KLAS: Interoperability among Different EMRs Nearly Non-Existent | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

KLAS: Interoperability among Different EMRs Nearly Non-Existent

October 12, 2016
by Rajiv Leventhal
| Reprints
Epic customers report “home runs” when sharing data with each other, but only average success when exchanging with other vendors

Only 6 percent of healthcare providers reported that information accessed from exchange partners on a different electronic medical record (EMR) is delivered in an effective way that facilitates improvement to patient care, according to KLAS’ Interoperability 2016 report.

Using the interoperability measurement tool defined and agreed upon by both healthcare providers and health IT vendors in October 2015, KLAS was able to publish their 2016 interoperability findings last week. In sum, more than 500 interviews revealed, in detail, something that most clinicians know today: between-organization sharing of medical records is happening only in pockets and is often frustrating for clinicians. This report, “Interoperability 2016: From a Clinician View - Frustrating Reality or Hopeful Future” focused not on the number of records shared, but on whether clinicians have the interoperability they need.

Clinicians are quick to report that interoperability is more than just access to outside patient records. For interoperability to move the needle on better care, outside records must be (1) available, (2) easy to locate, (3) within the clinician workflow, and (4) delivered in an effective way that facilitates improvement in patient care. In reality, a provider might reach any one of the four “bases” independent of the others, but a true “home run” is a best-case scenario in which all four criteria are met.

To this end, the KLAS research found that the low rate of impactful exchange starts with availability; respondents reported reasonable access only 28 percent of the time. When the aspect of easy-to-locate available records is included, the affirmative response rate drops to only 13 percent, and when the requirement of receiving and locating that data in the clinician’s workflow is added on, 8 percent of providers remain. Considering the challenges associated with access, location of records and ease of use within the workflow, the 6 percent rate of providers meeting all the previous criteria and positively impacting patient care is easier to understand, the KLAS researchers noted.

Researchers also questioned healthcare providers about their experiences with CommonWell and Carequality, initiatives designed to promote data sharing. Providers reported optimism about the potential of these initiatives to dramatically improve nationwide interoperability. These organizations reported nearly universal optimism that CommonWell is a game changer. Each initiative claims thousands of participating providers, while KLAS validation efforts indicate a relatively small subset of providers are actively sharing data today.

Further, effective sharing of information happens, on average, six times more between organizations on the same EMR product than between organizations with different EMR products. Every provider in this report who has achieved successful sharing has had less success exchanging with providers who use different vendors than their own. Some reasons for this stronger performance include compatibility, familiarity, and shared access.

What’s more, both acute and ambulatory care settings see significant and strikingly proportional deficits in usable, useful information exchange. According to the researchers, some might think that the broad scope of the acute care setting’s exchange needs compared to the more narrow focus for ambulatory care would lead to different overall success in record sharing. However, 2016 results show that clinicians in ambulatory care view interoperability to be nearly as poor as clinicians in acute care. One exception is how they view the perceived impact on care—ambulatory facilities place high value on low volumes of specific data, such as results and discharge notes.

Vendor Reviews

From a vendor standpoint, reporting unmatched results in “home runs,” Epic customers are in a league of their own when it comes to sharing with each other; success is average when exchanging with different EMRs. athenahealth and Cerner customers also show a higher level of success with same-vendor sharing, according to the data. Meanwhile, customers of athenahealth and Greenway—the two vendors whose customers report the most success sharing with different EMRs—achieve less than a 15 percent home-run rate.

The ability, or inability, of providers to reach certain bases is not always tied to EMR vendor performance. In this study, satisfaction ratings for how well vendors support interoperability were some of the lowest in any area KLAS measures. Even vendors with above average same-vendor interoperability ratings are just average when it comes to sharing with different EMRs. athenahealth has the strongest overall showing, topping the list in sharing with different EMRs and earning comparatively high marks for sharing between customers. Users of most other vendors consistently report getting less help in accessing data from different-vendor EMRs. Epic shows the most dramatic difference between the two types of sharing; this is more the result of high same-vendor success than low different-vendor experiences, according to the research.


Get the latest information on Health IT and attend other valuable sessions at this two-day Summit providing healthcare leaders with educational content, insightful debate and dialogue on the future of healthcare and technology.

Learn More