5 ms·

That was rather depressing reading. It seems that paper-based system was a superior system. Changing it back is probably impossible though.

• projektfu 4y ago
  A paper record is superior in many ways but it has to live somewhere. You come to the hospital and they don't really remember you until your file burps up from the records department. You go to a different branch of your provider group and they have to mail the record to the branch before your appointment and mail it back, or fax the relevant information back and forth, allowing inconsistency to seep in. It is also somewhat less likely in a well-managed EMR that you will have notes ending up in the wrong record. Invoicing is also much simpler with an EMR. Good EMRs are able to keep track of charges as the medical record is updated with treatments and procedures. Finally, EMRs enable very useful patient portals. There are some aspects of EMRs that are particularly frustrating. They can be good at hiding useful information while displaying lots of unnecessary information. They seem to be developed by non-providers who are not really able to grok the way things work on the hospital floor. We spend a lot of money on upgrading computers and other devices, and yet they are not easily placed into a slot on the bed so that they can flow with the patient. Their validation rules often do not make sense, as mentioned in the article. On net, I think that the EMRs are enabling better health care, but they have a long way to come.