Active Forum Topics | Getting Started | Interviews | EMR Forum | Medical | Billings | Press & News | Voice Recognition | The Water Cooler
Yesterday, one of our customers received a fax from AcerMed saying they have ceased operations and are out of business. The fax contained e-mail addresses of individuals who will support Asarum on a 'cash and freelance' basis.
For a few weeks now, our company has been preparing operational strategies for this scenario. Please feel free to contact me on this issue.
Jeff Johnson PC Science, Inc Clearwater, FL
Yesterday, one of our customers received a fax from AcerMed saying they have ceased operations and are out of business.
As mentioned ad nauseaum:
So much for the stability of certified EMR companies touted by ACP.
AcerMed after the sale, started showing signs of trouble. They did provide something that worked. However, many features never did work and in fact, our company ultimately provided workarounds to bridge those failures.
Whoever accredited the Asarum software must have got something different then we did. Another possibility is that accrediting companies are not evaluating it from a fully installed product and from an end-user perspective.
Software product failures are hardly unique to medical software.
Thats only partly true. Medical software projects have traditionally had a substantially higher failure rate than other software projects. There IS something different about medical software.
They may be more prevalent in EMR because of the market volume and lack of standards.
The idea of "standards" for medical software are laughable. TCP/IP works as a standard because as computer scientists we can enforce simplicity. TCP/IP does not model anything except itself. Medical Software models medicine. If we could "standardize" medicine, then we might have a shot at standardizing medical software. But we cannot. Imagine asking a family doctor to practice medicine to the same "standard" as a specialist? Even doctors within the same specialty typically practice differently. The whole concept of "a second opinion" is a great indicator that medicine is fundamentally unsuitable for standardization. That is not necessarily a bad thing; the "standard" beverage is a Cocacola which is unhealthy. As a foundation for the standardization of medical software medicine is shifting sand. We need software freedom and openness, not a stronger CCHIT.
-FT
"The idea of "standards" for medical software are laughable".
Well shoot me down. By the way the "standard" use of English is:
The ideas of “standards” for medical software are laughable.
Regardless of Fred's use of English, he succinctly makes a good point, one deserving of a better answer than a grammar correction.
There are those who profess to have the answer to slow EMR adoption by dumbing down EMRs to the bare essentials. "Fast and lightweight" are the descriptive terms frequently used. While these are endearing terms to the physician ready to sign a check for 5K instead of 100K, it really does not answer the problem for most physicians (if our users are any indication of the other 650,000 docs out there). Most physicians want increased efficiency at a cost that doesn't put them in risk of bankruptcy, available to their practice without downtime for training, without inviting in an army of IT consultants, and intuitive enough to be embraced by all. It is as simple as, if a physician orders a CBC, he doesn't want someone inking a form in the background. Fast and lightweight for what-- for ordering a lab so that someone else on the staff can fill in a form?
Fred has a good point. There is huge variability in practices and we experience that daily. Writing software for the masses is a juggling act that requires lots of options that can be toggled on and off. As a surgeon, you want the encounter titled "post op visit" regardless of the ICD9 code, while a family doc wants it titled after the chief complaint of the day or the ICD9. That is the tiniest tip of a giant iceberg of options.
P4P is based on Health Maintenance Guidelines (HMGs). Should we remove HMGs because they are not "lightweight"? The problem is a family physician cares much about HMGs while a super specialist couldn't care less. Dumb it down enough and the super specialist will benefit (why pay for something not needed) while the family doc will suffer. Our choice is to make it an option that can be turned on or off; if off, the real estate and processing power is used by something else.
In the end, the practitioner should have the option of deciding what is important and that requires just that: options.
ftrotter: If we could "standardize" medicine, then we might have a shot at standardizing medical software. But we cannot. Imagine asking a family doctor to practice medicine to the same "standard" as a specialist? Even doctors within the same specialty typically practice differently. The whole concept of "a second opinion" is a great indicator that medicine is fundamentally unsuitable for standardization.
If we could "standardize" medicine, then we might have a shot at standardizing medical software. But we cannot. Imagine asking a family doctor to practice medicine to the same "standard" as a specialist? Even doctors within the same specialty typically practice differently. The whole concept of "a second opinion" is a great indicator that medicine is fundamentally unsuitable for standardization.
Fred,
You do make a good point. Medicine has long made use of the "operating theater", a roundtable discussion/teaching environment where arguments are often inspired.
Can you imagine an EMR which appears to be a forum, where many doctors are commenting on one another's patients?
(Sort of like this forum, in fact!)
Robert Gleeman, Medical Journalist for EMR Update.com Email: robert@emrupdate.com Tel: 1-650-968-6359 Skype and ooVoo user name: robertgleeman EMR progress is a matter of fact. EMR Update supports your right to know.
