Digitisation of medical records is one of Obama’s most prominent talking points: he claims modernising records will save lives and billions of dollars at the same time. But some doctors aren’t taken with the idea.
In a New York Times op-ed piece, Dr. Anne Armstrong-Coben expresses concern that the modernisation of medical records may not be as obviously beneficial as it seems. For one thing, there’s no unified system yet, and the likeliest candidate (Google Health) isn’t subject to the now-outdated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the national privacy statute. Creating an easy-to-learn and effective system is a huge undertaking, from construction to installation to training, and not everybody is confident it can be done properly.
A buggy or confusing system could result in more mistakes, not less, as Dr. Armstrong-Coben points out. “I have seen how choosing the wrong box can lead to the wrong drug being prescribed,” she writes. Older generations of doctors may have trouble adjusting to a totally digital system, and there are bound to be mistakes made by even the computer-savvy before digitisation becomes ubiquitous.
On the other hand, Dr. Armstrong-Coben complains that full digitisation may make the doctor-patient relationship less personal, a point not likely to hold much water with digitisation proponents. The potential money and lives saved far outweigh the loss. She reminisces, “I loved how patients could participate in their own charts – illustrating their cognitive development as they went from showing me how they could draw a line at age 2 and a circle at 3 to proudly writing their names at 5.” Unclear, however, is why she can’t just keep a notebook in which her young pediatric patients can draw.
Obama’s plan will cost about $US100 billion, a huge chunk of the stimulus package, but some experts claim it will save two to three times that yearly. Those savings could go toward universal health care or simply flow back into the hospitals for better equipment.
Doctors like Armstrong-Coben bring up an interesting point: this is a new frontier and a massive project, and it won’t be as simple as handing doctors a new iMac and watching the savings roll in. But it’s a necessary step; just because it’s going to be hard doesn’t mean it’s not worth the effort. [NY Times and CNN]
Thomas
March 9, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I’m a Information Analyst working a hospital in Sydney Australia. We’ve converted to electronic files and the benefits are great. Doctors are able to access data patient data anywhere, saving precious time and allowing the doctors to focus more on the patients rather than trying to find patient data.
Report PermalinkLee
June 18, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Hi Thomas,
I’d love to see EMR made affordable for the whole Australian medical community. I’d welcome the chance to catch up for a coffee and learn from your experiences.
I’d love to hear from you – lee at open iq dot com dot au
-lee-
Report PermalinkGary Knopp
March 10, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Any professional who would want to keep medical records stored in a way reminiscent of the 40s and 50s has something to hide. We can no longer afford the costs of keeping medical records in manila file folders any more than we can afford to keep tax records in 24′ hand posted paper journals. It is simply crazy to imagine that this can not be done and it will not benefit everyone. Yes it can be done and yes it is a must-do project.
Report PermalinkChris Bates
April 6, 2009 at 8:23 AM
I am a medical transcriber with 28 years experience. I am computer savvy and see the benefits (if not the fun and excitement) of EMR. I’m all for it. However, I need to know where to go right now. Should I dismantle my business and head for different waters? Although my records are electronic, will doctors still be penalized beginning in 2014 for using my services, or will there always be a need for someone to type in something?
Report Permalink