The 2010 National Physician Survey Results are now available online. The numbers tell an interesting story regarding the adoption and use of EMRs.
There are a few provisos to keep in mind:
- The 2010 data is already over six months old, so numbers are likely a little higher than reported.
- The adoption rates refer to all physicians (GPs and Specialists) and do not separate out eligible providers based upon role, e.g. exclusion of ER physicians or Radiologists.
A total of 16.1% of physicians report using Electronic Medical Records instead of paper charts. This compares to 9.8% in 2007 (21.5% of GPs and 10.1% of specialists in 2010 vs. 12.3% and 7% respectively in 2007).
The major change was in the number of physicians reporting the use of paper charts alone (37.6% in 2010 vs. 57.9% in 2007).
A total of 34.1% of physicians reported using a combination of paper charts and EMR in 2010 vs. 26.1% in 2007. With the reduction in numbers of physicians using paper charts alone, this clearly indicates that physicians are on the move in terms of their transition to EMR. But the rate of change is still disappointing and is in part reflected by a lack of coordination of national strategy with regard to encouraging EMR adoption. Some provinces have had programs to encourage adoption for 10 years and others have yet to begin.
The numbers by province also tell a tale regarding provincial effort. Alberta is the leader in terms of physician use of EMR alone at 27.7% followed by:
Ontario — 19.8%,
BC — 18.8%,
Saskatchewan — 17.8%, and
Manitoba and Nova Scotia — 17.6%.
Only 4.2% of physicians in Quebec report using EMR alone.
I am sure there will be much analysis and report on the NPS 2010 data; however, it is clear that after 10 years of effort across a select number of provinces, we are still far from a critical mass of users.
Much more work needs to be done to collect information and report on adoption of EMRs and to encourage meaningful use of information technology and EMRs.
What do you think of these numbers? Add your thoughts by clicking on the “Comments” link below.
Very interesting statistics. 16% EMR use rate is quite low considering the intense efforts to increase EMR use across the country over the last decade. This represents hundreds of millions of dollars spent.
The more troubling statistic is the increasing number of physicians using both EMR and paper. One way of looking at it is that there are more physicians on their way to using EMR, so obviously more will be using dual recording systems as they transition to full EMR use.
However, physicians using dual systems face incredible inefficiencies in their practice. As it is, documentation takes too long in medical practice. But if you're using two systems, you are taking even longer.
In a study we conducted a few years ago in Southern Ontario with 67 physician practices, we found that physicians who had dual paper and EMR documentation methods were less likely to do chronic disease management, less likely to be screening patients for cancers and less likely to have a business continuity plan in place. They were too busy nursing their documentation methods.
Our study also showed that many inefficient practices just don't make the transition to efficient practice. They muddle along for years.
Most EMR implementation programs across the country don't help these physicians to attain efficient use of the EMR, thereby creating a pool of resentment and poor support for EMR adoption.
Posted by: Karim Keshavjee MD | July 20, 2011 at 11:17 PM
If physicians that practiced solo or in a group of less than 4 were excluded, I wonder what the numbers would be. I still believe that there is no incentive (due to the practical aspects) for small groups to move to the EMR. A paper chart for the solo physician with 1500 patients is still the most efficient (and cost effective).
Posted by: Dave Sellers | July 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM
Very interesting statistics. 16% EMR use rate is quite low considering the intense efforts to increase EMR use across the country over the last decade. This represents hundreds of millions of dollars spent.
The more troubling statistic is the increasing number of physicians using both EMR and paper. One way of looking at it is that there are more physicians on their way to using EMR, so obviously more will be using dual recording systems as they transition to full EMR use.
However, physicians using dual systems face incredible inefficiencies in their practice. As it is, documentation takes too long in medical practice. But if you're using two systems, you are taking even longer.
In a study we conducted a few years ago in Southern Ontario with 67 physician practices, we found that physicians who had dual paper and EMR documentation methods were less likely to do chronic disease management, less likely to be screening patients for cancers and less likely to have a business continuity plan in place. They were too busy nursing their documentation methods.
Our study also showed that many inefficient practices just don't make the transition to efficient practice. They muddle along for years.
Most EMR implementation programs across the country don't help these physicians to attain efficient use of the EMR, thereby creating a pool of resentment and poor support for EMR adoption.
+1
Posted by: awesome flash games | July 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM