It’s so interesting how the same statistics can be interpreted through different prisms to arrive at opposite conclusions. In a past post, I wrote about the recent comprehensive MGMA study that explored the EHR experiences reported by over 4,500 professionals, representing 120,000 providers, focusing on the effect of EHR implementation on providers’ operating costs and productivity.
In this month’s issue of MGMA Connexion, David Gans, MGMA vice president, discusses the results of this study. He points out that EHR benefits to providers increase as they increase training and optimize their EHRs—“optimize” being defined as allocating sufficient time for physicians and staff to become familiar with the system—not a surprising finding. The tone of the article leads the reader to view as good news the fact that 37.7% of the respondents who claimed that they had optimized their EHRs reported productivity gains.
This statistic lends itself to a glass-half-full versus glass-half-empty analysis. Shouldn’t we look at this result with considerable concern since it means that 63.3% of optimized EHR users are not experiencing improved productivity? As the shaded area of this chart illustrates, if we did nothing to change these results, the vast majority of EHR users would never realize productivity benefits.
This is not a condemnation of EHRs, but rather a caution that physicians must evaluate their EHR options carefully to ensure that they purchase a system that is designed for their particular specialty and workflow—one that they can implement easily and optimize quickly, and that delivers increased productivity from the outset.