I'll start by posting some of the comments that have come in - either to me, or on the mdng website.
1. I read with enjoyment and identity your article in "mdng". I am an allergist in private practice that out of frustration in finding an EMR that was functional created one that we have been marketing for the last 3 years, Rosch Visionary Systems.
It is specifically designed for Allergists and ENT Allergists and as such does not match all the "requirements" for CCHIT certification. My Academy suggested last year that it's members choice an EMR that is so certified even though there are no specialty EMR's eligible. The ignorance continues to be appauling by the so-called specialists!!
2. I read your article in 9/07 MDNG Primary Care Edition. I can finally put a face to a name. I have recommended AC to 4 different practitioners in he last 3 weeks alone. They approached me about it after seeing a summary or consult sheet that a patient brought to them. I believe as you do that EMR's are too costly and have too many hidden costs. Those that recommend also have a vested interest as you do in AC. I believe AC is a good product but I also believe that there is room for improvement without cost going up. The Quest and other Lab interfaces cost should be absorbed by Quest or whatever lab is utilized. This is a benefit for them so we would use their facilty. Also, making the EMR work with other EMR or being able to interface with hospital EMR or data would be the future of the EMR. I do not believe a universal EMR is the answer this would be a monopoly but I do believe that universal EMR would have some advantages. One single potential database for all communication and data. Federally this would need to be implimented. You should have mentuioned that trial versions should be allowed and that templates should be individualized. Overall a good article.
3. I read your article. You are absolutely right in pointing out various secrets of the industry.
I had some inclination about these issues. I had less than pleasant experience with eMDS practice management software.Service was less than optimal, during the later part of the contract. Reseller had many issues that he could not solve and was more interested in nickel & diming.I believe the program itself was okay.
I did research again and came up with few different EMR names. I tried Amazing Charts and Soapware. Liked Amazing Charts more, it was more friendly and did most of what we needed in our practice. Called the Amazing Charts sales team to buy three licenses for the office. I left message three times on voicemail, approximately one week apart each time. Call was never returned. I got disappointed by the fact that if service is so careless prior to sales, what it would be after sales. I still believe that Amazing Charts is a very good product at a very good price. Never thought that I would be able to tell you this story.
4. In response to the article in MDNG - Dr. Bertman's own EHR (Amazing Charts) is a great program with an awful backup behind it. Dr. Bertman's EULA is contradictory. He says he is there to help but all we get is more and more limitations. He used to be the guy behind the product, but where is he now? All one needs to do is look at the user group board, and that is what you'll see. Many of us no longer call Amazing Charts for support because we know we will not get it. We users ask each other for support. People who used to really like Dr. Bertman AND his product, now want to know - Jon, where are you and what happened? <<Nancy, don't worry, I'm here, and paying attention! I'm fixing support as we speak (hiring, training, and adding more resources like a wiki for user recommendations to be more easily found, and understand your pain!>>
5. I attended one of the meetings planning the EHR certification requirements, and it was obvious back then that a bloated certification process would produce bloated EHRs. I think we will see a new approach coming out of the world of blogging. A patient's chart is in essence of group blog about a patient, with some added security. Blogging software is widely available and many younger doctors already know how to make blog posts and comments, much as we are doing on this page. A simple EHR product based on blogging software would have many advantages, including the ability to link to many resources. We illustrate how such blogs could link to diagnostic decision support software in our Cases Blog at
http://www.simulconsult.com/cases/. Similarly, adding images and videos is quite routine today. It is even simple to have comments as required in CCHIT criterion 71a. Wouldn't it be wonderful if those annoying green hyperlinks that automatically add advertising to blogs instead add hyperlinks to useful material? The best way to design an EHR is to put together the parts that doctors want. The rest can be added on to the blog EHR in a way that doesn't disturb the doctor's work flow.
6. We spent over two years evaluating EHR products and to our disgust had to purchase a lesser product due to secret #6. Not only are EHR products proprietary, so are many of the management solutions and they refuse to interface their products to hold you hostage. thanks for the article so very true.
7. Thanks. In a different lifetime I was a systems engineer at EDS. I am especially frustrated by #8 "accurate, improved, and rapid documentationwhat should be the most important features of any EHRare often woefully inadequate". You are 100% correct. The remainder of the issues are bloated features that would be nice if the core objectives were met. And avandia was not removed from the market.
There are more comments at mdng.com website as well...
