Electronic health record (EHR) requests are returned to insurers up to two weeks quicker on average than paper GP medical reports, according to data from the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
The ABI’s survey of 300 medical practices found when comparing EHR and paper report turnaround times that as many as three-quarters of paper reports took more than 21 days to be returned.
Doctors and practice managers who made use of EHRs cited speed and utility as the primary benefits, while a lack of awareness about EHR software was a key contributing reason for those who had not made use of it.
According to the research, just 2% to 7% of paper reports were returned within a week of receipt throughout the year, compared to 15% to 29% of EHRs.
Around 8% of paper reports also resulted in a follow up request being required, which can lead to longer delays and more work, compared to just 4.5% of EHRs.
The data also showed between 63% and 74% of paper reports were returned more than 21 days after receipt of requests, while data collected on turnaround times indicated a correlation between report delays and increased strain on GPs, with longer delays around the busier winter months leading to 4% to 6% of paper reports taking over three months
The primary reason practices had not started using EHR software, was they were not aware of it or had not considered using it, as highlighted by nearly a third of non-user responses.
A further one in ten said they had not started using EHR software due to lack of information about it, how it works, or what the benefits were.
When asked what needed to change for their practices to start using it, almost a third said they needed more information and nearly one in ten required evidence of value for money.
But the research also showed GP practices with EHR software still produced a proportion of paper reports, usually under 25%, in part because they received requests for paper reports from insurers as opposed to EHR requests.
Users also found the software more challenging when completing complex requests and therefore opted for paper reporting.
Challenging preconceptions
There appear to be incorrect preconceptions among many surgeries not using EHR software, with many feeling it would increase workload and that it would not be user-friendly or offer value for money.
When they were asked about the benefits of not using EHR software, nearly one in ten said they thought paper reports were less time consuming.
A quarter also claimed paper reports allowed for greater human involvement with some highlighting a perceived link between human involvement and greater speed.
Conversely, respondents who used EHRs reported speed and utility as benefits of the software, and cost was very rarely raised as a negative.
The vast majority (83%) of EHR software users highlighted speed as a benefit, 79% said it cut the administrative burden, and 49% highlighted the benefits of its redaction functionality.
While more than one in ten non-users said that pricing would need to change for them to start using EHR software, only one in fifty respondents who currently used the software said it could be improved financially.
