EHR and Health IT Consulting
46.8K views | +1 today
EHR and Health IT Consulting
Technical Doctor's insights and information collated from various sources on EHR selection, EHR implementation, EMR relevance for providers and decision makers
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...!

3 Key Areas to Address During EHR Optimization

3 Key Areas to Address During EHR Optimization | EHR and Health IT Consulting |

If you have ever purchased a new home, you are rarely 100% satisfied when you move in. You may want to add some new furniture, paint a few walls, update the flooring or even do a complete remodel. When implementing a new Electronic Health Record (EHR), many times the need to “get the system live” as soon as possible, results in a rushed implementation of basic functionality and “out of the box” workflows.


There is not always time to look at current issues and identify ways to improve processes. Many times the current problems are merely transferred into the new system. Even if you love everything about your new EHR, Optimization of the system will always be necessary due to factors such as advances in medical treatment, compliance & regulatory changes, adding of new specialties and more.


Whether it is your existing EHR or a new system, for optimization to be effective, experts with clinical, operational and technical experience will need to look at how the system is working. You may have such experts employed, or you may need to bring in consultants. Either way, these experts will assess how users are interacting with the EHR and if they are having functionality and/or workflow issues. Sometimes, problems can be addressed by merely providing additional training, especially if new features and functionality have been deployed.


By taking a thorough look at the system and its users, experts can determine what improvements need to be made.

Below are three areas to take into consideration: 

  1. Governance: A strong governance structure is critical to having a successful optimization plan. Requests for changes to the EHR must be prioritized and evaluated.  An agile governance group made up of the right members, should meet monthly to review all requests and prioritize according to the overall needs of the organization.
  2. Training:  A comprehensive training program is a critical factor that impacts the usability of the EHR. Many times organizations provide new employee training but do not offer any “ongoing” or “refresher” training. Supplemental training can increase basic and advanced knowledge of the system and improve efficiency. As system upgrades and new functionality are implemented, users should have an option to attend classroom training. eLearning can be helpful, but there is no substitute for hands-on classroom training where the user can ask questions and get answers.
  3. Communication: Organizations should have effective and comprehensive communications regarding training, new functionality, and any other changes to the EHR. The creation of a formal enterprise-wide communication plan using a variety of forums and a broad spectrum of communications resources is essential. Being proactive versus reactive such as having the EHR topic as a standing agenda item at a section and other scheduled MD meetings can be very useful.
Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details : or 877-910-0004

No comment yet.!

Three Reasons Practices Should Be Using a Patient Portal

Three Reasons Practices Should Be Using a Patient Portal | EHR and Health IT Consulting |

If your practice hasn’t implemented a patient portal, chances are you and your patients are missing out on some convenient features. Patient portals are a necessity for medical practices today, benefiting both the patient and practice overall.


Patient portals can be a primary tool for engaging patients and improving inefficiencies in office workflow, reducing costs and meeting meaningful use requirements. Medical practices who’ve implemented portals are using them effectively to cut down on phone calls and time-consuming scheduling; communicate with patients more efficiently; share patient education/information and cut down on costs while also driving revenue.


Let's take a deeper look at why medical practices should be using patient portals in their practice today:


Patient Engagement

Portals empower patients to take more of an active role in their healthcare and promotes a more patient-centered relationship, resulting in better outcomes, patient satisfaction, and engagement. As a place for patients to conveniently access and provide health information, schedule appointments, see test results, request medication refills, send secure messages and pay for care, patient portals are a key driver in patients feeling more engaged in their healthcare. Portals, in general, create a more engaging environment for your patients while also fostering better relationships.


Office Workflow

Imagine the time saved for your staff when a patient uses the patient portal to schedule an appointment or send a secure message to ask a question, as opposed to calling in over the phone. Tasks being completed online by the patient presents significant time savings for a medical practice. According to Medscape, patient portals enable medical practices to work more efficiently and use resources more effectively, simultaneously improving office workflow. A good patient portal will be user-friendly for your patients and your staff, allowing them both to conveniently and efficiently complete tasks.



From a cost perspective, portals allow your staff to work more efficiently and decrease overhead costs. For example, by sending lab results or patient statements electronically via the portal, practices can cut down on paper, envelopes, and postage. In some cases, practices can also improve the collection of payments by sending electronic statements that can be paid online. Recent studies have shown that patient portals can also improve revenue during slow periods and reduce patient no shows.


Benefits of Patient Portals

  • Communicate securely, efficiently with patients
  • Easily share patient education material
  • Send automated reminders, alerts, and other important information
  • Improve payment collections by sending statements electronically
  • Facilitate Meaningful Use compliance
  • Efficient scheduling and prescriptions refills
  • Cut down on costs, wasted resources and inefficiencies
  • Improve revenue and patient engagement

Patient portals get patients more involved in their care in a modern, convenient way, while also eliminating redundant work, wasted resources and inefficient and costly processes for your practice.

