With its carrot-like incentives, HITECH has placed severe demands on
healthcare providers throughout the country to adopt electronic medical records
and computerized physician order entry. And while paying for such systems is
difficult, inducing clinicians, especially independent physicians, to use them
can be the highest hurdle in the race to leave paper behind. KLAS recently issued
a report focusing on small hospitals and the unique challenges they face in
implementing core clinical technologies. HCI Editor-in-Chief Anthony Guerra
recently spoke with report author Paul Pitcher about how HITECH is effecting
this particular niche of healthcare.
GUERRA: We’ve heard that small hospitals are struggling
to comply with meaningful use and the 10 percent CPOE requirement.
PITCHER: You’re right on the mark. For these
hospitals, it’s difficult. Oftentimes, due to both dollar constraints and resource
constraints, they’re challenged and they’re playing catch up to the larger
hospitals, who have mostly adopted their clinical technologies. Many of these
critical access hospitals are just getting started now, and even then only
being forced because of ARRA.
GUERRA: KLAS recently issued a report entitled, “Closing
the IT Gap: Critical Access to 50 Bed Hospitals.” What got you interested
in this space? Did you see there was a demand for information among these
hospitals?
PITCHER: That is exactly what happened. In fact, I
want to hedge that. We, oftentimes, are focused on the larger hospitals, but
with ARRA coming out, IT became a must for all hospitals. So we felt there was
an opportunity to address some of their concerns, to answer some questions for smaller
hospitals who are perhaps lagging, in terms of technology. We just felt it was perfect
timing to put this report out and, hopefully, get this information into the
right hands.
GUERRA: Did you have any expectations going in about
what you would find?
PITCHER: There were not a lot of expectations. I
think the initial expectation was we had an idea of which vendors would play in
this space, and that really held true. We certainly had expectations that Healthland, HMS, and CPSI were going to be the
major players.
Beyond that, there were no expectations. Some of the results
were kind of interesting, especially as it relates to the performance scores of
Healthland in comparison to their competitors. Their scores stood up, stayed
the same; whereas some of the other scores fell away. So the smaller the
hospital, the worse the scores became for some data elements within our study.
GUERRA: Healthland has been around for a while,
formerly as Dairyland. They may not have that much name recognition unless you
realize the organization does have a long track record, correct?
PITCHER: Yes, I don’t know how much name recognition
they have with Healthland. Certainly, I think Dairyland had great name
recognition. I don’t know whether the industry connects the two. The other two –
HMS and CPSI – also have long track records.
GUERRA: So there were some interesting data points,
but nothing really startling about the findings?
PITCHER: I hate to focus on a particular vendor’s
performance, but I was a little bit startled to see how the Healthland scores outperformed
the other competitors in 34 of the 39 measurements that we checked. And that
wasn’t the case when we measured them, say, in an overall community hospital
perspective. That is, if we’re looking at the vendors and including all of the
customer base from HMS and CPSI, then that doesn’t hold true, but as soon as we
filtered that out, then some of those better scores for the other two vendors
fell away.
GUERRA: Break that down for me – does that mean
they’re better or they’re not better?
PITCHER: I’m hedging here because what I don’t want
to do is focus on one vendor. I would think it indicates to me that the
technology has become more challenging for a critical access hospital with
limited resources.
GUERRA: In the interviews I’ve done with small hospital
CIOs and IT directors, I was surprised to hear that money was not the barrier I
thought it would be. Does that make sense to you?
PITCHER: That makes sense to me in the context of recent
events. I wouldn’t agree with that if we were to look at a longer timeline, and
I would say hospitals typically have complained about the cost associated with
technology, which is why many of these hospitals have lagged in clinicals. I
think to put your comment into context we have to think of the dollars associated
with meaningful use. In that case, these hospitals really feel it’s imperative
to put these technologies in place, and so maybe the revenue constraints are
less important at this juncture.
GUERRA: I did hear a lot of trepidation about CPOE,
and getting the independent physicians to embrace it.
PITCHER: There are a couple of elements there. One, almost irrespective of the technology
you’ve put in place, physicians tend to be resistant to this because it impacts
the way they have done business for years. They don’t want to see themselves as
order-entry clerks or putting data in. So
therefore, the customers across all of the vendors’ customer bases face that
same challenge. It’s a little easier if you’re dealing with the hospitalist, a
physician who is employed by you, then you can mandate use. But if they’re not,
how do you get those physicians to use it? So the key is to have technology
that is simple, intuitive, easy to use, and that’s where the vendors in this
area struggle.
So we show some good adoption, especially CPSI with CPOE,
but there isn’t necessarily a lot of physician affinity for the technology. And
then, as it relates to Healthland and HMS, it’s really hard for us to measure physician
affinity because they don’t have a lot of measurable sites. I think each of
them had a couple of CPOE sites.
GUERRA: One of your main findings was that small
hospitals are generally not happy with the vendors. I was surprised by that
because I expected them to be more passive. Does that make sense?
PITCHER: It certainly does make sense and, as the
study pointed out, there are not a lot of benefits to a hospital of this size
tackling integration because it adds layers of difficulty. They don’t want to
deal with interface engines and HL-7 messaging. So they really are seeking a
single-vendor solution as much possible to reduce the amount of resources they
have to put into managing this technology.
GUERRA: You talked about the architecture, which was interesting,
and it seemed like the vendors in this niche did not have the more advanced Web-based
architecture. Do you think that’s going to be a major issue? Is that going to
limit these vendors?
PITCHER: I
think it’s going to be a major issue if the vendors don’t address that. I think
the market is going to force them to address that if they’re going to remain
competitive, and we see that already with a couple of the vendors. First of
all, McKesson’s technology is newer. We see what HMS is doing with Java, and
we’re watching to see what some of the other vendors are doing.
GUERRA: It seems the jump from whatever the
applications were originally built in to some native Web-based environment is very
difficult because it’s such a big project. It’s painful to move your customers,
and you undoubtedly lose some.
PITCHER: Well, it really becomes additionally
challenging when you’re still dealing with the technology that perhaps was
originally introduced 20 years ago, and you’re trying to deal with new presentation
layers through the Web, etc. It’s very
difficult to bridge old technologies with new technologies for that
presentation layer.
McKesson, for example, took a different approach. With Paragon
they started from scratch, built it all over with new technology. I think
that’s probably going to pay off for them in the long run.
GUERRA: It’s better in the long run, as long as you survive
the short run.
PITCHER: Yes.
GUERRA: Do you have any advice for small hospital
CIOs and IT directors?
PITCHER: I have some limited advice – missteps, false
starts can be a killer; they can almost take the hospital out of the game
because you don’t have the ability to restart CPOE, for example, or some of
these other technologies. If you lose your position on the first pass with
this, you may not get them back. It’s
going to be critical to select the appropriate vendor and make sure the vendor
offers what you need. Again, it becomes an issue of capital resources. Hospitals
don’t have the ability, the wherewithal to step back and make a new selection. Timelines
are critical, so good selection and good planning are critical to this entire
process.
Related items:
SMALL HOSPITAL SPOTLIGHT: One-on-One With Northern Inyo Hospital IT Manager Adam Taylor & HIS Manager Linda Goodwin
SMALL HOSPITAL SPOTLIGHT: One-on-One
With Crittenden Health CFO Joe Swab & IT Director Reese Baker
SMALL HOSPITAL SPOTLIGHT: One-on-One
with Wyoming Community Health System IT Director Jane Beechler
|