Documentation Requirements are the Enemy of EMR

After 5 successful years with electronic medical records (EMR) I am convinced that the promise of EMR to improve physician practices and to improve the health care system is real.  If that is true, why is adoption of EMR currently limited to only 5 – 10% of medical practices?  Why is there so much resistance?  As folks who work in heath care IT so often ask, why don’t doctors “get it?”  I don’t mind the question but I do object to some of the sinister explanations that are offered.  Physician resistance to EMR is legitimate.  This post will explore one of the reasons for doctor resistance to EMR.
A few years ago one of our best referring physicians came to see me as a patient.  After we took care of his medical issues, I asked him how he liked our new EMR and the notes we were sending him through it.  His answer floored me: “I hate it.”  That is NOT what you want to hear from one of your best referring physicians.  After a moment of drop-dead silence he added, “nothing personal.  I hate all the EMRs out there, including the one our practice just bought.”
He went on:  “Notes that come from an EMR have so much extra stuffing in them that it takes me forever to figure out what you guys really had to say about the patient I referred to you.  I have to wade through lines and lines of empty verbage to finally find a meaningful sentence or two that tells me what I need to know.  Our own EMR notes are no better.  But there’s nothing we can do about it, we just have to accept it.”
Except for that last part, he is absolutely right.  Why did things get so bad?  
Doctors used to document their work with concise handwritten notes.  (See my last blog).   Then came CPT codes, which brought elaborate documentation requirements that medical records must fulfill in order to receive payment from the insurance provider.  These requirements measure the documentation, not the care itself.   Fear of documentation errors often force providers to code and bill at a lower level than their work truly deserves.  Physician revenues are thus limited not by the amount of real work performed, but by the sheer number of words one must write to properly document that work.  As long as chart notes had to be handwritten or manually dictated and transcribed, CPT effectively limited physician billing.  Providers became as much servants to documentation as they were caregivers.
This situation inspired the first marketing efforts by EMR vendors to physicians.  Recognizing the need, vendors promised improved, automated documentation and monitoring of charts for CPT compliance.  Doctors could finally bill safely at the appropriate CPT level.  With just a few mouse clicks the chart note can fulfill all the requirements to be CPT-compliant.  Now the physician can concentrate on the patient again.  In my experience this has worked well. 
But sometimes it’s the side effects that kill.
EMR shows us what fully CPT-compliant documentation looks like. And it’s awful. The folly of carrying CPT documentation requirements into the information age has been exposed. The relevant data are buried in a sea of white noise – patient demographics, irrelevant historical data, normal physical findings, and diagnosis / billing codes.  Each mouse click generates a bland, repetitive phrase in order to hit a CPT-mandated “bullet point.”  The result is a multipage, single-spaced, small font monster of a chart note with very little substance relative to its size.   This obsession with documentation is distracting both EMR vendors and users from pursuing the real benefits of EMR – automation of workflow, rapid data exchange, reduced costs and improved efficiency.
Want a real incentive for docs to get EMR?  Forget HITECH.  Few doctors I know believe those incentive payments will ever happen.  All but the largest practices and major institutions will be defeated by “meaningful use” criteria.  Instead offer EMR users freedom from CPT documentation requirements.  Replace CPT with a system that is appropriate for the information age.  Leverage the power of EMR and create a system that rewards quality of care rather than volume of documentation. 
Easier said than done.  But recognizing the problem is the first step.
Thanks for reading.

About the author

Dr. Michael Koriwchak

Dr. Michael Koriwchak

Dr. Michael J. Koriwchak received his medical degree from Duke University School of Medicine in 1988. He completed both his Internship in General Surgery and Residency in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Dr. Koriwchak continued at Vanderbilt for a fellowship in Laryngology and Care of the Professional Voice. He is board certified by the American Board of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
After training Dr. Koriwchak moved to Atlanta in 1995 to become one of the original physicians in Ear, Nose and Throat of Georgia. He has built a thriving practice in Laryngology, Care of the Professional Voice, Thyroid/Parathyroid Surgery, Endoscopic Sinus Surgery and General Otolaryngology. A singer himself, many of his patients are people who depend on their voice for their careers, including some well-known entertainers. Dr. Koriwchak has also performed thousands of thyroid, parathyroid and head and neck cancer operations.
Dr. Koriwchak has been working with information technology since 1977. While an undergraduate at Bucknell University he taught a computer-programming course. In medical school he wrote his own software for his laboratory research. In the 1990’s he adapted generic forms software to create one the first electronic prescription applications. Soon afterward he wrote his own chart note templates using visual BASIC script. In 2003 he became the physician champion for ENT of Georgia’s EMR implementation project. This included not only design and implementation strategy but also writing code. In 2008 the EMR implementation earned the e-Technology award from the Medical Association of Georgia.
With 7 years EMR experience, 18 years in private medical practice and over 35 years of IT experience, Dr. Koriwchak seeks opportunities to merge the information technology and medical communities, bringing information technology to health care.


  • Hello MK:
    The "practice of medicine" and "the needs of the government" will never mesh well in the computer. It is an "art form" diminished to "check boxes".
    We must resign ourselves to the fact that the government is firmly in control- find a way to satisfy the government, and still remain a viable business entity to serve our pateints.

  • I agree that being mandated into using an EMR system is quite disenchanting. The challenges of getting it just right in order to optimize reimbursement is even more daunting. But Mike, I must say that our practice is running so much more efficiently now with all of our information within the system from any office, and even accessible by our mobile devices. EMR has huge advantages, with the prescribing software, the ease of providing consents, handouts, and so much more to the patient while in the exam room.
    The new "art form" is being able to look your patient in the eye, examine them with your hands, and still work that EMR in between!! It's a wonderful learning curve..I love being a guinea pig in your experiment, Mike!

  • Using EMR outpt county hospital clinic for year running a neurology clinic-avoid all the ‘white noise’ but this system requires I type all my notes. Discussion of difficult cases tends to be more limited than when I dictated-is that the good news or the bad news? Bob

Click here to post a comment