Cost
The initial cost of investment on a web-based EMR system (also known as ASP – Application Service Provider or SaaS – Software as a Service) is quite low since it doesn’t require the hardware, servers, and software that other systems need. Users also save on the cost of maintenance and backups since it’s a remotely hosted server, completely managed by the software program provider.
The main cost associated with the use of a web-based EMR system are the monthly access fees, which may turn out be expensive in the long run. This, however, may be offset by the other savings, especially if you have a multi-location facility.
Security
Web-based systems lay a strong emphasis on security and are HIPAA compliant. In fact, the data security offered by these systems may even be better than what some small clinics can offer through their internal systems.
On the flip side, a remotely hosted server does mean confidential patient information being saved with a third party (the service provider). This may or may not be a risk depending on the service provider you choose.
Accessibility
Web-based EMRs can be accessed from anywhere over a secure Internet connection. This flexibility is particularly useful for practices that have multiple locations and for practitioners who travel a lot or work from several locations.
The disadvantage here is the slow server speed (even if you have the fastest Internet connection) that may significantly impact your charting speed and consequently the number of patients you can serve in a given period of time.
Integration with other systems
Many web-based EMR systems offer interface with other software applications used by a practice – such as medical billing applications. This, however, is usually through third-party software that may or may not be available for all applications being used by a practice.
Tags: emr, web-based EMR system
4 Comments
George Fallar - Sep 10, 2009
As the CTO of a web-based EMR company, I can enumerate probably another hundred advantages. But of course I’m biased.
The only disagreement I have with your statements, and it’s a qualified one, is the ‘slow server speed’ argument. We find that, given a business class broadband connection, a properly designed web-based EMR will deliver results nearly imperceptibly slower that a local wireless connection. A terminal wired directly to a gigabit network may be faster, but a ‘G’ wireless connection is perfect for even a very fast clinician.
Scott Mcilwaine - Sep 11, 2009
We offer both ASP/SaaS and client server versions of our EMR solutions to doctors. When I am discussing which model might make sense for a particular practice I always make sure to discuss their existing internet connection and how reliable it is. The internet connection is most certainly a single point of failure for the system and the practice considering each solution should weigh this in their decision.
Dr. John - Sep 13, 2009
I’m curious to hear others comments regarding the suitability of an SaaS vs. Client/Server system, based upon size of medical practice.
I’ve always thought that smaller practices should certainly go with an SaaS model, and that offices with multiple physical locations should do the same.
I’m wondering if there are alternative opinions on this subject.
Thanks!
ClickRich - Sep 14, 2009
Note that just because a supplier takes on responsibility for the server hosting doesn’t mean that the customer doesn’t need to worry about it anymore. If the supplier’s service isn’t well specified or defined then it will be difficult to have any expectation of what success or failure looks like, and therefore have a sensible discussion with users about what they need.