I realize that I jumped right in writing about EMR design. Without thinking, I just assumed that you would choose to develop content for your EMR that was customized by and for your organization. Obviously, you can opt for using an Off the Shelf solution. Let’s back-up a step and look at the pros and cons of content customization.

First the cons: these boil down to time and money. As I wrote earlier, content design is a team effort. It takes many meetings of a diverse staff group to develop a good design. (At UBHC the design workgroup had 29 members who met for a 1/2 day per week for three months.) The staff time costs money. There is no way around that. Also the time involved may extend your implementation schedule. Though this extension is not inevitable if you start the design task early. You can begin even before you select the Electronic Health Record application.

The pros boil down to facilitating staff buy-in and getting a better EHR, one that really reflects the information needs, workflows, clinical culture and policies of your organization. These issues are especially relevant to behavioral health organizations where humanistic values are high and industry standardization is low relative to physical health.

In my experience, leaders of EMR implementations define their greatest concern to be staff buy-in; so why pass-up the primary opportunity to engage clinical staff. I also have seen that those organizations, which began with an Off the Shelf approach, were invariably dissatisfied down the road. They turned to customization and then had to face the more difficult task of retrofitting their new information flows to accommodate what they already had in place. At UBHC the initial design remains sound eight years after the implementation.

So, is customization worth the effort? Clearly, I think it is.

As I wrote last time, when you are designing the content of an EMR you have to consider the dimensions of clinical culture, information flow, specific data capture and the use of controls. Good design also means finding solutions to meet the often competing needs of clinicians, management and, yes, the software.  It’s a complex process. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but over the past eight years as EMR implementation manager and then consultant for Netsmart Technologies, I have struggled extensively with the issues. 

First and most importantly, as the project manager for the implementation at UBHC, I did not struggle alone. We cast a wide net to recruit a workgroup of 30 members. The members were supervisors and line clinicians from all disciplines and levels of care as well as the leaders of all stakeholder departments. Here is a list of the participants if you want more details. Our charge was to design the structure and content of our electronic health record. We met for half a day a week for three months. The learning curve was steep. (more on workgroup education next time) The process was intense. The turf issues and, shall I call it, specialty narcissism were very much present. Together they created the major threat of “Content Creep.” This is a situation in which Staff want the details of their specific domains included and in their customary formats. The back-and-forth process eventually made it clear that to accommodate this range of domains would result in content that was too lengthy and complex. The phrase: “That item means 100,000 clicks per year…Is it worth it?” became a regular refrain.

By the time we were done, the participants had had the opportunity to understand the needs and concerns of wide range of functional areas and all LOC.  They were then able to make recommendations based on detailed knowledge of the information needs in balance with the realities of staff time and the software. The focused group process was powerful in setting the stage for the necessary compromises. Patience and determination were essential to discovering the solutions.

 So get your clinical leaders and line clinician “best minds” together and jump in. You don’t have to wait until vendor selection is complete. You can begin the content analysis and struggle now. They are generic.

When planning an EMR implementation, don’t be afraid to set brisk timelines and be sure that deadlines are known to be firm.

Peter F. Drucker, the greatest (in my opinion) of business management gurus, wrote that to do their best work people must have an optimum amount of challenge. There should be enough challenge so they must push themselves and can then feel pleased with their accomplishment, but not so much as to overwhelm and demoralize them.

In my experience of a very challenging EHR implementation timeline without any wiggle room, the pressure of the deadlines focused the efforts of all involved.  In the large, inclusive workgroups there was no time for old rivalries and territoriality. Compromises had to be made, so decisions could be reached and the process could keep moving. Tight deadlines permitted the building of momentum and of enthusiasm for the tasks.  In the context of group process under the watchful eye of top management, no one wanted to be identified as an obstructionist. At the same time the process itself must be open and creative as well as disciplined. There are always legitimate competing interests and needs. The issues must be wrestled with until good enough solutions are found.  Keep in mind that an EMR is not a final masterpiece. If anything it is a living entity in that it will be made to grow and change building on the experience of the uses. 

By the way, we met our deadline to the day, and I still feel proud of it years later.