The word "tractor" can be interpreted in a couple of ways, depending on where you are from. In a suburban neighborhood a "tractor" may be a John Deere, have four wheels, and have a seat and steering wheel. In a rural setting a "tractor" could still be a John Deere, have four wheels (or more) and a seat and steering wheel, but would look different and do very different work! The same goes for Health Information Technology (HIT) in urban and rural, the two can be different!
![]() |
Rural Tractor |
![]() |
Urban Tractor |
There has been a trend of larger integrated delivery networks offering their electronic health records (EHRs) to rural hospitals as a way for those rural hospitals to save some money and simplify the exchange of information for referrals. This may not be as simple and straightforward as it sounds, and the results may not make sense for the rural hospital.
For example, because staff at a critical access hospital (CAH) often have to wear many hats, there can be unique workflow requirements that an urban EHR may not be able to accommodate. I worked with one CAH that had a difficult time finding Pharmacy Technicians. They paid their Ward Clerks to get trained and certified as Pharmacy Technicians. This was a brilliant idea that made the Ward Clerks more valuable, solved a critical problem for the CAH and created a vexing problem for the EHR vendor! The urban EHR that the CAH was using did not have the ability to have staff in multiple roles (Ward Clerk and Pharmacy Technician are different roles in a role-based security model that most EHRs use), and why should it? This would likely never happen in an urban hospital, yet this is common at rural hospitals. They ended up having to use two logins, two passwords and some loss of efficiency because the EHR could not accommodate the two roles.
The benefits of exchange with an urban hospital or delivery network can be important, but often overstated. A higher proportion of rural patients are referred to home care, family practice providers, long-term care and other local providers than large urban centers. Implementing the same EHR at the urban and rural setting, with administration occurring centrally, will likely create barriers for the local providers to exchange with the local CAH. As an industry we have made health information exchange too difficult, particularly for those providers that are not eligible for meaningful use. It really is not that hard to exchange clinical information today using Direct, C-CDA and other technologies, yet hospitals and clinics seem to be struggling to make this happen. By moving the management and strategy for the EHR further from the CAH it makes it all the more unlikely that non-physician providers in particular will be approached to exchange information for patient care. We will continue to use FAX and envelopes laid on the chest of transferred patients. By using an EHR designed for rural, and managed by local staff, it is far more likely that real health information exchange will occur in rural settings.
Rural is not small urban! They do have different needs, processes and workforce challenges. The EHRs built for rural often take these issues into account. By "shoehorning" EHRs designed for urban hospitals into rural we can introduce less efficiency and create unsafe practices. Consider some of the challenges you face at your rural hospital and how a one-size-fits-all approach may not be best.
So, I am going to go plow my 10 acre field with the lawn mower and cut the grass with my Ford 2000 loader. Wait...