Comments from SRS Clients

  Petition Comments

"SRS has the flexibility to allow our doctors to enter data in the Flow Sheet, which contains extractable data elements. Our lab data can also be graphed and reported. We chose a hybrid product so that our physicians could increase productivity and improve patient care. As highly productive internists with declining reimbursements from insurance companies, we need to be compensated for our investment in EMR. The SRS hybrid EMR provides us with meaningful and useful information, even though it is not CCHIT-certified Please don't let the insurance companies and EMR vendors determine which providers get rewarded for investing in the future of their healthcare delivery system!" - Park Medical Associates, Maryland

"We were committed to purchase a ‘certified' EMR product from a different vendor but fortunately figured, before it was too late, that SRS would be more user-friendly and affordable. Some of the physicians in this practice were reluctant to go electronic, but after seeing their partners embrace it, they tried it and love it. It makes the whole office much more efficient. The doctors can access the chart from any location. Charts don't get lost. Papers get electronically filed automatically. Everyone can find what is needed easily. With every three physicians who go live with the system, we have been able to reduce a filing FTE. There are more efficiencies to be had. Now we have the tools we need to do ePrescribing. This is the only system of which I am aware that the physicians in this practice would find easily usable and not boycott altogether. Please reconsider your criteria for what is a certifiable EHR." - Greater Chesapeake Hand Specialists, Maryland

"Technology can sometimes get in the way of good patient care. A physician overloaded with non-germane information, distracted by becoming a data entry clerk, and having to rely on information provided by a source whose credibility is an unknown, will be severely challenged to provide patient-centered care. A medical home made of straw is not what we need to improve the affordability of quality medical care. Recently a record auditor from COPIC visited our office. COPIC is the largest medical liability carrier in our state. She noted that our electronic patient chart was easy to use (clinical staff could easily find pertinent data) and contained all the information necessary to support the clinical decisions made by the physician. She went on to say that she has seen a lot of erroneous information in EMRs that use templates to generate notes. Non-pertinent exam information makes it difficult for consulting physicians to find important data and makes them less efficient." - Rocky Mountain Orthopaedic Associates, Colorado

"I tried the point-and-click system for 2 years and found that it was too time consuming, could not get a full picture of the exam, and most importantly, took away the face-to-face time with the patient. I found myself looking into the computer screen and not talking with the patient. I took a $75,000 loss and purchased a hybrid system. Both the patients and I are happier and more productive!" - Kenneth C. Low, M.D., California

"The goal of an EMR is to have medical information about a patient readily available in multiple locations to facilitate the provision of care and to avoid duplicative services and tests. The idea that only ‘data in coded electronic format' achieves this goal is wrong. This kind of EMR is very expensive to purchase, is less efficient for the provider to use, is more costly for the practice to enter all this data. What percentage of physician practices can afford such a system? What percentage of practices achieve the goal of an EMR with more efficient products? I strongly believe that the definition of ‘meaningful use' should be broadly defined. There is no reason for it to be so restrictive. It should be expanded to those systems that meet the goal while being cost efficient to purchase and operate. How many members of the HITPC work groups that are deciding on the definition of ‘meaningful use' have a vested interest in the cumbersome products that require coded medical information? I believe that keeping down the cost of medical care can be achieved by being creative and inclusive of many solutions. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts." - Cardiology Associates of New Haven, Connecticut

"I tried menu-driven option and voice-activated option in our practice at our own expense and found them either technically deficient or medically unacceptable, requiring me to ‘fit the mold' rather than accurately describe patient complaints and findings. The hybrid of digital data for Rx, diagnosis, billing codes, etc. coupled with scanned notes specific to my patient is the best solution, and we are in our second year of completely paperless documentation. I would be very resistant to switching again to an inferior ‘government-sponsored' system, taking a step backward to menu-driven ‘search and destroy' data entry in which the final product becomes cookbook ‘junk in and junk out' results." - South Coast Retina Center, California

"In the past year, our practice has invested a substantial amount to upgrade our medical records to an electronic format. We are more efficient and discovering more and more ways to provide better care to our patients. Our system is not CCHIT-certified. We evaluated several systems that were certified and found them to be very cumbersome. The physicians using them were not happy with the results they were getting. We invite you to come and see how efficient our practice has become with this system. We encourage you to include in the new standards systems like ours that reward efficiency and focus on the needs of the patient." - The Orthopedic Specialty Clinic, Utah

Back to Top