Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Whenever something happens with our EHR that physicians don’t immediately like, there is bound to be grumbling. Sometimes it doesn’t even have anything truly to do with the EHR, such as a change in requirements for Patient-Centered Medical Home recognition or with Joint Commission accreditation.

Physicians and clinical staff would have had to comply in the paper world, but they don’t see it that way. They seem to perceive such mandates as uniquely burdensome and EHR related despite our attempts to educate.

We’re going through one of those periods now. Our accountable care team has decided that we need to collect certain information in a specific way that doesn’t fit very well with some of our workflows. That’s the problem in an organization like ours – each hospital has its own CMIO, but we don’t have one over-arching person who can cut through the noise and make decisions that fully take into account the limitations of our various systems and vendors. The accountable care team has good intentions, but I doubt half of them have even seen the workflow of some of our clinical systems.

On the ambulatory side, we’re trying to make it as smooth as possible, even using some programming sleight of hand to get the data into the right format without clinicians having to enter it twice. The problem of non-clinicians dictating data that clinical staff must document certainly isn’t new. It goes back to the creation of ICD codes and E&M coding requirements. Anyone who has ever had to formally diagnose a patient with “Bone and Mineral Disease, NOS” rather than osteopenia simply to get it billed will know what I’m talking about.

In some ways, Meaningful Use has helped with this, allowing us to use SNOMED codes to capture that level of clinical granularity. We do still have to translate them into billing codes, however, resulting in parallel diagnosis lists in the chart. That can have issues as well.

When we first started using SNOMED, we found out there were issues with some of our mappings to ICD-9. As long as the data flowed from SNOMED to ICD, we were fine. But if clinicians tried to pull diagnoses off the billing list and convert them to SNOMED, detail was frequently lost.

Physicians immediately jumped on this as a patient safety issue. The financial team jumped on it because the loss of specificity could lead to decreased reimbursement. Those two forces combined made it easy to get access to resources to fix the problem quickly. One of our most vocal EHR haters used it as a reason to again call for discontinuing use of the EHR because of its many safety flaws.

We hear that chorus all the time. Although there are many valid points about EHR design and patient safety, there are also numerous points where EHR makes our work safer as well as more efficient.

I was thinking about this last night as I worked in the ER. There is …read more      

Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on FacebookShare on Google+