DIGITAL DOC Even today, some doctors answer patients’ questions through


websites and treat mild, simple conditions via the Internet. Many physicians, however, are reluctant to take up the practice, according to iHealthbeat.org.


The most common barriers physicians cite in embracing e-


visits include malpractice liability, disruptions in workflow and privacy concerns.


Whether e-visits become a standard practice in the future or


not, the technology is available for patients to conduct much of their medical business through the Internet, and this capability will only increase as hospitals and physicians convert health records from paper to electronic format.


Electronic Medical Records Perhaps one of the most controversial, yet potentially


advantageous, developments in medicine in the last decade is the conversion from paper to electronic medical records (EMR), also referred to as electronic health records (EHR).


With EMR technology, a patient’s medical records can be


stored and organized in electronic format, which can be accessed through computer networks.


There are several benefits to switching from paper to


electronic records. Paper records are bulky and occupy space, which is costly. Filing, retrieving and re-filing can be labor- intensive, and in a hospital setting, where multiple departments require access to a patient’s chart, a patient’s records can be difficult to hunt down.


“The problem we used to have is, we’d be looking for the old


image of an X-ray and somebody would say, well Dr. So and So came by, and he took it with him. Where is he now? Where is it?” says Hugh Greene, president and CEO of Baptist Health in Jacksonville.


Baptist Health went completely paperless earlier this year—a


trend that will continue in light of legislation signed in 2010 imposing Medicare payment penalties on hospitals and physicians who have not adopted EHR technology.


Electronic records make it easy to track, analyze and chart


clinical medical information, which proponents believe can shorten wait times and lower operating costs through improved efficiency and reduce malpractice risk. EMRs contain


Heritage Publishing, Inc. © 2012


prescription records, test results, treatment histories, progress reports and X-rays.


Electronic records do have their detractors, however. Some physicians feel it is too time-consuming to enter the


data and wade through unnecessary information. “I think it makes care harder,” says neurologist Dr. Daniel


Kantor. “We have to document so many things that are irrelevant.” Kantor wrote his own program to document patient records,


partially in response to another complaint physicians have. The EMR programs that exist today are not entirely user-friendly.


“Not only are they not user-friendly, they’re user-hostile,” says


Dr. Sean Orr. “There’s not a lot of value in a system when I’m doing nothing but entering data, when I could be thinking— using my empiric knowledge to solve problems for patients.”


Cost is another consideration in implementing EMR


programs. Though, eventually, a practice can save money by eliminating the cost of paper, file folders and storage space, the initial investment can range from significant to astronomical.


“I have a friend whose practice just spent $800,000 on an


electronic medical record upgrade and $200,000 on a consultant to come in and show him how to deploy it,” Orr says. “What practice has $1 million lying around?”


Based on a 2012 survey conducted by Accenture “Making the


Case for Connected Health,” the top barriers to physicians adopting EMRs fall into four categories: IT systems that can’t “talk” to each other, concerns about privacy and security of data, cost to the physician’s organization and loss of productivity/time-consuming to input data.


Adoption of EMRs in physician’s offices has been slower than


in hospitals, but research shows the numbers are increasing. In March 2012, American Medical News reported 46.3 percent of small practices are using some electronic version of patient records and 77.2 percent of large physician practices are using EMRs.


“The truth of it is, it’s a good thing,” Orr says. “I really think


we need to have electronic medical records.” With all the new technology available, hospitals and


physicians are scrambling to stay up-to-date. “The pressure to innovate is so built up in the system that it’s


causing the crisis we’re in right now,“ Orr says. “Ultimately it’s going to be up to us, as physicians, to make changes that are critical.”


Whether driven by the desire to improve patient care or by


federal and state legislation, new avenues for the exchange of information will dramatically change the way health care is delivered in the next few years.


Change is typically accompanied by a period of uncertainty.


In organizations, retaining personnel can be costly and time- consuming and adjusting to new processes can mean periods of frustration before you reach the improved conditions the change promises.


Although many believe this stage of adjustment will be felt


for a generation in the health care industry, few doubt we are standing on the threshold of a new era in medicine.


8 2012-2013 The Greater Daytona Healthcare GuideTM


FEATURE EDITORIAL


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196