I hear the complaint that implementing an EHR changes their workflow from a lot of physicians and nurses. I also hear (from those who've studied up a bit), that EHR X is no good because it is just an electronic version of their existing paper workflow.
The other day I tweeted:
Why would you use an EHR that DIDN'T change your workflow? Improvement = Change
A few folks commented that change is not necessarily improvement, and I certainly agree. But let's take a step back from that point. You are going to start using an EHR, either a different one than you were currently, or a brand new one since you haven't used an EHR in the past.
Why would you do that at all if NOT to make an improvement in your practice. And if you are making an improvement, that means that workflows are GOING to change. I cannot think of a single case where a significant improvement (cost, time, efficiency, outcomes or otherwise) didn't result from at least one significant change in workflow.
Can you?
I agree, not all changes are improvements, and not all EHR implementations are done well, BUT, my point stands. If you are implementing an EHR, you should expect your workflow to change. And if you are implementing it right, you should expect it to improve.
Keith
EHR (Electronic Health Record) is quite useful for medical practitioner to maintain all the records of their patients. Vital Interaction is one of the software in healthcare that is especially made for health professional. It saves both time and money. It is also very easy to use with customizable features like text messaging, E-mail, IVR (Interactive Voice Response)
ReplyDelete