20%
Percentage of doctor
offices using EMR
70%
Percentage of doctor offices dropping EMR
within 2 years of buying one
$65 Billion
Amount of money
being budgeted
towards national
implementation of EMR
I guess I'm not too hot on the concept of electronic medical records.
As a preamble, let me say that I own several computers, have installed my own wireless networks, enjoy using computers, have tried voice recognition software, and have beta-tested several EMR systems.
Bottom line, they do not save me time or make me more money. In fact, they can cost up to $40,000 to implement and take me longer to document what I do. They do not pay for themselves, and they do not help me to render better medical care than simply keeping and paying attention to a well-organized paper record. Plus, the paper record can still be used even if the power goes out, or the scheduling computer doesn't work.
I also note, that the EMR produced notes from many of my specialist colleagues that are often up to 4-5 pages of not much more useful information than I can get out of one page of well-organized well-written manuscripted notes.
As EMR systems become for comprehensive, they can actually start to make the job harder: for example, not permitting me to list a strong family history of breast cancer on the master Problem List. Like many other features of medical care, a system created by non-doctors and non-nurses may not be particularly effective or easy to use by doctors and nurses.
Also, there is no agreed upon code standards, so none of these expensive systems is capable of interfacing with other systems.
Believe me, I would enthusiastically embrace a system that allowed me to do my work faster, better and more efficiently that was affordable and as universally used as Microsoft Windows. I doesn't yet exist.
Percentage of doctor
offices using EMR
70%
Percentage of doctor offices dropping EMR
within 2 years of buying one
$65 Billion
Amount of money
being budgeted
towards national
implementation of EMR
I guess I'm not too hot on the concept of electronic medical records.
As a preamble, let me say that I own several computers, have installed my own wireless networks, enjoy using computers, have tried voice recognition software, and have beta-tested several EMR systems.
Bottom line, they do not save me time or make me more money. In fact, they can cost up to $40,000 to implement and take me longer to document what I do. They do not pay for themselves, and they do not help me to render better medical care than simply keeping and paying attention to a well-organized paper record. Plus, the paper record can still be used even if the power goes out, or the scheduling computer doesn't work.
I also note, that the EMR produced notes from many of my specialist colleagues that are often up to 4-5 pages of not much more useful information than I can get out of one page of well-organized well-written manuscripted notes.
As EMR systems become for comprehensive, they can actually start to make the job harder: for example, not permitting me to list a strong family history of breast cancer on the master Problem List. Like many other features of medical care, a system created by non-doctors and non-nurses may not be particularly effective or easy to use by doctors and nurses.
Also, there is no agreed upon code standards, so none of these expensive systems is capable of interfacing with other systems.
Believe me, I would enthusiastically embrace a system that allowed me to do my work faster, better and more efficiently that was affordable and as universally used as Microsoft Windows. I doesn't yet exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment