3 ms·

Do you have an opinion on or know much about newer / more user-friendly EMR's? I'm specifically thinking of PracticeFusion, but I imagine there are others. Why

Do you have an opinion on or know much about newer / more user-friendly EMR's? I'm specifically thinking of PracticeFusion, but I imagine there are others. Why doesn't stuff like this take-off? Is it the product of slow-moving hospital bureaucracy, or are there other reasons?

killdevil 12y ago
I had never heard of PracticeFusion, but clicking through their web site it looks like they're targeting solo practitioners and small practice groups. Hospital systems with thousands of practitioners need systems that are many orders of magnitude more complex. The amount of investment it'd take to build a modern hospital-system EMR from scratch is enormous. A well-funded startup could certainly do it, but then there's the problem of adoption to deal with. Hospital systems are very like big government from an IT standpoint: extremely conservative and risk-averse, even more so than regular big business tends to be ("you'll stop us from using Windows XP when you rip the install media from our cold, dead hands"). You know the old adage that nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM? Well, nobody ever got fired for recommending Epic.
daigoba66 12y ago
The CFO of large healthcare organizations is historically who decides what software is purchased and used. Why the CFO? Because most enterprise healthcare software is built to support the billing/accounts receivable department. It's very difficult to find an EMR that focuses on patient care and communication. The cynical side of me thinks that there isn't an incentive to build this kind of software. Doctor's aren't paid to make you healthier; they're paid to submit to insurance companies the correct diagnosis and procedure codes.
- killdevil 12y ago
  Well, there isn't an incentive because typically it isn't physicians (or, at best, it is physicians who are primarily administrators and somewhat out of touch with clinical practice) who are making the purchase decisions. I can tell you that most clinicians would be jumping for joy if software that was more physician- and patient-oriented became the norm.

killdevil 12y ago

I had never heard of PracticeFusion, but clicking through their web site it looks like they're targeting solo practitioners and small practice groups. Hospital systems with thousands of practitioners need systems that are many orders of magnitude more complex. The amount of investment it'd take to build a modern hospital-system EMR from scratch is enormous. A well-funded startup could certainly do it, but then there's the problem of adoption to deal with. Hospital systems are very like big government from an IT standpoint: extremely conservative and risk-averse, even more so than regular big business tends to be ("you'll stop us from using Windows XP when you rip the install media from our cold, dead hands"). You know the old adage that nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM? Well, nobody ever got fired for recommending Epic.

daigoba66 12y ago

The CFO of large healthcare organizations is historically who decides what software is purchased and used. Why the CFO? Because most enterprise healthcare software is built to support the billing/accounts receivable department. It's very difficult to find an EMR that focuses on patient care and communication. The cynical side of me thinks that there isn't an incentive to build this kind of software. Doctor's aren't paid to make you healthier; they're paid to submit to insurance companies the correct diagnosis and procedure codes.

killdevil 12y ago
Well, there isn't an incentive because typically it isn't physicians (or, at best, it is physicians who are primarily administrators and somewhat out of touch with clinical practice) who are making the purchase decisions. I can tell you that most clinicians would be jumping for joy if software that was more physician- and patient-oriented became the norm.