: Do we want a world where somebody sets very detailed standards for what computers have to do in order to create interoperability? Or do we want a world that’s a little bit more like the Internet, where a minimal set of standards was created and an enormous, vibrant competition and spontaneous growth occurred?” Blumenthal reportedly said at a gala for the Lucian Leape Institute of the National Patient Safety Foundation.
“I hear both sides of that argument, constantly, and even those people who believe in the minimal set of standards aren’t really sure what that minimal set is, but we’re working on precisely that,” Blumenthal added.
He was responding to a question from former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill about EMR standardization.
“Why is it that we’re reluctant to declare that we are going to design the best prototype that we can with an idea that we will have [iterative versions] as we learn more and we identify more needs?” wondered O’Neill, himself now a patient-safety advocate. “Why is it that we can’t call to question and get on with what’s a clear and apparent need for a national standard that’s a work in progress?”
“It’s not that it has to be perfect from day one, but your office basically says, ‘We’re going to do this now’?” O’Neill asked. O’Neill noted that he had seen the “travesty” of a $500 million investment in a proprietary EMR that was not interoperable with competitive systems, something that’s “not worth a damn” when a patient travels outside the local service area, and he does not want to see others waste money like that.
Blumenthal also addressed the recent news that medical licensing boards may require health IT competency for physicians to keep up their licensure. “Information is the lifeblood of medicine, and unless physicians and other healthcare professionals are capable of using the most modern technology available for managing information, I think they will have trouble claiming, in the 21st century, the unique competence that entitles them to being licensed and board certified,” Blumenthal reportedly said at the NPSF event. “I think they’ll have trouble holding up their heads as professionals and claiming that they are at the top of their game and capable of providing the best care that technology allows.”
Source : http://www.emrspecialists.com/2010/10/emr-development-debate-focuses-on-standards-competition/
“There is a raging debate in the computer science world, which I have only lifted the lid on because I’m not a computer scientist, but it goes basically like this: Do we want a world where somebody sets very detailed standards for what computers have to do in order to create interoperability? Or do we want a world that’s a little bit more like the Internet, where a minimal set of standards was created and an enormous, vibrant competition and spontaneous growth occurred?” Blumenthal reportedly said at a gala for the Lucian Leape Institute of the National Patient Safety Foundation.
“I hear both sides of that argument, constantly, and even those people who believe in the minimal set of standards aren’t really sure what that minimal set is, but we’re working on precisely that,” Blumenthal added.
He was responding to a question from former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill about EMR standardization.
“Why is it that we’re reluctant to declare that we are going to design the best prototype that we can with an idea that we will have [iterative versions] as we learn more and we identify more needs?” wondered O’Neill, himself now a patient-safety advocate. “Why is it that we can’t call to question and get on with what’s a clear and apparent need for a national standard that’s a work in progress?”
“It’s not that it has to be perfect from day one, but your office basically says, ‘We’re going to do this now’?” O’Neill asked. O’Neill noted that he had seen the “travesty” of a $500 million investment in a proprietary EMR that was not interoperable with competitive systems, something that’s “not worth a damn” when a patient travels outside the local service area, and he does not want to see others waste money like that.
Blumenthal also addressed the recent news that medical licensing boards may require health IT competency for physicians to keep up their licensure. “Information is the lifeblood of medicine, and unless physicians and other healthcare professionals are capable of using the most modern technology available for managing information, I think they will have trouble claiming, in the 21st century, the unique competence that entitles them to being licensed and board certified,” Blumenthal reportedly said at the NPSF event. “I think they’ll have trouble holding up their heads as professionals and claiming that they are at the top of their game and capable of providing the best care that technology allows.”
Source : http://www.emrspecialists.com/2010/10/emr-development-debate-focuses-on-standards-competition/
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Making Meaningful Transition To EMR
With the publication of the meaningful use guidelines on July 13, it is now clear what hospitals and doctors must demonstrate in their adoption of electronic medical records to grab a share of the billions of dollars available in federal incentives. Not as obvious, however, are the steps to take in negotiating this transition.
More than just the right technology, there must be a plan for preparing paper records and workflow processes for a “new normal,” where doctors will utilize both paper and electronic records to treat patients. The need for this “EMR enablement” work has been mostly lost amid the discussion of what technology milestones hospitals must hit and by when.
