Most Doctors Aren’t Using Electronic Health Records

mY 6 PERSON GROUP HAS INSTALLED AN EXPENSIVE EMR ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO . WHILE IT HAS BENEFITED US IN MANY WAYS (BETTER RECORD KEEPING FOR EXAMPLE) IT HAS BEEN VERY EXPENSVE TO INSTALL AND IMPLEMENT (HAVING TO HIRE A TECH GUY TO HELP US WT SERVER CRASHES , ETC THAT OCCUR WEEKLY).  IN ADDITION THE CLEARINGHOUSE ISSUES THAT ENSUED WERE ENORMOUS , AND UNPREDICTABLE TO SAY THE LEAST: WE WEREN'T PAID...

Electronic medical records (EMR) have been shown to enable physicians and other healthcare professionals to provide higher quality and more efficient healthcare.  The problem is getting EMR systems implemented in healthcare facilities across the country.  Given the declining reimbursements from insurance companies, most doctors cannot afford to pay for the installation and upkeep of...

This article hits the mark on the financial aspect of EHR adoption. The other challenge is realizing the value of electronic over traditional paper in bridging the gap of the techno phobia that inhibits adoption.

Difficulties in introduction of electronic records in clinical practice, in my mind, are due to the following. First, there is no improvement in quality of care and/or there is no financial benefit for majority of practices. Second, high cost of support, rather than purchase. Third, implementation is usually lengthy and requires physician's involvement, meaning time taken from seeing patients....

Third party payers benefit the most from EHRs because it makes charts easier to audit   The cost of implementing an EHR is excessive for a small practice of 2-5 physicians.

This article (and the NEJM article) restate what is known to those who have used a wide variety of EMR software packages: poor UI, outrageously expensive support contracts and the general reluctance of older physicians to embrace PC-based technologies. There is nothing intuitive about using a computer to enter patient data. The problem is–more often than not–PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard...

EMR or EHR ie., Electronic Medical Records or Health Records does warrant and expect from medical professional an astute techno-savvy partcularly in computers the writing skills of medical records with an ardent training of the secretaries normaly called the fifedom. EMR is an excellent way of racing ahead with these technological days wherein most patients can access medical records thro internet...

Electronic Health Records (EHR) are like a marriage, but are difficult to implement.  They are expensive, time-consuming and require a paradigm shift from ALL employees of the practice.  Half of all attempts fail; similar to getting married.  They do save costs of transcription and filing/pulling charts.  But IT support and software/hardware updates may be more expensive. ...

While all can agree that universal use of EMR/EHR would be beneficial, the cost burden of implementing these systems generally rests with the physician, who will generally see the least benefit (as opposed to insurance companies, Medicare, patients, etc.)

Misaligned economic incentives are mostly responsible for the low rates of adoption of EHRs.  Physician resistance to change is much less a force than the simple fact that it costs time and money to convert a practice to an EHR, and the financial benefits of an EHR do not accrue to the physician.

This article clearly describes the Catch-22 in which most doctors, except for those employed by the large institutions, find themselves.  We cannot afford to practice the "best" medicine, and yet, if we could, we might well make fewer errors and make medical care for our patients more seamless.  There would be better communication between caregivers and less--expensive--time wasted...

EMRs are quite expensive, possibly one of the bigger outlays of cash I can think of.  EMRs are also a work in evolution, much like operating software:  who wants to invest a lot of money on Vista when rumors of a new and better program are out there?  The enormous stress of putting one of these systems in action, if you can even find the right one, simply terrifies me.  One little...

The costs of a medical office have increased by 50 % within the last year by increase of malpractice insurance premiums of at list 15 %, increase of salaries, per an additonal 15 % , increase on staff time for authorization, prior approvals, electronic referral and prescription submission  by another 25 % . At the same time, the insurance companies compensation has universally decreased . EMR...

Slow EHR adoption by small to medium sized Physician practices, those with fewer than 100 providers, clearly shows a market niche for a cost effective, Web-based delivery of these systems. This will remove the primary pain point in adoption by smaller practices and groups.

I HAD THE 2ND CHARTLESS OFFICE IN THE SOUTHEAST THE 1ST IN TN. WHEN I 1ST OPENED MY OFFICE IN NASHVILLE IN 1991. ONCE IN YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK TO CHARTS; HOWEVER, THE COST ARE HIGH AND THE LEARNING CURVE IS SLOW. MOST DOC'S DON'T LIKE A CHANGE. THUS THE CONVERSION RATE WILL BE HIGHER IN DOCS STARTING A NEW PRACTICE, THAN IN AN OLD PRACTICE "TOO BUSY TO CHANGE". 

Only 1 in 5 physicians use electronic patient records. ( and those are either in University Hospitals, large multispecialty clinics or VA hospitals)