EHR Adoption Rates, MU Stage 2 Delayed, and IE vs Chrome for EMR

As is now tradition. Some EMR and EHR tweets that are of interest this weekend.

James Lineberger
2011 EHR Adoption Rates #EHR #EMR #Health IT

They put EHR adoption at about 50%. Remember these numbers are from the CDC. I think they’re being generous. I’d still put adoption at about 25-30%

HHS extends MU Stage 2 deadline to spur faster EMR adoption | Healthcare IT News:

I know I wrote about this before. Now it’s official. So, I guess there is some small advantage to showing meaningful use in 2011 instead of waiting until 2012. Although, not much.

Now a great series of tweets that discuss the bain of many IT people’s existence: IE

C. Onyeije, M.D. MFM
I still can’t believe why ANYONE would use Internet Explorer (unless they were forced to by IT geeks at gunpoint…)

Faisal Qureshi
@chukwumaonyeije …or EMR vendors that use the IE engine within their own app

C. Onyeije, M.D. MFM
@faisal_q Funny that you should mention… I’m working with a hospital based EMR that goes NUTS in Chrome. #EMRFail …

The internet would be a lot better if IE weren’t around. Yes, I’m a huge Chrome fan myself.

About the author

John Lynn

John Lynn

John Lynn is the Founder of the, a network of leading Healthcare IT resources. The flagship blog, Healthcare IT Today, contains over 13,000 articles with over half of the articles written by John. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 20 million times.

John manages Healthcare IT Central, the leading career Health IT job board. He also organizes the first of its kind conference and community focused on healthcare marketing, Healthcare and IT Marketing Conference, and a healthcare IT conference,, focused on practical healthcare IT innovation. John is an advisor to multiple healthcare IT companies. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can be found on Twitter: @techguy.


  • We’ve developed our EMR with Chrome specifically in mind. We have had a snag or two though, mainly with printing. Sometimes Chrome doesn’t like to paginate correctly when using HTML… but then again, HTML was not conceived with printers in mind.

    To solve this printing problem, we actually had to switch to Mozilla Firefox for a short period.

    The other thing about Chrome is that apps that look good/work well in Chrome are much more likely to work well in Safari (iPad, etc.)

  • Many of our clients are forced to use IE to access payer eligibility sites, lab reports from the hospitals, and, best of all, a few of the state immunization registries. We can fake some of them out (change the browser user ID, run under wine), but not all.

  • EHR adoption rates – as I mostly deal with practices that have gone electronic, I’m not exposed to much otherwise, BUT from talking to docs in the area I’d be surprised if it is even close to 50%

    Did anyone not see the Stage 2 delay coming?

    Still smart to get Stage 1 attestation done.
    I’d be looking to grab that check ASAP as I’m afraid the whole incentive may go away.

    @Chip – exactly what I was going to point out. Many EHR are highly integrated with IE. Hence, you have to use it. The same goes for MS SQL vs. MySQL.

    @Nick – why are EHRs developed to run in a web browser? It seems it would be just as much work to have a software interface for at least the 2 primary platforms, though one for linux would be nice to help reduce costs. Its not like anyone will run it on a mobile device in a browser, so an app will be written for that anyway.

    What Chrome tablet would you be using??

  • Chrome and Safari are closely related, as they are both based upon the WebKit framework. They are not interchangeable, but they are closely related.

    So iPads use Safari, based on webkit. The iPad is an amazing piece of technology and the others just aren’t up to par (yet). We have a few iPads in use, but have not optimized a mobile version.

    As far as web interfaces, the main reason we have gone that route is flexibility. There are tons of frameworks written to provide desktop app-quality interfaces, and many more for mobile. We are using Dojo/Dijit but there are many friendly competitors such as jQuery.

    We also don’t have to install new software on clients’ machines when we have an update, and there is no patient information stored on the client. We are using Apache and PostgreSQL. We are currently paying $0.00 in licensing fees for our entire production.

  • Makes sense, though I run into quite the opposite with web based EHRs – you have to turn off auto update of the browser – as many times the EHR isn’t compatible with that new version…so there will always be a battle of sorts.

    I’m all for zero licensing, which is why I wish vendors would use a non-MS-SQL for software.

    I agree, don’t want to have PHI residue on a system, but there are other ways – I like the AIR idea, though not necessarily AIR.

    BUT no matter what, there is some residue with the cache/temp files…no?

  • Claydata’s PuttyHealth has been tested stable on all major browsers – IE, Firefox, Chrome – and all major (and some minor – but traction-gaining) OS – Mac, Windows, Linux, iPad, iPhone… all of which we use in our hodgepodge of clinical systems.

Click here to post a comment