Can ANYONE tell me how this is meaningful?
It’s the use of EMR of course. Institutions must show that it is being used to improve patient safety and quality of care. If this is not reported to CMS centers for Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement can be reduced. In fact there are large federal subsidy for institutions that are implementing EMR.
Yes … we are getting 4 million for switching from a user friendly EMR to one that is just aweful, but meets all of the meaningful use criteria. It does NOT improve patient safety nor quality of care … in fact, it is making the quality drop like a rock as it takes so long to chart anything. I can see how the report writers and paper pushers of the world will like it, as it is easier to pull ‘data’ from an EMR than it is to recover that data from a paper chart, but nobody is fooled into believing that anything about EMRs and meaningful use is actually helping patients, at all.
Part of your dilemma is experienced by all. I’ve worked in two hospitals that changed their EMR. GOING LIVE was a disaster……. But over time nurses have been able to give feedback to nurse consultants and IT on the things we needed from a frontline employee’s perspective. Many changes were made making charting less repetitive making it easier to focus on patient care. Admission documentation takes 15 minutes down from forever. It continues to be a work in progress but I think with any change we have to give it a chance to work. Many of my peers who lament about the trials and tribulations of using EMR are rarely the ones who step up to suggest long term strategic improvements. Picking your brain, What would you change to make things easier the transition smoother.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.