EMR: good, but not great (for virtual care)

December 10, 2020

EMR: good, but not great (for virtual care)

2020 has brought considerable changes and challenges to the healthcare ecosystem—from financials and reimbursement, to technology, and most importantly, clinically. Virtual care has proven to be a solution to many of these challenges faced by providing a safe, effective, and efficient method of care delivery for health systems when they need it most. 

However, throughout the market there is often a point of contention between virtual care solutions and the heavy emphasis placed on EMRs. Health systems are spending record amounts on their EMR, trying to get these technologies to do something they weren’t built to do: provide care.

Why not just use your EMR to provide virtual care?

To that, my answer is frankly simple: current EMR-built virtual care solutions are second class for both patients and providers. These systems weren’t designed and built to provide care. EMRs serve a vital purpose, but virtual care isn’t their main priority—and it shows in their inferior capabilities and subpar user experiences.

Further, EMR vendors are late to the party! Most EMR companies just started taking virtual care seriously, resulting in health systems today having to do the heavy lifting in a number of areas (such as creating and managing clinical content). The technology just doesn’t cut it for where the rest of the industry is at, and it’s too late to try and play catch up.

Now, we enter Fabric into the mix.

Why Fabric?

Let’s take a look at some key points where Fabric offers a better virtual care experience than native EMR technologies:

  • Clinical content and virtual triage – protocols are created and reviewed regularly by Fabric’s team of clinical experts as well as our esteemed CQAC; this clinical technology is designed to triage and route patients to in-person care when appropriate.
  • Multimodal flexibility – patients and providers can seamlessly switch between modalities within a visit, ensuring the most appropriate and highest quality care for each patient.
  • Patient access – patients don’t need an EMR-specific account to access care; allowing health systems to meet patients where they are at and achieve patient acquisition through brand loyalty.
  • Provider efficiency – within asynchronous-only visits, providers on the Fabric platform average 89 seconds of clinical work time—89 seconds! (I think it is safe to say this is unparalleled to anything an EMR can offer…)
  • Support – large-vendor support often resembles a blackhole—pushing tickets and delaying response times. Fabric’s virtual care support specialists are just that: specialists, and they are dedicated to alleviating patient, provider, and administrative issues at light speed.

We know that as a health system, you’re under a lot of pressure to make the most of your EMR. We fully understand that EMR systems have a significant role in the healthcare ecosystem, and we’re not here to take away from that or replace it. We’re simply here to complement it, to enhance healthcare experiences—and we’d love to show you how.


Asynchronous Care

Asynchronous Telemedicine Guide + COVID-19: The Largest Case Study on Async

When we built this guide, we set out to create a single comprehensive resource for everything healthcare professionals will ever need to know about asynchronous telemedicine. It’s 29 pages of pure data, research, and the largest case study ever conducted on async. 

Case Study

Gain capacity to care

Maximize clinical capacity, reduce administrative burden, expand access, and increase patient satisfaction.