Personally, with out professing any true greater knowledge of EMR other then the successful implementation of such, I was thinking more about professional and financial standards. Other then AcerMed failing for this customer, who was not our recommended software, we have installations that really are paperless and workflow efficient. Some have had no significant or any EMR support issues for months and for some- years. They use features such as true high-speed, network accessible, document scanners. Some use bar code readers for document processing and prescription dispensing: labeling, inventory & auto re-order. They create medical records attaching pictures, documents and in-house created, digital x-rays. Our physicians carry an electronic copy of the medical jacket on thumb-drives to surgery to pull up x-rays or even get additional insurance authorization. Afterwards, they update charts real-time from the hospital during their stay for post op. Needless to say; the practice management software used is of equal quality and reliability. The practice management software includes patient portals for individuals to fill out information on-line and digital customer signatures and patient pictures. We fax paperless from the software, prescriptions ahead of patients to the pharmacy they choose. Insurance claims are batched and transmitted to carriers after EMR populates them. I really did not know people were having such a problem until I came to your forum looking for AcerMed information. If I learned anything- it is that I was right in not recommending them. Jeff Johnson PC Science Inc Clearwater, FL
Other then AcerMed failing for this customer, who was not our recommended software, we have installations that really are paperless and workflow efficient. Some have had no significant or any EMR support issues for months and for some- years.
They use features such as true high-speed, network accessible, document scanners. Some use bar code readers for document processing and prescription dispensing: labeling, inventory & auto re-order. They create medical records attaching pictures, documents and in-house created, digital x-rays.
Our physicians carry an electronic copy of the medical jacket on thumb-drives to surgery to pull up x-rays or even get additional insurance authorization. Afterwards, they update charts real-time from the hospital during their stay for post op.
Needless to say; the practice management software used is of equal quality and reliability. The practice management software includes patient portals for individuals to fill out information on-line and digital customer signatures and patient pictures. We fax paperless from the software, prescriptions ahead of patients to the pharmacy they choose. Insurance claims are batched and transmitted to carriers after EMR populates them.
I really did not know people were having such a problem until I came to your forum looking for AcerMed information. If I learned anything- it is that I was right in not recommending them.
Jeff Johnson PC Science Inc Clearwater, FL
ftrotter:The idea of "standards" for medical software are laughable. TCP/IP works as a standard because as computer scientists we can enforce simplicity. TCP/IP does not model anything except itself. Medical Software models medicine. If we could "standardize" medicine, then we might have a shot at standardizing medical software. But we cannot. Imagine asking a family doctor to practice medicine to the same "standard" as a specialist? Even doctors within the same specialty typically practice differently. The whole concept of "a second opinion" is a great indicator that medicine is fundamentally unsuitable for standardization. That is not necessarily a bad thing; the "standard" beverage is a Cocacola which is unhealthy. As a foundation for the standardization of medical software medicine is shifting sand. We need software freedom and openness, not a stronger CCHIT. -FT
That is both trite and brilliant at the same time. :) Love it.
The entire digital health records movement over the last 15 years for sure has entirely missed the point of what is needed: communication.
Yes, standardization is important, but communicating electronically is a much more tangible goal.
Currently, a 11 year old can text their friend (both in class) with one hand and the message is received within seconds. I referred a perforated appendix to the hospital this week and their fax machine didn't work.
email:
>>Yes, standardization is important, but communicating electronically is a much more tangible goal.<<
And easy if we take the simple technology that we have now. Leo Derocher, Dodger manager said something like, "Winning isn't evertything, it is the only thing." So it is with communication. Communication isn’t the only thing, it is everything. This is especially true in the health field, where life and death, sickness and health, can be contingent on communication or lack of it. Whether it is the emergency room of a hospital, or a simple patient encounter in the office, communication is paramount.
Chris Wilkerson, D.C. Carson Doctors Group TabletPCs in Medicine Editor-in-Chief www.MedicalTabletPC.com Home: www.Digital-Doc.com
We can give you a demo of Medinformatix and I think you will be shocked at the similarities. We can also migrate your entire database. If you are going to make a change, then we would like to offer our solution as an option for you.
karelis:I was reasonably satisfied with AcerMed until yesterday when I received my fax. It did pretty much anything I wanted it to do. With Acermed software, I see patients, I bill, I get paid. I suppose I can continue as before for the short term. I am wondering what other Acermed doctors are doing now? I know that money is a problem for everyone. I'm a solo IM doc in a small rural town. I need another, combined EMR/PMS software. Any ideas out there?
Take a look at Intelligent Medical Software by Meditab. I think it will fit the bill. You can find it at http://www.meditab.com. You can also send me a message and I will gladly connect you to someone in your area.
T. J. Wilkinson
T. J. WilkinsonPresidentBF Services, Inc.teejer@comcast.net
I was reasonably satisfied with AcerMed until yesterday when I received my fax.
Could you scan and post the fax here? I would like to have some objective proof of this available from somewhere.
As a former employee of acermed and clinical content developer for their Asarum product. I can tell you as fact that when Acermed did the testing for CCHIT, the certifacation judges along with clients that were demo'ed the product where shown a "special sales version" that was "tweaked" to make it look like everything worked as it should.
You would be surprised at how much you can do with Photoshop and MS WORD.