Last week, I discussed the merits of the new KLAS Performance Report that categorizes EMR ratings based upon practice specialty. The industry has responded very positively to this major step forward, and I suspect that KLAS has received many requests for access to the publication.
One of the obstacles that KLAS faced in reporting by specialty was a lack of sufficient data in many of the categories and for many of the vendors. This data limitation leads me to several initial observations and raises important questions:
- While there are 27 vendors rated in the primary-care section and 20 in family practice, there are only 2 vendors in ophthalmology, 3 in orthopaedics, and 5 in cardiology with sufficient volume to merit inclusion. Why is that? EMR vendors have been marketing to the specialty physicians for well over a decade. Does this confirm that traditional EMRs have only had real traction in primary care after all these years?
- A disclaimer by KLAS says that vendors may be excluded from a category due to insufficient data points, yet I know from my own company’s sales experience that there are vendors who claim a large number of installs in specialty practices. Why are these practices not included in the survey results? Did they de-install their EMR? Did the implementation fail, or are the providers not really using the EMR so they chose not to respond to KLAS? Did vendors not supply KLAS with a sufficient number of specialists due to such problems? Whatever the reasons, the lack of responses from specialists is not surprising, given the dearth of specialists’ testimonials or EMR success stories on vendor websites and on industry and government blogs.
- Some of the vendors that are not rated highly by clients in the specialty categories received significantly better KLAS ratings from their primary-care clients. This data validates the tremendous difference between the EMR needs of specialists and those of primary-care physicians, as I have discussed in numerous posts. The fact that traditional EMRs are designed to meet the needs of primary-care physicians was a concern echoed by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in its EMR Position Statement, which said that the primary-care focus “can limit the utility of EHRs for specialty surgical practice.” Force-fitting an EMR designed for primary care into a specialty practice is what has resulted in the historically high failure rate of EMRs among specialists.
Limitations of the data notwithstanding, one conclusion is inescapable: The KLAS report is a great first step in providing specialists with considerably more information than they had prior to its publication, but the burden still remains on the specialists to do their due diligence to identify an EMR with proven success in their specialty.