3 ms·

This isn't a problem with EMR. This is a problem with poor UX in the software that the doctors are using. Here's the thing about paper records: they're costly a

This isn't a problem with EMR. This is a problem with poor UX in the software that the doctors are using. Here's the thing about paper records: they're costly as well. Paper records need to be photocopied, faxed, paged through, sorted, filed, unfiled, etc. God forbid the doctor needs to physically move a wall of patient records, or a disaster in the office. EMR are theoretically just O(1) to access, update, save, and send. Not true with paper records. I obviously don't know the true statistics, but I'd hasten a guess that although EMR costs doctors a few extra minutes per patient but cuts the overhead of maintaining and handling those records by an order of magnitude. If the biggest complaint is information overload (as the article seems to suggest), the whole system could be completely "fixed" with a simple OS X system preferences-style quick search box.

Scoundreller 12y ago
Don't forget about the inherent difficulty in doing retrospective analyses on paper records. Want to see how drug X affected lab levels of Y on your organization's patients for the past Z years? Good luck with paper records.
- clueless123 12y ago
  I have first hand experience doing this, true, for some cases it is invaluable, but in most cases extracting valuable data from something that was designed primarily for billing purposes is just as hard.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Reminds me of my employers Oracle Financials rollout, which makes submitting a travel voucher a 30 minute chore that takes 3x longer to process. Sure, somebody could analyze our 150,000 annual vouchers and figure out some sort of insight. But that's unlikely, as the people who have access to the data care only about payment KPIs, and accessing any data in the system is a nightmare for anyone else. The scenario you describe is problematic as well. The liability associated with drawing conclusions about the efficacy of a drug based on unscientifically collected data would probably make it difficult to use it to drive decisions.
clueless123 12y ago
When the driver behind the EMR implementation is the billing department, the UX just reflects this needs. Doctors (good doctors at least)want tools that helps them do a better job, but no one wants to pay for it.. (Including doctors themselves) If we built EMR's for epidemiological reasons, the reality would be totally different.
Spooky23 12y ago
My primary care physician had 2 receptionists and a biller. Supposedly, EMR would replace the biller. The reality is, they replaced the part-time IT died with a FTE, kept the biller and picked up a big "software maintenance" bill. Other than electronic transmission of prescriptions, the whole process has taken a step backwards from paper.

Scoundreller 12y ago

Don't forget about the inherent difficulty in doing retrospective analyses on paper records. Want to see how drug X affected lab levels of Y on your organization's patients for the past Z years? Good luck with paper records.

clueless123 12y ago
I have first hand experience doing this, true, for some cases it is invaluable, but in most cases extracting valuable data from something that was designed primarily for billing purposes is just as hard.
Spooky23 12y ago
Reminds me of my employers Oracle Financials rollout, which makes submitting a travel voucher a 30 minute chore that takes 3x longer to process. Sure, somebody could analyze our 150,000 annual vouchers and figure out some sort of insight. But that's unlikely, as the people who have access to the data care only about payment KPIs, and accessing any data in the system is a nightmare for anyone else. The scenario you describe is problematic as well. The liability associated with drawing conclusions about the efficacy of a drug based on unscientifically collected data would probably make it difficult to use it to drive decisions.

clueless123 12y ago

When the driver behind the EMR implementation is the billing department, the UX just reflects this needs. Doctors (good doctors at least)want tools that helps them do a better job, but no one wants to pay for it.. (Including doctors themselves) If we built EMR's for epidemiological reasons, the reality would be totally different.

Spooky23 12y ago

My primary care physician had 2 receptionists and a biller. Supposedly, EMR would replace the biller. The reality is, they replaced the part-time IT died with a FTE, kept the biller and picked up a big "software maintenance" bill. Other than electronic transmission of prescriptions, the whole process has taken a step backwards from paper.