This is the third installment of the interview conducted with Heather Haugen and Jeffrey Woodside, MD, whose book, Beyond Implementation: A Prescription for Lasting EMR Adoption, was published in May.
In this segment of the interview, Haugen and Woodside discuss implementation and adoption in the context of ARRA and the HITECH Act.
Haugen is corporate vice president of research for healthcare IT consulting firm The Breakaway Group and co-director of health IT at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center's School of Medicine, and Woodside is former executive vice president and CMO for UT Medical Group.
To hear the complete interview via podcast, please go to www.healthcareitnews.com.
Is the federal stimulus program for EMR adoption, as well as supporting programs such as the RECs, Beacon Communities and workforce training, set up for providers to succeed?
Haugen: As far as the RECs are concerned, I feel like they haven't been in place long enough to judge their effectiveness. That is to be determined. The good news is that we have given some money to some areas where we know we're going to need some help. I do hope that the RECs end up being very successful in supporting especially small physician practice groups, which I think is one of the biggest needs.
The workforce training I'm a little more familiar with. I'm on faculty at the University of Colorado and we received a grant for one of these programs. I see the need for some additional training for folks. I hope that clinicians get involved here because the experience from healthcare and understanding healthcare is so critical to being helpful in this area. I have great hope for the workforce training programs.
As far as the RECs and Beacon communities, I think we need to wait a little while. I'm hoping that we'll get some metrics and outcomes from some of the work that's been done there. No matter what, every organization is going to be responsible for their own adoption, and I think we need to set them up for success by helping them.
Are the current meaningful use criteria fair and achievable?
Haugen: Let's start with the fact that I thought meaningful use was the right idea. It's an important message and it really gets at adoption. We've been talking about adoption; I think meaningful use is the other word that's synonymous with adoption. If the results aren't tracked and realized, the efforts are really a waste of time and money. I love the concept.
To be very honest, based on the research we did and where people were at when as were talking to them, the criteria and timelines are pretty aggressive, considering where we are today. So I don't think that they are achievable for many of the folks that we were talking to, at least in the first year.
Should ONC/HHS revise the timelines?
Woodside: Yes, I think they should be extended. If you look at organizations under the very best of circumstances, an EMR implementation is a lengthy process. Very few large organizations in particular implement with a big bang. They roll it out over months to various locations and/or various disciplines and clinics. I'm concerned that the very aggressive timeline for demonstrating meaningful use won't be practical or successful for many organizations in part because I'm concerned that implementations will be rushed and not performed as well as doing so in a more timely, if you will, and less hectic manner.
Will the aggressive timeline be a big setback for hospitals?
Woodside: I think they'll be looking at it as a process. If they don't get it for year one, you're better off to get it in year two, three and four, than to not get it at all. I think hopefully the response will be: This is a big undertaking, it's very expensive, we're going to do it in such a manner that gives us the optimum chance for total success in obtaining all the meaningful use criteria and if we miss out on a year, we miss out on a year.
Final thoughts:
Haugen: We really hope that the book decreases the stress that adoption can provide to organizations. Jeff and I have both been clinicians. We wrote this book from our perspective on helping healthcare providers get back to treating patients, rather than spending their time with technology, which is not why they went to nursing or medical school. That's our greatest hope.
