Simplifying Meaningful Use Reporting at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates

As far as the complexities that go along with Stage 1 and Stage 2, some people think it’s complicated and a lot of work. The way I see it, it’s better patient care. Yes, there is more responsibility on the clinicians, but when you discuss with them that the end result is better patient care, they subscribe.

What are other challenges providers face when it comes to achieving meaningful use?

From my perspective, it’s mostly about the additional work put on the provider to capture everything. All of this really makes a lot of sense, but there is additional work which they have to do. For what providers could do in three minutes now takes seven. There is a difference between 20 patients a day and 40.  People think the EHR and meaningful use should have reduced work, and I understand that. We try to give them easier ways of doing it, and we tell them that that it gets easier the next time they do it. Building their confidence is a big part of all this. I do feel bad though that they do have to spend more time on it. Other systems have nurses do a lot of the work, so they don’t feel the pain as much, but here, providers do everything.

Also, there is often a limited staff that has to do everything.  There is not just meaningful use, but ICD-10, patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), and other initiatives. There is a shortage of 50,000 health IT workers in the country, so really good talent is hard to find. And once you launch something major like meaningful use, you will have your best people allocated to it. But those people also have to move on to other things like ICD-10. So how do you put this ongoing massive project into more of an auto pilot mode? Organizations wrestle with that all the time.

What can organizations do to better handle Stage 2?

We know what we’re doing wrong, and we try to fix everything we can. But there is a limitation on how much you can push. Eventually, this is going to have great results for patients and providers, but it is a painful process right now. As long as our providers are aware of that, it’s ok. I have yet to found a provider who doesn’t do it or doesn’t want to do it—the only real issue/complaint is the time it takes. And it’s not just one EHR; completely different systems have the same problems.

There has been plenty of recent negative reaction when it comes to timing issues within meaningful use, from industry associations as well as politicians. What are your thoughts on that?

I try to ignore a lot of it, unless it becomes a rule or law. Frankly, it doesn’t concern me. If you sit down and look at the [program], most of it comes back to the basic notion of better patient care, albeit at the expense of clinicians doing extra work. These same discussions took place about Stage 1. I have not followed these discussions, and personally, I think we need to move on. As far as delaying it or pushing forward, my stance is neutral. I’m sure lots of hospitals aren’t ready, and that might be a good enough reason to delay it. In my eyes, improved patient care needs to happen, and it doesn’t matter if it’s 2014, 2015, or 2016. But it has to happen.