Why should you use transcription over in house? Over an EMR? Read the information below and see!
Physicians, at least for now, prefer to dictate. The Medical Records Institute estimated in September 2008 that 90 percent of documentation was done in the form of dictation and transcription. EHR vendors that claim their products will eliminate transcription completely often send physicians scurrying back to MTSOs when they find doing their own documentation takes time away from patients. "What we're seeing typically is that a physician who tries the EHR without MT support is either spending an extra 1-2 hours a day on documentation or seeing somewhere between two and four fewer patients a day," noted Robin Daigh…
ADVANCE. Keeping The Pace. With EHRs on the horizon, MTSOs must ensure they don't fall behind technology. Lynn Jusinski. May 19, 2009. Vol. 19. Issue 6. Page 20.
Amidst all the hoopla about electronic health records, Ken Beasley is sticking to his guns. When it comes to a conventional EHR, he says "thanks, but no thanks."
Instead, his group practice, Ortho Memphis, is using what he portrays as a "hybrid electronic medical record." The lower-cost option relies heavily on document imaging paired with doctors dictating notes for transcription.
And even if the federal government was to provide his practice with thousands of dollars worth of incentives to buy a conventional EHR, he wouldn't budge.
That's because Beasley, CEO of the 20-physician Tennessee practice, is steadfast in his belief that most conventional records systems get in the way of efficiently practicing medicine. So he won't use one, even as the practice expands to 31 physicians later this year.
"Where I've seen them implemented they've really slowed the doctors down," Beasley says. He argues that most of these systems are too cumbersome to use, requiring doctors to point-and-click on clunky templates or type in their notes. A far more efficient method, he contends, is to continue the age-old practice of doctors dictating notes for transcription.
Today, physicians use one of three primary methods of documentation: dictation, structured data entry (keyboard, touch screen, mouse), or front-end speech recognition. In our experience and that of many EMR vendors with whom we’ve spoken, dictation is the preferred choice of 80% of doctors. Why?
Dictation is the most efficient way to document patient care. Take the example of a typical outpatient visit to an internist. It takes about one minute to dictate a note for an established patient and about $4.30 in direct and indirect costs
By contrast, many EMRs use structured data entry as the primary method for entering clinical notes, in which physicians point and click their way through drop-down menus. The time required is at best equal to that of a transcribed note, and physicians often report it takes 8 to 10 minutes to complete a note using structured data entry, meaning the indirect cost to physicians is anywhere from $13.50 to $27.
Indeed, physicians may “save” $1.60 in outsourced transcription expense but at the cost of their valuable time. In our experience, this loss of productivity with structured data entry is the single biggest barrier to physician EMR adoption. By contrast, transcription customers are delighted to learn they can continue to dictate and let the transcription service deliver the clinical note to their EMR.
Dictated notes have another advantage over notes created through structured data entry. Clinical notes are intended to help organize a physician’s thought process and tell the patient’s story in a concise manner, but EMR-generated notes can eliminate this basic function. According to the article “Off the Record — Avoiding the Pitfalls of Going Electronic” published in a recent issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, “Notes that are meant to be focused and selective have become voluminous and templated, distracting from the key cognitive work of providing care. Such charts may satisfy the demands of third-party payers, but they are the product of a word processor, not of physicians’ thoughtful review and analysis.” The best solution may be a combination of structured data and dictated notes integrated within an EMR, with physicians having the ability to choose their preferred mode of documentation.
FOR THE RECORD. Friend or Foe?- The EMR Mandate’s Effect on Transcription Companies. Robin Daigh. Vol 20. No. 17. P 20. http://www.fortherecordmag.com/archives/ftr_081808p20.shtml
Research by Viva Transcription
HEALTHCARE IT NEWS published in partnership with HIMSS
'Professor Trish Greenhalgh, lead author of UCL’s Department of Open Learning, said EHRs are often depicted as the cornerstone of a modern healthcare, capable of making care better, safer and cheaper. Yet, clinicians and managers the world over struggle to implement EHRs.
" Depressingly, outside the world of the carefully-controlled trial, between 50 and 80 per cent of electronic health record projects fail – and the larger the project, the more likely it is to fail," Greenhalgh said.
"Our results provide no simple solutions to the problem of failed electronic patient records projects, nor do they support an anti-technology policy of returning to paper. Rather, they suggest it is time for researchers and policymakers to move beyond simplistic, technology-push models and consider how to capture the messiness and unpredictability of the real world,” according to Greenhalgh.'
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/electronic-health-records-not-panacea-researchers-say