Jun 13, 2016 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Use of customer relationship management (CRM) systems is becoming more widespread as progressive medical labs and pathology groups use them to boost service levels and win greater market share
If there is a single “big trend” in pathology and clinical laboratory informatics today, it is the acquisition and use of software that makes it possible to access a wealth of data in real time. This trend is due directly to the need for medical laboratories to cut costs while sustaining and improving quality in every aspect of lab testing.
One part of this trend for increased use of real-time analytics can be seen in the decision by some innovative clinical lab organizations to invest in a customer relationship management software system (CRM). These systems make it possible for lab managers to use the CRM to monitor a wide range of activities, particularly in tracking relations with client physicians. Some CRMs also can report data on a variety of medical and pathology laboratory performance measures every hour of every day.
A handful of hospital and health system laboratory outreach programs have recognized how their use of a CRM gives them a competitive advantage in the lab testing marketplace. These labs use their CRMs to boost productivity and profitability of their outreach sales and marketing efforts. (more…)
Feb 26, 2016 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Management & Operations
This healthcare big data project’s tools and predictive models involve real-time monitoring of patient data and are expected to be available soon to other to providers
One healthcare big data project has begun to report progress on using predictive analytics to improve patient care in the diagnosis and management of such health conditions as sepsis and heart failure. This pioneering effort is being done at the University of Pennsylvania Health System’s (Penn Medicine’s), Institute for Biomedical Informatics (IBI).
What will be of high interest for pathologists and clinical laboratory executives is how this big data project incorporates lab test results into the effort.
Recently, Penn Medicine announced Penn Signals, a big-data project that, in part, relies on the lab data housed in the academic medical center’s laboratory information system (LIS) as well as its outpatient and inpatient data house in its electronic health record (EHR) system. (more…)
Jan 18, 2016 | Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
Pathologists and clinical lab managers will not be surprised to learn that Epic leads the competitive electronic health record system market, as ranked by SK&A
No one will be surprised that, in one company’s rankings of the top electronic health record (EHR) systems for 2015, the number one position is held by Epic Systems Corporation. More broadly, about half the market share of EHR systems is concentrated among just five EHR vendors.
Overall Ranking of Top 10 EHR Vendors in 2015
The report from SK&A outlines the top 10 EHR vendors by overall market share during 2015 as follows:
EHR Vendor and Market Share %
1) Epic Systems Corporation 11.6%
2) eClinicalWorks 10.2%
3) Allscripts 8.7%
4) Practice Fusion 6.7%
5) NextGen Healthcare 5.5%
6) General Electric Healthcare IT 3.6%
7) Cerner Corporation 3.5%
8) Athenahealth, Inc. 3.3%
9) McKesson Provider Technologies 3.2%
10) Amazing Charts Inc. 2.3% (more…)
Dec 23, 2015 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations
Meaningful Use Stage 3 focuses on interoperability, which is good news for medical laboratories that must spend time and money to develop effective LIS-EHR interfaces
On December 15, 2015, the final rule for Stage 3 meaningful use (MU) went into effect. By now, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers and personnel are well-acquainted with the MU incentive program and the myriad of challenges it presents for almost everyone working in the healthcare sector.
Although the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has caused labs some headaches, the Stage 3 MU requirements could reduce some of that pressure. One of the biggest changes in Stage 3, according to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), is that the ONC is “finalizing changes to remove the menu and core structure of Stage 1 and Stage 2 and reduce the number of objectives to which a provider must attest.” There will be fewer objectives to prove an EHR system is being used in a meaningful way.
That’s good news for providers struggling with EHR attestation. However, the struggle for clinical laboratories isn’t with attestation per se, it’s with interoperability between lab information systems (LIS) and physicians’ EHRs. (more…)
Oct 23, 2015 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Management & Operations
One new federal law forbids health IT vendors and providers from deliberately blocking information-sharing with competing EHR systems
Several years deep into its effort to get physicians and hospitals to use electronic health record (EHR) systems, the federal government has yet to come up with a way to improve interoperability—the ability of EHRs to interface and communicate with other systems.
Stage one and stage two Meaningful Use guidelines have failed to successfully address the barriers preventing interoperability. Of course, clinical laboratories and pathology groups encounter this problem daily. That’s because they must build interfaces between their laboratory information systems (LIS) and the EHRs of their client physicians. The cost of creating workable LIS-to-EHR interfaces continues to be a huge burden on medical laboratories and that is why they support improved interoperability. But labs also contribute to the lack of interoperability when they enact restrictions on how lab test data can be shared with other providers and competing labs who are serving the same physicians and patients. (more…)
