Anne Hyland, Vice President of EHR Learning, Amplifire

There’s something that doesn’t happen often enough in healthcare technology: the people doing the hard work of building EHR training programs, maintaining content at scale, navigating upgrades, and supporting diverse learner populations getting the opportunity to learn from one another openly.

That’s exactly what our spring EHR Affinity Group was designed to create.The recent spring session was one of the most candid and practical conversations we’ve hosted to date, filled with hard-earned insights, honest lessons, and the kind of peer-to-peer knowledge exchange that rarely happens in a traditional webinar format.

Here’s a closer look at the themes that emerged.

Content Review: Where Good Intentions Meet Operational Complexity

The first topic focused on content review, specifically what it takes to move a new course from development to publication efficiently and effectively.

Several themes surfaced quickly.

Templates accelerate development, but meaningful customization still matters. Many organizations begin with shared or existing content, then adapt it to reflect their workflows, terminology, and learner populations. Teams continue to navigate the balance between leveraging standardized content and tailoring learning experiences for operational relevance.

More SMEs does not always mean better outcomes. Multiple attendees shared similar experiences: courses that should have taken weeks stretched into months as review groups expanded, competing priorities emerged, and feedback cycles multiplied. The consensus takeaway was clear. Successful content review requires intentional governance, defined stakeholders, and clarity around decision-making authority from the beginning.

The review process can shape the conversation as much as the content itself. One insight resonated strongly across the group: when SMEs are hesitant about a new platform or training approach, reviewing content directly inside that platform can unintentionally shift the discussion away from learning outcomes and toward the technology itself. Several organizations found success conducting early-stage reviews in familiar formats like spreadsheets or Word documents to keep reviewers focused on instructional quality and learner impact. As one participant shared, the goal is to empower SMEs to advocate for learners, not debate the platform.

Clear governance accelerates progress. Organizations with defined sign-off authority, often a director or training leader, reported significantly faster review cycles than teams relying on committee-based approvals. Clear ownership reduces unnecessary back-and-forth and keeps projects moving forward.

Quality Review: Why Dedicated Ownership Matters

Another discussion centered around quality review and whether organizations had dedicated resources focused specifically on course quality assurance.

The response from the group was consistent: organizations that prioritize quality review as a defined responsibility see stronger outcomes.

One team shared lessons learned from creating an interdisciplinary review committee made up of trainers, instructional designers, and analysts. While the intent was collaborative, review standards varied widely depending on individual attention to detail and competing responsibilities. In some cases, content advanced through the process without meeting the team’s intended quality standards.

The broader takeaway was that quality review is most effective when it is owned by individuals whose core responsibilities require rigor, consistency, and precision. Several organizations also highlighted peer review models, where developers review one another’s courses against a shared style guide, as an effective way to maintain consistency at scale.

Content Maintenance: Building Sustainable Processes Early

As course libraries grow, maintaining content becomes a challenge of its own, especially for organizations managing large volumes of material across multiple contributors.

The conversation highlighted several practical strategies.

Tiered review schedules create manageable maintenance cycles. Some organizations conduct an early review after a defined number of learners complete a course to identify immediate issues. After that, courses remain active unless a significant workflow change or system upgrade triggers updates. Annual structured reviews with course owners provide an additional layer of consistency.

Not every upgrade requires a full rebuild. Many teams are applying an 80/20 approach to system upgrades. If the foundational content remains accurate, targeted updates are often more effective and sustainable than rebuilding courses from scratch. This approach helps organizations scale maintenance efforts without overwhelming internal teams.

Content architecture has long-term operational impact. Teams that build courses with reusable questions, shared resources, and centralized assets are able to make updates once and apply them across multiple learning experiences. That level of scalability becomes increasingly valuable as programs expand.

Visibility into workflow changes remains a common challenge. Several organizations noted that training teams are not always informed when operational or system changes occur, creating risk that outdated content reaches learners before updates are made. Many teams are still refining governance processes to improve communication between operational and training stakeholders.

Beyond Onboarding: Expanding the Role of Adaptive Learning

The final discussion explored how organizations are extending adaptive learning beyond initial onboarding into ongoing workforce development, upgrade readiness, and operational performance improvement.

The use cases shared were both practical and innovative.

• Superuser development. One organization is building standardized learning pathways for new superusers to ensure consistent knowledge transfer and role readiness as teams evolve over time. 
• Downtime preparedness. A radiology team identified that experienced employees had lost familiarity with downtime procedures due to infrequent use. A short annual module now reinforces that knowledge without requiring classroom-based retraining. 
• Data-informed intervention. One health system is combining Epic signal data with targeted learning interventions to identify providers who may benefit from additional support in specific workflows, such as in-basket management, and proactively deliver focused education. 
• Accelerated onboarding for experienced hires. Several organizations are exploring assessment-first approaches that validate existing EHR knowledge and allow experienced hires to move more quickly through onboarding, reducing unnecessary training time while maintaining competency standards. 

Across every example, one theme remained consistent: organizations are moving away from viewing training as a one-time onboarding event and toward continuous workforce development.

Research has consistently shown that spaced, ongoing learning drives stronger retention and long-term behavior change. Adaptive, self-paced instruction makes that level of continuous engagement achievable at enterprise scale.

Why This Community Matters

There is expertise within this community that cannot be captured fully in a case study or best practices document. It exists in the lived experience of teams navigating difficult content reviews, refining governance structures, scaling maintenance strategies, and finding new ways to connect learning outcomes to operational performance.

Creating space for those conversations, including the honest discussions about what did not work, is what makes an affinity group valuable.

Because when learning matters, shared experience matters too.

We’re looking forward to continuing the conversation at the next session.