An electronic medical record (EMR) implementation isn't just about replacing paper charts with digital technology. EMRs also provide a perfect opportunity to review and improve your workflows. The result can be increased efficiencies—which means decreased costs.

Your medical practice has probably been doing things the same way for a long time. Maybe you think you do things well, and most likely you actually do. Most practices, however, have not recently reviewed and optimized processes to the extent possible. Few have standardized procedures in writing, for example.

Implementing an EMR won't automatically make these improvements. In fact, most people think EMRs solve problems, but they actually amplify problems that already exist in a practice.

Because of this, adopting an EMR presents a good opportunity for you to make your practice more efficient by reviewing processes and optimizing your own workflows. In fact, you may find that with little effort you are able to identify new efficiencies that could save time and money.

Be patient, however. The adoption of technology is an iterative process. In other words, while EMRs are full of functions that will bring efficiency to your practice if implemented correctly, this won't happen overnight. Give it some time. Typically, health care groups are in the learning and adoption phase of their transition for several months. You should see results after that.

Electronic medical record (EMR) implementations aren't always simple—especially for small physician groups, which may lack dedicated information technology resources. However, following a few best practices regarding your constituents can help ensure that the process proceeds smoothly. Here are three.

Personalize for physicians. No two physicians are exactly like, so no two physicians should have to do things the same way. And that applies to functions both large and small. People approach even the simplest of technologies, such as email and word processing, differently. A good EMR will provide several ways to accomplish the same task, so be sure you offer physicians the option to choose which will best fit their practice styles.

Include nurses. With that said, an EMR isn't all about the physician. While physicians may be leaders and key decision-makers, they are not the exclusive users of an EMR. According to some reports, nurses account for almost 75 percent of chart use, and physicians just 25 percent. As a result, one of the greatest mistakes of EMR implementation is forgetting about nurses. When you create an EMR committee, be sure to have nursing representatives on it.

Round on users. Just as physicians and nurses "round" on patients at a hospital, you should round on everyone in the practice to gauge their comfort with the EMR. Thirty days and then again six months after you go live, visit each user to observe how he or she uses the EMR, take suggestions, and offer tips about how to best use the EMR within your workflows.

A number of outside influences tend to affect attitudes around electronic medical record (EMR) implementation and training. We've come to expect our technology to be plug-and-play, thanks to the era of Windows and the Apple computer. But EMRs may be more complicated.

EMRs are more complicated than other technologies because they exist in a complicated environment—one that is dominated by regulation, documentation, and coding. The medical industry just isn't simple by nature.

With that said, not all EMRs are created equal; some are easier to use than others. As a result, as the EMR market evolves, users are beginning to prefer and focus on certain technologies, driving many EMR products off the market and EMR companies out of business. As EMR companies discontinue products and the support for those products, they are leaving many doctors who thought they were using reliable, long-lasting EMR solutions stranded.

gloStream is the exception in an industry of complicated products, mainly because it is based on the popular Microsoft platform. Because Microsoft Word is the de facto template editor standard, and most people already know how to use it, training time is condensed. Moroever, our gloDNA and gloLive processes ensure that doctors using our EMR are up to their full patient load in a matter of days or weeks — not months.

If your EMR can't promise such simplicity, consider switching. gloStream offers attractive discounts to practices that convert from other EMR software to gloEMR.

Electronic medical records (EMRs) are safer than their paper counterparts, according to a new survey of physicians—but a similar survey of patients didn't get the same response. They think paper is still safer, which means some education is in order.

The survey, which was conducted by GfK Roper on behalf of Practice Fusion, asked patients and medical professionals how they view EMR safety versus paper chart safety.

Fifty-four percent of physicians answered that EMRs are safer, with just 18 percent selecting paper as the safer option. Patient views, however, differed: Forty-seven percent of them said paper is safer, with 39 percent selecting EMRs as the safer option.

