The value of the electronic health record (EHR) has been taking a beating in the press lately. A sampling of news stories chronicling the difficulty of successfully getting a return on investment from EHR adoption include:
Perhaps the greatest challenge to the value of EHRs came from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with the release of their report on long-term healthcare spending. Dr. Peter Orszag, the CBO’s director, stated that the estimates of potential savings through implementation of EHRs do not align with the agency’s data and are likely to be substantially less than people think.
What these and other reports seem to be overlooking is the immense potential of the EHR as a rich source of analytical data for clinical, financial, operational and research purposes. In short, they are overlooking the business intelligence value of the EHR. Where analytics are mentioned, it is pretty much the equivalent of a footnote.
The twist is that while seemingly dampening the enthusiasm for EHRs as operational applications, these same reports are practically mandates for business intelligence in healthcare. This is especially true of the 35-page analysis The Long-Term Outlook for Health Care Spending from the CBO, with its emphasis on the concept of “comparative effectiveness” as a solution to spending healthcare dollars wisely.
But let’s drill down on this a bit to see the various ways that EHRs can improve quality, efficiency and effectiveness of care.
EHRs are electronic versions of the paper records on a particular patient. They combine information from a person’s EMR (electronic medical record) and their PHR (personal health record). The
former is typically managed by the care provider (usually the primary care physician), while the latter is typically managed by the patient him/herself.
When combined, these two types of records give a comprehensive profile of the person’s health status and healthcare history. At least this is the case when both are consolidated from the
various sources of information that are needed to provide this profile. But as we all know, not all of the sources of information keep it in electronic form, nor do all of the sources report into
the keeper of the EHR. In some cases (more often than any of us realize, I suspect), the various sources of data on a patient’s health services may not even know the others exist.
The potential risk to a person and their health from this fragmentation of data is high. And the promise of improved safety, efficiency, efficacy and reduced duplication of services seems
intuitively high as well. These are the reasons that the EHR has made it onto the political platforms of presidential candidates, and onto the agendas of senators, congressmen and state governors.
And these are the driving forces behind numerous healthcare quality and safety agencies and groups.
For our purposes, we need to focus on ten key EHR components:
Not all EHRs contain all of this information, but when they do, it is easy to see that this is a rich source of information about a patient with a broad range of perspectives. Just getting all of this in one place – let alone in a consolidated, electronic form – is a monumental task for even the most organized individual or organization. For instance, when my mother-in-law underwent a highly risky surgery a few years ago, my wife spent one of the worst days of her life becoming the consolidator of legal, financial, insurance, governmental, personal, medical and medication information. And this was under extreme emotional distress. She spent the whole day on the phone while at the hospital with her mother coordinating doctors, nurses, lawyers and other experts, while I was finding documents at home.
In addition to having a varied list of requirements, the EHR is going to be a large record, especially with the images accompanying the textual information. Needless to say, it would be hard to fit all of this on a zip drive.
So the EHR is quite an investment. Battles over who manages this information resource, and especially who pays for the development and ongoing maintenance of the record, are a large part of the political and economic debate. Meanwhile, the adoption rate is fairly low. The National Health Care Survey reported that 17 percent of physicians’ offices, 31 percent of emergency rooms, and 29 percent of hospital outpatient departments were using EHRs in 2003. These numbers have not changed much since 2003, nor did they change much in the years before 2003.
One of the chief reasons for this low adoption rate is that the return on this investment is not evenly distributed among providers, purchasers, regulatory bodies and patients. A bigger reason, I believe, is that a major portion of the return equation is being overlooked. This is where business intelligence can help.
Once the EHR data is de-identified and aggregated into population statistics and patterns, entirely new possibilities emerge for generating value from that data by a number of participants in the healthcare industry. As mentioned earlier, however, analytics based on aggregated data of this kind have so far been overlooked.
Healthcare information technology generally falls into three major types of applications based on the problem they are developed to solve. For that matter, this is true of information technology in any industry. These three types are:
Let’s take a look at the list of potential EHR data elements again from an analytical viewpoint:
Insights such as these from improved business intelligence can drive performance in terms of quality of care, efficiency of care, effectiveness of treatment, service excellence, new areas for service growth and strategic decisions regarding facilities, staffing, funding and investment in equipment.
And this is just one source of data. Combined with other types of data from the financial, clinical, research and operational systems in your organization, aggregated data from the EHR represents a significant source of value for your organization.
Whether you have already implemented EHR, are planning to, are thinking about it or are planning an upgrade, take another look at your organization's investment in the EHR. Look at it from the perspective of access to a wide range of analytical information to answer an even wider range of business questions. See how this could change the EHR return on investment equation for you.
Thanks for reading!
References:
Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (2003): {{PDF|EHR Definition, Attributes and Essential Requirements, Retrieved July 28, 2006
Recent articles by Scott Wanless
Scott is a Principal Management Consultant for Fujitsu Consulting's Business Intelligence Practice, part of the $40-billion Fujitsu group, a leading provider of customer-focused IT and communications solutions for the global marketplace. He has more than 20 years of experience in business intelligence strategic planning, business intelligence application development, business, economic and financial analysis across numerous industries including healthcare, laboratory research, insurance, lending, manufacturing, retail and state government. Scott can be reached at scott.wanless@us.fujitsu.com.
Editor's note: More healthcare articles, resources, news and events are available in the Business Intelligence Network's Healthcare Channel. Be sure to visit today!