Through an agreement with ACP, AC Group, Inc is offering their semi-annual book on “The Digital Medical Office of the Future” at 50% of the retail cost. The book is provided on CD and includes over 300 pages of information plus over 180 pages on EMRs and EHRs. Finally, the report includes a side-by-side comparison of the top EMR/EHR vendors in the market today.
|
Last Updated: November, 2007 |
ACP members can download a free EHR summary report. This report highlights EHR functionality of the top 10 EHR vendors based on selected criteria. The report is based on data from +114 EHR vendors.
|
AC Group, Inc. (ACG) has released their ninth report on Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and Electronic Health Record (EHR) applications in November 2007. This year’s report provides physicians, MSOs, IPAs, and PHOs with one of the most comprehensive evaluations to date of leading EMR/EHR applications.
According to the author, Mark Anderson, Healthcare IT Futurist, “Physicians and organizations such as DOQ-IT, state QIOs and IPAs are looking for a 3rd party independent evaluation of the various EMR/EHR offerings in the marketplace today. The current pressures in the industry for increased efficiency and better care delivery, coupled with significant advances in technology and applications, have enabled EMRs to take center stage. The challenge with EMRs is that it is very difficult for the average physician practice to effectively evaluate its options.”
The survey is an extensive evaluation of functional criteria that can serve as a valuable tool for the vendor selection process. The entire report is over 300+ pages long and covers all 6 levels of technology for the physician’s office.
Summary Results: To ensure that the application met the real needs of physicians, a detailed study was conducted by AC Group, Inc., during the Spring of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 with updates October of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The AC Group EHR functionality report is based on 40 months of research and the cumulative results of a 90-page questionnaire distributed to each participating vendor. The EHR survey includes 2,300 functional questions divided into 47 categories, while the PMS survey includes over 1,000 functionality questions divided into 26 categories.
The 478 functional categories included a section on the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) requirements for a computerized patient record (CPR), along with functional questions relating to operational areas including prescriptions, charge capture, dictation, interface with laboratories, physician order entry, decision support and alerts, security, personal health records, reporting and documentation. To assist the physician community, the AC Group report quantifies six specific components necessary to ensure that a physician or a group of physicians have made the right choice. The components include:
- Product Functionality – How well a product meets the basic requirements of a comprehensive EHR based on the guidelines of the Institute of Medicine and the detailed comprehensive survey of functionality based on AC Group’s 2,300+ EHR functionality survey.
End-User Satisfaction – How well a company performs in relation to “End-User Satisfaction” surveys conducted by independent analyst firms such as AAFP, KLAS (http://www.healthcomputing.com/) and AC Group, Inc. (www.acgroup.org).
Company Financial Viability – The strength of a company in relationship to their annual revenues, profitability, and percentage of revenues that are placed back into future development.
Client Base – The strength of the company’s EHR client base and their ability to understand and meet the needs of their current and future clients.
Technology – The strength of the EHR’s use of proven technology that enables a practice to become a digital office of the future.
Price – The total price of the solution should be considered when making a decision – not just the price of the software. Practices should determine the “Total Cost of Ownership” (TCO) when evaluating the numerous potential solutions.
Through AC Group's research, we have learned that, while having the appropriate level of functionality is critical, providers require a vendor that will support and continue to develop the product. Therefore, the report employs a point system based on a combination of the following major sets of criteria: functionality, company size, client base, end-user satisfaction and price. This point system provides a more comprehensive view of the ability of the end-user to derive benefits from the product. Each set of criteria has been weighted, and each vendor was assigned a “Total Weighted Point Value”. Additionally, in the 2007 report, AC Group divided the rankings based on the following product types:
- Integrated PMS and EMR vendors – Our research has shown that more than 72% of the selections in 2005 have been for bundled Practice Management and EMR/EHR applications. Starting in 2005, ACG started tracking those vendors that provide a tightly interfaced or integrated solution.
- EHR Vendors – Full EMR capability, with internet-based Personal Health Records, health maintenance tracking, proven interoperability with other EMR vendors, national clinical standard couplers, and clinical decision support with nationally recognized alerts, etc. The application must have interfaces to multiple Practice Management Systems. We further divided this category by size and multi- vs single-specialty, from large multi-specialty clinics to stand-alone practices.
- EMR Vendors – Full charting and Document Imaging Management, along with e-Rx with formulary tracking by healthplans, automated E&M coding and verification, medical necessity checking by CPT and Diagnostic codes, comprehensive orders and results reporting, with integrated workflow routing and tracking. The application must have interfaces to multiple Practice Management Systems.
- Charting Vendors – Ability to simplify the charting requirements, as specified by many of the medical societies and the IOM. Advanced functionality must include orders and results reporting, problem list and e-Rx tracking. The product does NOT have to have advanced nationally recognized alerts and clinical decision support. The application must have interfaces to multiple Practice Management Systems.
- Document Imaging Management (DIM) Vendors – Ability to scan and store paper documents by patient and by sub-folder, along with the ability to electronically receive and file documents that are received either electronically or by fax, including Lab results, transcribed reports, and hospital ADT information. The DIM must have integrated routing and workflow capabilities and interfaces to multiple Practice Management Systems.
- Community Health Record (CHR) Vendors – These vendors may not have a full functioning EMR but provide the interoperability functions of an EMR-Light along with the ability to maintain a community health record via a community clinical and demographic data exchange. Advance functionality includes reporting and tracking of orders, results, e-Rx, allergies, and problem lists, among others. The product should maintain a community master patient index, based on numerous inputs, including hospitals, healthplans, and numerous physician practice management systems. The Community Health Record vendor must also be working with various EMR/EHR vendors, to ensure effective clinical data exchange, following national standards like CCR or other recognized future interoperability standards.
The AC Group selection methodology provides physicians with a simple methodology that they can use to help reduce the number of choices. According to our research, the number of vendors that state that they sell an ambulatory EHR is currently over 250 – too many for any one physician to consider. Through the use of this methodology, practices can reduce the number of potential choices to the top 5 to 10 EHR/PMS products – based on their specific requirements.
Continuing in 2007, AC Group will be “Validating” vendor application. The purpose of the detailed analysis is to determine which vendors meet the functionality to be considered a “Validated EHR” today and to determine which vendors who, with future development, could have a “Validated EHR” in the next couple of years. Vendor Products that receive a minimum rating of 85% are routinely reviewed for validation by AC Group. Other vendors have excellent charting systems and document imaging systems, but in many cases, do not have the necessary clinical alerts, clinical knowledge based databases, and may not have the Clinical Decision Support (CDS) necessary to improve care and to document improvements in clinical outcomes. They still provide excellent benefits, but should NOT be considered a clinically driven EHR.
|
|