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details : or 877-910-0004


Practice EHR Success Story: Cooperative City Chiropractic

Practice EHR Success Story: Cooperative City Chiropractic | EHR and Health IT Consulting |

Transitioning to an electronic health record (EHR) can be a daunting task for any healthcare organization, especially for small practices. However, going electronic can also have numerous advantages.




Coop City Chiro, a five-physician chiropractic facility in Bronx, NY, manages 3,000 patient visits per month. With a growing patient load on top of the maintenance associated with existing medical records, Coop City Chiro needed a better way to manage their practice on the back end without disrupting patient care. In order to find the right EHR for them, Coop City Chiro started their search with the following needs in mind:


  • Find an EHR that organizes and optimizes patient documentation.
  • Implement an EHR without causing distractions or unnecessary obstacles for their patients and staff.
  • Train staff and doctors on an EHR without disrupting their busy schedules.
  • Adopt an EHR that fits their practice’s budget and capacity.


The chiropractic facility chose to implement Practice EHR, an EHR system priced for small practices and built specifically for each specialty.



  • Live within minutes. Coop City Chiro implemented Practice EHR within minutes and without any disruption to patients or staff because the EHR is so easy-to-use.


  • Improved efficiency of documentation and billingCoop City Chiro noticed an immediate improvement in practice management and overall efficiency because they could easily log patient care and bill for all their patients in one single platform.


  • 50,000 in cost-savingsAfter implementing Practice EHR, Coop City Chiro reported $50,000 in cost-saving by going electronic and eliminating postage, ink, toner, envelopes, paper, etc.




Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details : or 877-910-0004


‘Will It Work Here?’: Health Systems Need Contextual Evidence Before Adopting Innovations

‘Will It Work Here?’: Health Systems Need Contextual Evidence Before Adopting Innovations | EHR and Health IT Consulting |

Health systems are eager to learn about better ways to deliver care. This requires innovation—doing something differently from how it is currently done. In a recent Health Affairs article, Elizabeth McGlynn and Mark McClellan noted that innovations often fail to meet expectations, particularly when they are spread from the initial site that piloted the innovation. McGlynn and McClellan pointed to the absence of evidence as to what makes these innovations work as a source of these failures and encouraged health systems to evaluate innovations. In addition to the critical role evidence plays in making decisions of whether to adopt an innovation, health systems factor in other important criteria.


Even if there is solid evidence for the innovation, such as from a systematic review of research, health system leaders will need to decide whether the innovation is likely to work in their own systems. What worked in one, or even many places, will not necessarily achieve the same results elsewhere. Furthermore, leaders need to consider not only whether they can achieve those results but also how important it is for their systems to do so. Making a wrong decision is costly; either leaders miss out on an improvement, or they spend valuable time and resources on a failed implementation attempt.


McGlynn and McClellan described what they call the assessment phase—the point when an organization has identified an innovation that might improve care or reduce costs but before the innovation is introduced. They implied that there may be reasons for an organization not to adopt an innovation that has been successful elsewhere (for example, baseline performance is already high, so there is not much room for improvement), but since their focus was on evaluation, they didn’t dwell on helping organizations think through whether they want to implement the innovation at all.


Picking up where McGlynn and McClellan left off, this article addresses an important component of innovation diffusion – whether to adopt an innovation. As an organization that is in the business of helping health care systems learn how to improve, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a guide, Will It Work Here, to assist health system leaders in making adoption decisions. AHRQ contracted with RTI International to conduct research to inform the guide, including a review of the literature on innovation adoption and case studies of organizations that had adopted innovations that had been developed elsewhere.

Does The Innovation Fit?

First, health system leaders need to learn how the innovation worked in the past. Where has it been used, and what’s the evidence that it worked? When evaluating the evidence, understanding the context in which the innovation operated and how it is similar or different from their own environment is critical. They also need to understand how the innovation achieved its results. As suggested by McGlynn and McClellan, a logic model can be a valuable tool to capture how the innovation’s inputs and activities are expected to produce outcomes. In other words, a logic model makes explicit which processes will be used and what results they will generate.


Second, health system leaders need to determine whether the innovation will solve any of their system’s problems or contribute to achieving their system’s goals. If there’s a problem that needs fixing, carefully define the problem and honestly assess whether the innovation will address the root cause.


Third, think about whether the innovation is compatible with the mission, values, and culture of the organization. A clash with a system’s mission and values is likely to be a fatal flaw. The occurrence of a cultural clash is less cut and dry. Organizational culture, that is, the norms that guide behavior in the organization, is not monolithic. Several organizational cultures—such as patient-care and patient-safety cultures, business and management cultures, and professional and interpersonal cultures—come into play. Research indicates that certain kinds of organizational cultures—such as those with strong leadership, clear strategic vision, good managerial relations, comfort with experimentation and risk taking, and effective data systems—are more conducive to adoption of innovations in general.


