This was recently posted on their website and will soon be incorporated into our site (as soon as I find the time).
EMRs and Transcription
Are you an EMR client interested in incorporating dictation back into your workflow? Wouldn't it be great if physicians could complete their EMR using dictation, thereby increasing physician productivity and EMR adoption?
We provide a unique solution to Medical Facilities that allows physicians to properly document patients encounters in their EMR without sitting in front of a computer, all while increasing physician productivity and upholding attentive patient care.
METHODS OF POPULATING AN EMR SYSTEM
Electronic medical records (EMRs) aim to improve patient care and reduce costs while complying with Meaningful Use guidelines. However, most EMRs require doctors to enter patient data directly into the computer system, oftentimes causing a drop in physician productivity and, consequently, facility revenues. Medical Facilities want to make the best operational choice for their physicians, patients and bottom line. Let’s compare the options for populating data into an EMR.
| Emdat | Front End Speech Recognition | EMR Point-and-Click |
| COST | | |
| Per patient encounter cost averages $1.50. | Software, hardware, maintenance and lost physician productivity. | Software, hardware, maintenance and lost physician productivity. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | | |
| Physicians continue business as usual using traditional dictation method. | Physicians must be trained on dictating, reviewing and editing their own documentation. | Physicians must be trained to use and navigate system. |
| PRODUCTIVITY | | |
| Physician productivity increases using traditional dictation method. Smartphones allow physicians to create and upload dictations, as well as view and approve documentation prior to populating the EMR, on-the-go. | Physician productivity declines as physicians spend four times the amount of time of traditional dictation documenting their encounters. Physicians must navigate to the appropriate field, dictate, and then edit their own documentation. | Physician productivity declines as physicians spend six times the amount of time of traditional dictation documenting patient encounters. Patient to patient workflow is disrupted as physicians visit workstation to log in, navigate system, and conduct data entry after each patient encounter. Alternatively, physicians log in, navigate system, and conduct data entry via menus and templated paragraphs during patient visit. |
| DATA COLLECTION | | |
| Same data results as Front End Speech Recognition and EMR Point-and-Click without direct physician entry. | Physician required to spend time and effort entering data directly into EMR. | Physician required to spend time and effort entering data directly into EMR. |
| COMPLIANCE | | |
| Full compliance (HIPAA, Meaningful Use, etc.). | Full compliance (HIPAA, Meaningful Use, etc.). | Full compliance (HIPAA, Meaningful Use, etc.). |
| AVERAGE ERROR FREQUENCY | | |
| 0.33 errors per report. | 1.48 errors per report. | 7.8 errors per chart. |
EMR POINT-AND-CLICK SUMMARY
Studies show that it takes a physician an average of 4.5 minutes per patient to document a visit using templates in an EMR system. By contrast, dictation takes only 1.5 minutes per patient. The result? Doctors will either see fewer patients or work longer hours. This productivity loss results in thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Consider that the calculated hourly wage for physicians and their medical assistants is significantly higher than that of transcriptionists. In addition, doesn’t high quality patient care mean physicians who focus on their patients instead of their computer screen?
FRONT END SPEECH RECOGNITION SUMMARY
Physicians must log in, navigate the EMR system and place the cursor where they need to dictate. After they generate content, the physician must edit it. Again, physicians spend their billable time performing data entry instead of treating patients. Again, productivity is lost and revenues are lost.
EMDAT SUMMARY
Emdat's DaRT tags transcription content (Eg. Chief Complaint, Medical History, Family History, etc.); integrates with any RIS, HIS, EMR or clinical repository; and discretely populates the EMR automatically. Every patient encounter is documented thoroughly and efficiently as if the clinician had entered it themselves via templates.
CONCLUSION: EMRS AND TRADITIONAL DICTATION — A WINNING COMBINATION
.gif){kind=logo}