Also interesting is why physicians and patient responded the way they did when choosing paper records. Of physicians who believe paper is the safer option, 36 percent said paper is more secure because it is less likely to be hacked or lost. Of patients who believe paper is the safer option, 59 percent said paper records are more private than EMRs, allowing for more control over who sees them.

Interestingly, of the patients who said EMRs are safer, 77 percent said the greatest benefit of EMRs over paper records is being able to access records when needed.

What does it mean? The medical community is rejecting paper charts and embracing technology, says Practice Fusion—and that's easy to understand if you're a practicing physician who has any experience with an EMR. But it's also easy to understand patient concerns, which means more education about why EMRs are safer than paper charts is necessary.

As more electronic medical records (EMRs) come onto the market, it's becoming difficult to choose one that will remain usable well into the future. Tomorrow's EMRs will need to be interoperable, scalable, and easy to maintain, as well as offer a user-friendly interface and potential for mobile computing. One EMR, gloEMR from gloStream, can meet these requirements. Here's how.

gloEMR is interoperable. Microsoft Office has been around for decades, and every year Microsoft spends billions of dollars on Office-related research and development. gloEMR is the only EMR with Microsoft Office built right in—which makes the sharing of data simple.

gloEMR is scalable. It doesn’t matter how small or large your practice is: gloEMR's Microsoft technology makes it easy to create practice-specific templates for routine encounters without expensive programming.

gloEMR is easy to maintain. Microsoft technology is used worldwide, and all IT professionals are familiar with it. gloEMR's use of this technology reduces implementation time as well as ongoing maintenance.

gloEMR has a user-friendly design and interface. gloEMR offers an easy-to-use dashboard, so one click is all it takes to find, view, and work with the most critical patient information. Through the dashboard, doctors can track patient location from admission to discharge, access and share daily schedules and calendars, order labs, refill prescriptions, and more. It’s completely intuitive.

gloEMR has the potential for mobile computing. gloStream is committed to meeting the ongoing needs of its customers—now and in the future.

If you’re worried that you’ll be stranded by an EMR provider that isn’t in the business for the long haul, choose an EMR provider that protects your investment—such as gloStream. Many EMR providers are discontinuing their products, and the support for those products, leaving physicians in the lurch. But gloEMR is here to stay.

The American Medical Association (AMA) is taking an active role in persuading physicians to use information technology (IT), including electronic medical records (EMRs), in their practices—which shouldn't come as a surprise, given that the AMA has been working with a number of leading health care IT organizations, such as the EHR Collaborative, e-Health Initiative, and the National Alliance for Health Information Technology, for some time.

Physicians have clearly expressed concern about the cost of converting to an EMR, and some think it's unfair for the AMA to think that physicians can foot the bill themselves. But the AMA has pledged to work with Congress and insurers to align incentives for physician adoption of health care IT.

To make health care IT adoption easier for physicians, the AMA also made November 2011 "Heal that Claim," month, launching its annual campaign with new resources to help physicians automate administrative tasks for checking insurance eligibility, submitting and tracking claims, and obtaining payments.

This year, the AMA campaign features free tools, such as webinars, that offer step-by-step instructions for conducting electronic health care transactions. It is also supported by a new online forum for asking questions, getting answers, and accessing resources about automating a medical practice.

The tool kit is available here.

Electronic medical record (EMR) implementation has the potential to be an arduous process, in part because medical practices tend to make four major mistakes when transitioning from paper-based records: mismatching IT, misplacing resources, ignoring accountability, and mismanaging logistics. Below we outline those mistakes and explain how you can avoid them.

Mistake #1: Mismatching IT. According to a recent report, one of the main reasons for EMR implementation failure is unreliable IT infrastructure. When implementing an EMR, you'll certainly need to choose the software that meets your needs—but you'll also want to run it on the appropriate hardware.

Mistake #2: Misplacing resources. While it may be tempting to assign office staff to oversee your EMR implementation, a medical practice is not an IT organization, and managing major changes that involve IT may be beyond your staff's abilities. It's likely to be much more cost effective in the long run to outsource your implementation to experts.

Mistake #3: Ignoring accountability. An EMR implementation involves sweeping changes, and everyone in your medical practice likely plays a role in your normal operations, but not knowing who is responsible for what during the implementation specifically can derail the process. According to the EMR Starter Assessment Tool developed by the Community Clinics Initiative, a medical practice is ready to implement an EMR only when roles and responsibilities are assigned and clear.

Mistake #4: Mismanaging logistics. Implementing an EMR isn't like installing software on your home computer; it requires tweaking and adjusting during many phases. Given the complexity of the undertaking, you'll need to spend a significant amount of time planning on the front end. Document tasks, develop an implementation timeline, assign responsibilities, identify risks… and the list goes on.

When your medical practice makes the transition to an electronic medical record (EMR), which is inevitable, careful planning can help the change go smoothly—and careful planning, in the context of EMR implementation, can be referred to as “change management”.

Change management consists of up-front assessment and planning—but there's much more involved than simply creating a project plan for your new IT implementation. You'll need to select the appropriate technology, choose your implementation team carefully, and assign responsibilities. Change management also involves looking at your existing processes and determining what's working and what's not.

The reason: You don't want to carry forward ineffective processes. If a prescription-related workflow is ineffective when handled manually, for example, it isn't going to become effective when handled electronically—and the transition to an EMR, which is supposed to make your practice more efficient, is the perfect time to address such problems.

If not managed properly, the transition to an EMR can exact a high price on a medical practice. Careful consideration of implementation issues as well as process issues in advance will facilitate effective change management. And that, in turn, will help you minimize the overall impact of change on your practice—decreasing disruptions and reducing costs.

The process of implementing an electronic medical record (EMR) can be challenging for any medical group, in part because it's about more than just IT. For example, resources need to be assigned to ensure that staff members have appropriate roles. One EMR provider, gloStream, achieves this with its innovative gloDNA process.

Managing a major IT change such as an EMR implementation requires office staff to play critical roles in managing the change, and staff members who don't understand work flows or who are overextended from handling their normal full-time responsibilities can derail the process.

When implementing an EMR, medical practices need expertise from outside the organization—in essence, a vendor that is committed to understanding the practice, planning the implementation accordingly, and providing support 24/7 during the transition.

That's why gloStream offers gloDNA, which helps gloStream to understand the needs of a practice so gloEMR can be configured the way the individual doctors practice medicine. During this process, gloStream reviews the practice's needs in order to build a customized solution and recommend process changes that help smooth the transition to a digital environment. gloStream then follows through with a wellness phase designed to make sure clients continue to be truly meaningful users.

EMR implementation is no time to skimp on planning or resources, so choose your vendor carefully. An experienced vendor—such as gloStream—will be more than a trusted resource; it will be a reassuring presence within your practice during a naturally stressful time.

Government's incentives for electronic medical record (EMR) adoption could pay off in improved quality of care, according to a new study. It found that patients in physician practices that used EMRs got better care and had better outcomes than those in physician practices that used paper records.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked at 500 primary care physicians treating 27,000 adults with diabetes.

According to the study, those patients in physician practices that used EMRs were significantly more likely to have care that met certain standards as well as positive outcomes than those in physician practices that used paper records.

Standards included timely measurements of blood sugar, management of kidney problems, eye examinations, and vaccinations for pneumonia. Positive outcomes included meeting national benchmarks for blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol control, as well as achieving a non-obese body mass index and avoidance of tobacco use.

Almost 51 percent of patients at EMR-based practices received care that met all of the endorsed standards—compared to only 7 percent of patients at paper-based practices. And almost 44 percent of patients in EMR-based practices met at least four of five outcome standards—compared to just 16 percent of patients at paper-based practices.

According to the study, these findings were consistent regardless of insurance type (Medicare, Medicaid and commercial payers) as well as for the uninsured.

David Blumenthal, MD, former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, says these results support the expectation that federal support of EMRs will generate quality-related returns on investment (ROI).

Related articles: EHR Incentives Can Generate "Quality-Related" ROI, Study Says