In our ever-evolving technological world, it was only a matter of time before hospitals made the conversion from paper charting and medical records to computerized charting and electronic medical records. This is something that's here to stay, whether or not we like it. Few other industries still rely on paper records.
The President's plan to re-design the nation's healthcare system is controversial. The Obama administration has set aside $46 billion to help doctors and hospitals with the costs to go electronic. This is a reimbursment--they still have to buy the systems with their own money.
There are many pros and cons to replacing the old fashioned paperwork. Like the title of this article states, computers are not foolproof, and therefore we should not rely on them to be 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time.
Electronic medical records are used by health care providers, hospitals, clinics, and other sectors of the healthcare industry. Some advantages of using EMRs are the following:
Electronic health records supposedly reduce errors in medical records. Handwritten records are often difficult to decipher due to misspelling, illegibility, and differing terminologies. Up to 100,000 patients in the U.S. alone die in hospitals every year because of medical errors. That's the equivalent of one major airline crash a day, every single day of the year. It is believed that with the increased use of electronic medical records, there will eventually be a standardization of patient health records.
Healthcare providers can get immediate access to an entire chart, so they can quickly read reports, chart notes, and orders easily, without having to take the time to decipher someone's handwriting, and never having to wait for someone to finish using a chart when they need it.
Electronic medical records keep information safe, because papers can easily be lost due to irresponsibility, fire, flood, or other catastrophes. Digital records can be stored forever.
Digitalized records also keep health information that patients tend to forget, such as vaccinations, previous illnesses and medications. They also consolidate all of the data in one place, unlike paper charts/records, where everything is scattered. Computerized records save both time and money, because there won't be as many phone calls, emails, and faxes to get access to records from other places. The computerized records will also prevent medical tests that have already been done from being repeated all over again, incurring unnecessary costs to the patients and the health care system. They also facilitate coordination between health professionals. Coordination between care providers has always been problematic. Computerized records facilitate the coordination of care and continuity of care. The efficiency and speed of diagnosis translates into better health care service for patients. Similar to the previously discussed point, correct and timely information can significantly increase the quality of health care service rendered to patients. They can even save lives.
As you can see, there are many advantages to all the digitalization of medical records. However, there are also some serious disadvantages:
Learning the systems can be tedious and time consuming. Combining computer proficiency and fulfilling patient direct patient care can be challenging each day. Spending time just completing the documentation on the computer can actually lead to less time spent at the bedside, especially if the person isn't very fast on the computer.
Electronic medical records threaten our privacy. People are not comfortable having their entire medical history recorded and digitized for almost just anybody to see. For example, what if a hospital employee was hospitalized and happened to be HIV positive? Do you really think they'd want co-workers to know this? Well, guess what? They can easily find out everything their inquiring minds want to know. Sure, they have no right to do so, but that isn't going to stop them! I remember something that happened when I worked in a hospital about 15 years ago. One of the nurses I worked with was 8 months pregnant, and she developed pre-eclampsia, and subsequently, eclampsia. She was admitted to the hospital in distress. Her baby was saved, and she died. She was only 30 years old. We were all shocked beyond belief. There was no computerized charting, and her paper chart was kept secure. However, almost everyone who worked with her tried to look through her chart! They also went to gawk at this poor woman right after she died. Some even went to the morgue! Everyone came back with stories about how "horrible" she looked, how she "didn't look like the girl we knew", etc....I am proud to say that I wasn't a part of all that, out of respect. My point is that people are curious. OK, downright nosey. And they will try to find out whatever they can, just because. Although I have nothing to hide, the thought of people going through my records just gives me the heebie jeebies.
Medical data can even be used against a person in some cases – whether when applying for job, insurance coverage, or a college scholarship. Although it is against the law to discriminate against people with illnesses and disabilities, it is routinely done. In addition, there are just way too many stories about data hacking, identity theft, blackmail, etc...
In the process of digitalization, the interpersonal aspect in health care may also be lost. In handwritten hospital charts, doctors and other health care practitioners may write what they think and they feel based on their personal observations in their very own words. With computerized charting, one just checks off boxes on electronic forms. Healthcare providers are not always able to express a personal opinion on an individual case. Because of the lack of flexibility of many electronic reporting systems, cases of misclassification of patients and their conditions have been reported. I think that it's very easy to get too comfortable, and just "go through the motions" with the charting, without putting any thought into the patient.
Electronic medical records are still far from being standardized and not as efficient as they are supposed to be. There are over 60 different proprietary programs out there, and they are not necessarily compatible. Records can't always "talk" to one another.
What happens when the computers are "down?" You will need to revert to paper charting, which in and of itself is not a big deal. However, if the system goes down, providers won't have that immediate access to their patients' information.
It is my belief that, like the title of this article states, computers are not foolproof. Therefore, we should not rely on them to be 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time, or to be the perfect solution to all of our needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment