- Taming Complexity: A New Solution for In-House Healthcare EDI
- The State of EHR Adoption: On The Road to Improving Patient Safety
- The Power of User Virtualization: Meeting Meaningful Use, Optimizing IT and Clinical Productivity
- Realizing the Promise of Health Information Exchange
- Connect to Care Interactive Map: Public Sector Healthcare Innovation
There are several factors inhibiting EMR adoption, but the concept of usability is often at the root, and rightfully so. Although effective training and implementation methods affect user adoption rates as well, poor usability has a strong impact on productivity, error rate, and user satisfaction.
And usability should be considered more than just user satisfaction, according to Rosemarie Nelson, principal of the MGMA Consulting Group. The concept is far more complex, and to Nelson, it’s synonymous with workflow integration. “Too much attention is given to the number of clicks and screens, when what should be considered is how and when information is presented,” she said.
Dr. Steve Waldren, MD, Director of the American Academy of Family Physicians’ Center for Health IT, explained that when it comes to understanding usability, it’s essential to consider utility as well. “Usability is subjective in many ways,” he said. “It has to do with the functionality of the system. Utility is making sure the system does the things you need it to do.”
So what determines if an EMR is useable? Better yet, how can prospective users ensure a system won’t result in headaches over lost productivity? According to Nelson, the first step is to recognize no system is perfect.
“The problem for most providers is they, nor their vendor implementation team, look for that commonsense template: the one that fits a majority of patient visits, not the ‘perfect’ template that allows visits for all patients to be documented. There is just too much variation to expect 100 percent.”
With that in mind, here are five additional elements to consider when it comes to EMR usability.
1. Supportiveness: According to both Waldren and Nelson, the system should support workflow. “It’s not about a single user,” said Waldren. “It’s about an entire practice.” Waldren suggests presenting vendors with three clinical scenarios: the most common instances at a practice, the most challenging instances at a practice, and the most number of interactions among staff. That way, it’s evident how the system supports specific workflow. “I suggest doing two sets of the scenarios,” he said. “One that you present the vendor ahead of time, and the second during the demo. Then you can see the system’s flexibility to take care of each scenario.”
2. Flexibility: Nelson considers flexibility to be key, not just within the system, but also with those using it. “Usability is all about integrating a tool into a provider’s day,” she said. To illustrate, she suggests considering the evolution of the phone. “We started with one phone, then we add extensions,” she said. “Then, we came up with portable phones because our work is mobile. We found that we needed phones to follow us, not us having to go to the phone.” Since usability can become complicated, she said, the way a provider uses the tool might evolve as he/she becomes comfortable with improvements in workflow and operational efficiencies. Therefore, it’s essential to change how he/she interacts with the device and the software.
Continued on next page.