Terminology– it is interesting how perceptions are formed based on a particular set of words even if those words are the only real differentiators of something. Word usage does make a difference.
We enjoy reading Bruce Friedman’s posts on Lab Soft News. If you aren’t already, you should following him on Twitter @labsoftnews.Yesterday’s post Who Will Build the Diagnostic EMR (D-EMR) as a Substitute for Today’s LISs? was of great interest to us because of our focus at Pathagility. In it, Dr. Friedman introduces the term Diagnostic EMR or D-EMR. Following is how he describes his vision of D-EMR:
“I envision that such a system will be cloud-based system and encompass and support all of the leading hospital-based diagnostic services (i.e., pathology, lab medicine, radiology, and cardiology).”
Dr. Friedman goes on to describe what LIS vendors will need to do to compete with the Epic formula. He also talks about the important role connectivity will play.
Couldn’t agree more with Dr. Friedman’s take. Diagnostic services need a service provider(s) that can efficiently support their workflows and provide robust connectivity options. They must do all this while providing a model that is affordable and can be flexible in supporting future needs.
It will be interesting to see if the term “D-EMR” takes off. Will this term take the place of “Lab EMR” or “web-based LIS” or is it in addition to or the next level of these types of systems? What other terms will enter the market? And probably more importantly, what functionality or system attributes will clearly differentiate these system groupings?
Or is it just terminology?