Poor Results Found for Electronic Health Record Adoption
Researchers from the University College of London examined hundreds of previous studies on Electronic Health Record (EHR) implementation worldwide and found that:
- EHRs often increase the efficiency of auditing, billing and other secondary functions while decreasing the efficiency of primary clinical work;
- EHR systems are unlikely ever to achieve complete interoperability because of the different contexts involved;
- Paper records sometimes offer greater flexibility for clinical work compared with many available EHR systems; and
- Small, local EHR systems tend to be more effective and efficient compared with larger systems.
No surprise for me.
Some people seem to have an unnatural obsession with EMRs. If markets are allowed to work, information systems spontaneously arise to meet peoples’ needs without command and control.
Agree with Ken. Computer use must be a bottom up process, not a top down affair.
It’s mainly people who don’t know anything about EMRs who are so convinced that they are going to save the health care system tons of money.
If an EMR is implemented properly patient information will be more accurate and time will be saved by this information flowing from one system to another instead
of having to be keyed in repeatedly. For more information visit http://www.springmedical.com