But beyond general receptivity is the question of the match of a particular innovation with a health system’s organizational culture. If the innovation is not congruent with how the organization operates, can the innovation be adapted to improve compatibility? For example, a practice adopting a care management innovation might decide to hire another nurse and integrate care management functions across the nursing staff instead of hiring a separate care manager if nurses view the addition of a care manager as a threat to their relationships with patients. Whenever an innovation is adopted, there is some reinvention to fit the local context, but the innovations are not infinitely malleable. And while organizational culture can be transformed, it is a long-term proposition. If implementing the essential elements of an innovation runs counter to a system’s way of doing things, it may not be a good fit.

Should We Do It Here?

If the innovation isn’t rejected as unsuitable, the organization will want to consider the arguments for and against adoption. Some innovations aim to increase efficiency or decrease costs. Potential adopters may calculate the return on their investment, taking into consideration the upfront and maintenance costs of the innovation along with savings or revenues the innovation may produce. Even if there is a good return on the investment, it is important to compare that gain with alternatives. Opportunity costs of adopting an innovation might include delaying, precluding, or interfering with other initiatives.


It’s not only about dollars and cents. Hard-to-quantify aspects of a business case for adoption include the benefits to patient and families, staff, and other stakeholders. These might include increased patient involvement in health care decisions, better health outcomes, reduced stress on the workforce, or enhanced reputation. An innovation may be responsive to requirements of insurers, regulators, or accreditation organizations. Non-financial factors, such as a mission-driven system’s imperative to satisfy its charge, have to be weighed along with financial matters.

Any change entails uncertainty, so the risks—both the risks of adoption and of inaction—figure into the adoption calculation. Risks are not just financial; they include political, medical, and operational risks. It takes imagination to anticipate risks, and each system’s appetite for risk will vary. Consider the following:

  • What are the best and worst case scenarios?
  • What can go wrong?
  • How can we mitigate these risks?
  • How likely is it that the innovation will fail or that we will be worse off than we are now?
  • What risks are we unwilling to take?
  • What risks would we be taking by not adopting the innovation?

Can We Do It Here?

Just because adopting an innovation would be advantageous, doesn’t mean that the health system will be able to make the changes necessary to make it successful. First, an organization has to be ready for change. Organizational readiness for change has been described as “a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so.” Lack of a perceived need to change and confidence the change can be made, or widespread resistance to the proposed change, will diminish the likelihood that implementation of the innovation will be successful.


Leaders have to take stock of the magnitude of structural, process, workforce, and other changes that would be needed. Structural changes might mean centralizing (or decentralizing) certain functions or adding new teams. Changing processes, such as workflow or communication, can be hugely disruptive. Furthermore, some alteration to the workforce invariably will have to be made to accommodate the innovation. Even small changes in staff roles or the need to train staff in particular skills are likely to trigger a reaction. Once an inventory of needed changes has been generated, leaders will need to honestly appraise whether and how the changes could be made.


Determining whether the system has the capability to integrate the innovation into its operations also entails examining whether it has the ingredients for successful adoption. For example, having champions—key individuals, such as opinion leaders, in favor of the innovation—is an important means to generate support and overcome resistance. A learning health system will also reflect on past experiences with innovation adoption. It should use past experience to inform the current adoption decision by asking:

  • What were the major factors responsible for the success or failure of the innovation?
  • How is the proposed innovation similar to or different from past innovations?
  • Are any of the elements that were critical to success in the past missing this time? Is there any way to compensate for this absence?
  • What can be done differently this time? Is this enough to make the innovation succeed when others have failed?

How Will We Do It Here?

The final phase of the adoption decision involves envisioning how the organization will implement the innovation. The adage “the devil is in the details” comes into play here, as systems that should and could adopt an innovation may find that there are still obstacles. For example, lack of capacity to monitor and evaluate the innovation could trigger a red flag. Conversely, the ability to try the innovation on a small scale or for a short period of time may increase willingness to pursue adoption. Developing a change management plan can further increase confidence in a successful outcome if the innovation is adopted.


McGlynn and McClellan asserted that health systems have given way to pressure to adopt innovations that are not always evidence-based. As this post demonstrates, the decision regarding uptake of an innovation requires more than evidence of the innovation’s effectiveness. Researchers can help organizational leadership decide whether an innovation is a good fit—or an appropriate stretch—by not only producing evaluation findings but also fully describing the particulars of the innovation and its context when writing up results. When formal evaluations have not been conducted, accounts of innovations that contain credible evidence that they will be effective should include information about context. Contextual data, coupled with using the heuristics in the AHRQ guide “Will It Work Here?” can help health systems make better adoption decisions and save both time and money.

Technical Dr. Inc.'s insight:
Contact Details : or 877-910-0004

No comment yet.