A website dedicated to helping decision-makers in healthcare organisations understand particulars of Health IT products and make an informed choice, helps you understand the difference between the seemingly similar sounding software.
Should you implement an EMR or an EHR? Do you know the difference? Is there a difference? These are only a few, but very important questions that IT implementers at a healthcare organisation face while deciding which software to select from all the variety offered in the market.
In theory, and by definition, there is a difference and it should play into any provider’s clinical software selection. At the same time, marketing messages and technical terminology have clouded healthcare providers’ understanding of the two software definitions.
Recently, the National Alliance for Health Information Technology (NAHIT), established definitions for electronic medical records (EMR), electronic health records (EHR), and personal health records (PHR). NAHIT is a senior leadership organisation dedicated to leveraging the power of health IT to improve the US healthcare system.
An EMR is the record of a single diagnosis or treatment maintained in silos, most likely used by a specialist
EMR and EHR as NAHIT defines it
The NAHIT has produced the following definitions for EMR and EHR:
EMR: The electronic record of health-related information on an individual that is created, gathered, managed, and consulted by licensed clinicians and staff from a single organisation who are involved in the individual’s health and care.
EHR: The aggregate electronic record of health-related information on an individual that is created and gathered cumulatively across more than one health care organisation and is managed and consulted by licensed clinicians and staff involved in the individual’s health and care.
By these definitions, an EHR is an EMR with interoperability (i.e. integration to other providers’ systems).
Who needs which?
Marc Anderson, CEO of the AC Group, says it comes down to the words ‘medical’ and ‘health.’ An EHR will provide a more comprehensive view into a patient’s health and history by pulling information from other systems, providing clinical decision support and alerting providers to health maintenance requirements. It will help providers report and measure quality indicators for pay-for-performance incentives.
Meanwhile, an EMR is the record of a single diagnosis or treatment maintained in silos, most likely used by a specialist. If your responsibility is to take care of one unique problem – such as an orthopedist setting a bone – then a stand-alone EMR may well be sufficient. Certain specialists may not need information about patient history as much as they need speciality-specific workflows and templates.
The market is still figuring it out
Despite the NAHIT definitions, we think the market is still figuring out which definitions to adopt. An analysis of Google Trends data shows that roughly four times more searches are performed for ‘electronic medical record’ than for ‘electronic health record.’ At the same time, ‘electronic health record’ seems to be gaining in search frequency.
One interesting exception to the data was that the searches originating in Washington, D.C. are split evenly between ‘electronic medical record’ and ‘electronic health record!’
Software vendor marketing migrates slowly
The same is true when we look at the usage of terminology by software vendors.
Why such limited adoption of EHR amongst vendors? First, it simply takes time and effort to change over marketing terms. Moreover, from a very practical standpoint, many vendors will want to continue to use the EMR label while it is the most commonly used – and ‘Googled’ – term for clinical records systems.
Regardless of who is using which terms, the key decision process for selecting an EMR/EHR is to map out your organisation’s requirements and methodically assess systems against those criteria.
Justin Barnes, Chairman of the HIMSS Electronic Health Record Association and VP of Marketing and Government Affairs at Greenway Medical Technologies, believes ‘the future of healthcare IT is interoperability.’
And while Barnes is an advocate of the EHR terminology, he distills the following three criteria for selecting a medical records system:
Current-year interoperability certification standards (CCHIT, HL7); A unique workflow that matches your practice and speciality.
Excellent usability at the point of care.
If you purchase an EMR or EHR with these three requirements, you should receive a significant ROI on your investment, and position yourself to receive incentives from payers.
Well what’s a PHR?
NAHIT has provided the following definition of a PHR:
ePHR: An electronic, cumulative record of health-related information on an individual, drawn from multiple sources, that is created, gathered, and managed by the individual. The integrity of the data in the ePHR and control of access to that data is the responsibility of the individual.
A PHR should include cumulative health information ranging from past and current illnesses, demographics, allergies, prescriptions and more
To be most effective, a PHR should include cumulative health information ranging from past and current illnesses, demographics, allergies, prescriptions and more. Given the nature of the PHR, it’s the individual’s responsibility to decide what information is stored, and who has access to it.
Microsoft’s HealthVault and Google Health are two prominent examples of PHRs. Whether these systems are widely adopted and properly updated by patients is yet to be seen.
Even with complete definitions in place, it can be difficult to evaluate EMRs/EHRs and determine which system to buy. At the same time, most providers will make their decisions based on their IT budget and their career stage. A young physician will almost certainly want to lay the IT foundation for participating in the future vision for healthcare interoperability. They will likely be supported in this effort by their health system. Meanwhile, a more mature physician that wants to ‘go paperless,’ but is not an aggressive adopter of IT may well opt for a stand-alone EMR system and forgo the costs and challenges of integration.
In the end, these individual decisions underlie what is a deliberate, but very slow adoption of healthcare technologies.
(Software Advice is a free website designed to help healthcare providers find the right software for their organisation.
For more information kindly visit – Software Advice for Electronic Medical Records)