As a private practice, Indianapolis-based OrthoIndy has an advantage with its IT investments, CIO Caroline Jarrell said.
Ms. Jarrell, who joined OrthoIndy in January, has more than 15 years of experience and has worked at health systems and clinics, giving her perspective on different healthcare environments. She spoke with Becker’s about her goals in the role and why OrthoIndy’s physician-owned structure lends to strong IT decision-making.
Note: Responses were lightly edited.
Question: How do you plan to differentiate OrthoIndy’s IT strategy in the orthopedic landscape?
Caroline Jarrell: I plan to set OrthoIndy’s IT strategy apart by tying technology directly to clinical outcomes, operational efficiency and the overall patient experience. IT will operate as a collaborative partner, closely aligned with clinical operations and shared outcomes. This means partnering with our subspecialty groups to understand their workflows and drive meaningful, workflow-aligned EMR improvements, supporting OrthoIndy’s mission, vision and strategic plan.
My focus is on supporting clinicians with specialty-specific tools to deliver excellent care, leveraging data to improve outcomes and creating a seamless digital experience for patients throughout their entire care journey. At the same time, I believe differentiation requires a strong and secure IT foundation — prioritizing cybersecurity, disaster recovery planning and clear uptime expectations. The goal is to ensure that our systems are scalable, reliable and compliant so they can support future growth and partnerships without compromising security or performance.
Q: How does OrthoIndy’s physician-owned model affect the way technology decisions are made compared to a hospital system?
CJ: OrthoIndy’s physician-owned structure gives us a unique advantage: our IT decisions can be clinically driven, agile and shaped directly by the physicians who deliver care every day. This ensures our technology investments truly support patient care and the specific needs of each specialty, while still operating within clear governance and budget guidelines. It’s a model that encourages closer clinical collaboration, faster decision‑making and more focused optimization for each subspecialty.
Q: Are there any IT investments that make more sense in the private practice setting compared to a hospital? And vice versa?
CJ: Private practices often see a faster return on IT investments because the focus is squarely on improving physician workflow, patient access and day‑to‑day efficiency. Owners prioritize cost-conscious stewardship, favoring flexible, low‑infrastructure EMRs and specialty‑specific tools that cut down on waste, support better outcomes and strengthen patient communication and satisfaction. With fewer layers of approval and a single specialty to support, private practices can more quickly roll out targeted innovations, such as patient‑first digital tools, and see the impact almost immediately.
Hospital systems operate differently. They’re built to invest in large-scale platforms and infrastructure that require significant capital, coordination and long-term planning. Solutions such as enterprise EMRs, interoperability frameworks and systemwide analytics create value through standardization and scale, but they take longer to fully realize.
Q: Cybersecurity is more important than ever for orthopedic practices and in healthcare overall. What’s a nonnegotiable factor for preventing data breaches?
CJ: A solid identity and access management program is nonnegotiable. It ensures authorized individuals have the correct level of access at the appropriate time, supported by multifactor authentication, least‑privilege access and continuous monitoring. However, technology alone isn’t enough, the human element matters just as much. Most breaches still stem from human behavior, such as phishing attacks, weak passwords or poor security hygiene, making ongoing education and awareness essential.
A strong cybersecurity strategy brings these pieces together by combining technical safeguards, employee education, clear expectations around security roles, well‑defined breach response processes and a reliable disaster recovery plan. Collectively, these elements protect our systems and safeguard patient data.
Q: Where do you see AI making a real difference for spine and orthopedic surgeons in the next 12 to 24 months? Where is it being oversold?
CJ: Over the next 12 to 24 months, AI will make a meaningful difference by easing administrative burden and supporting clinical workflows, enabling surgeons to focus more on what matters most — clinical judgment and patient experience. The most practical, near‑term applications are tools like ambient clinical documentation to reduce documentation burden, imaging support and surgical planning tools and operational improvements such as OR scheduling, prior authorizations, coding and denial management.
Where AI tends to be overstated is in claims of full clinical autonomy. Ideas like fully autonomous robotic surgery, AI acting as a stand‑alone diagnostic authority or highly precise, individualized outcome predictions are still far from reliable and lack the necessary clinical context.
In the near term, impact will be driven by technologies that augment and automate clinical and operational work, rather than replace human judgment.