Hospitals that correctly complete this preparatory stage will realize three benefits: a more efficient records management program that returns cost savings to apply toward EMR; a better-organized records system that makes EMR implementation easier; and improved workflows for treating patients with hardcopy and digital records. Below are key EMR-enablement steps:
Centralize paper records for better access and lower costs
Today, most hospitals have patient records and films bottled up in specific departments, with no ability to share this information across the entire organization. In many cases, this produces unnecessary duplication of records and inconsistent management processes. Consolidating hardcopy patient records and films and then re-engineering how the organization stores and uses them can save time, cut costs and improve the quality of care through faster access to patient data. These new workflows need to account for how organizations archive, use and protect patient records in paper and electronic form. Stop saving – and paying for – outdated and duplicate records
Going digital does not mean digitizing every patient record. A thoughtful approach – what to digitize versus what can remain paper-based or securely destroyed – is required to reduce costs and improve care. A study from the American Health Information Management Association found that more than half of U.S. hospitals keep medical records forever, a behavior driven by the twin forces of industry regulations like HIPPA and state retention laws. Hospitals should comb through their records and destroy duplicates as well as those records past state-mandated retention periods. Destroying these outdated files and redundant copies cuts storage costs and makes digitization more cost-effective. Begin your EMR journey with the right records
Make no mistake: paper records are not going to disappear any time soon. A portion of the physical patient record will continue to exist and grow at least in the near term. Information technology will certainly change how records are accessed and stored, but paper will continue to coexist with electronic information in a so-called “hybrid” record environment for many years to come. An intelligent approach to digitizing records will control costs and change how documents are shared and protected, improving workflow-based functions like billing, coding, and chart completion. Records can be shared simultaneously by many different departments instead of being handed off piece-by-piece to complete these functions. Scanning only what is needed as it is needed – and not just scanning every record, or even the entire record – ensures that the investment in an EMR is on par with treatment requirements, using patient history and clinical needs as criteria for conversion.
The opportunities of moving to the EMR are great. By addressing the core issues of what (and how) information needs to be stored, accessed and protected, healthcare providers can develop a more efficient pathway to the EMR and, in the process, deliver the patient care and cost savings benefits promised by this transition.
Source : http://www.emrspecialists.com/2010/10/making-meaningful-transition-to-emr/
Hospitals that correctly complete this preparatory stage will realize three benefits: a more efficient records management program that returns cost savings to apply toward EMR; a better-organized records system that makes EMR implementation easier; and improved workflows for treating patients with hardcopy and digital records. Below are key EMR-enablement steps:
Centralize paper records for better access and lower costs
Today, most hospitals have patient records and films bottled up in specific departments, with no ability to share this information across the entire organization. In many cases, this produces unnecessary duplication of records and inconsistent management processes. Consolidating hardcopy patient records and films and then re-engineering how the organization stores and uses them can save time, cut costs and improve the quality of care through faster access to patient data. These new workflows need to account for how organizations archive, use and protect patient records in paper and electronic form. Stop saving – and paying for – outdated and duplicate records
Going digital does not mean digitizing every patient record. A thoughtful approach – what to digitize versus what can remain paper-based or securely destroyed – is required to reduce costs and improve care. A study from the American Health Information Management Association found that more than half of U.S. hospitals keep medical records forever, a behavior driven by the twin forces of industry regulations like HIPPA and state retention laws. Hospitals should comb through their records and destroy duplicates as well as those records past state-mandated retention periods. Destroying these outdated files and redundant copies cuts storage costs and makes digitization more cost-effective. Begin your EMR journey with the right records
Make no mistake: paper records are not going to disappear any time soon. A portion of the physical patient record will continue to exist and grow at least in the near term. Information technology will certainly change how records are accessed and stored, but paper will continue to coexist with electronic information in a so-called “hybrid” record environment for many years to come. An intelligent approach to digitizing records will control costs and change how documents are shared and protected, improving workflow-based functions like billing, coding, and chart completion. Records can be shared simultaneously by many different departments instead of being handed off piece-by-piece to complete these functions. Scanning only what is needed as it is needed – and not just scanning every record, or even the entire record – ensures that the investment in an EMR is on par with treatment requirements, using patient history and clinical needs as criteria for conversion.
The opportunities of moving to the EMR are great. By addressing the core issues of what (and how) information needs to be stored, accessed and protected, healthcare providers can develop a more efficient pathway to the EMR and, in the process, deliver the patient care and cost savings benefits promised by this transition.
Source : http://www.emrspecialists.com/2010/10/making-meaningful-transition-to-emr/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)