Electronic Health Records - Two Not-So-Minor Concerns

No question, as EHRs are implemented in hospitals, elements of care will improve. Cordinated processes and integrated information, clinical protocols and patient portals will all benefit the provision of healthcare. BUT, two issues loom large. First, the cost of these systems is significant and reimbursement of a portion of the cost of implementation will hinge on "meaningful use" being achieved within a timetable proscribed by the Federal government. That timetable is, to say the least, aggresive. Our healthcare associations and various organizations are working to have these deadlines extended.

Second, in any complex system change there can be unintended consequences. Anne Zieger, in her blog, The nextHospital Manifesto, posted "Do EHRs Kill People? Maybe So". The content follows:

Here’s some cautionary words on the adoption of electronic health records, in an essay from the rich archives of wonderfully snarky and insightful site thehealthcareblog.com.
Since IANAT (I Am Not A Techie), I can only offer an analyst’s take on the matter, but I believe author Margalit Gur-Arie’s argument makes great sense. Anytime a technology goes beyond being a tool to driving decisions, humans have to adapt — and that breaks their stride. And off-balance care can lead to patient deaths. As she notes:

If EHRs become as pervasive in everyday medicine as ONC is proposing, every patient will eventually be touched by an EHR. It is very likely that some errors will be prevented by the sheer existence of an EHR but new and unfamiliar errors will also be introduced as side effects.

I continue to hope we can find a way to make EMR use simple, natural and fluid, but honestly, I’m still pretty skeptical it will happen. So thanks to Gur-Arie for reminding people that EMRs, EHRs, PHRs and all other related tools are far from a panacea.
 
Anne, I tend to agree. As we develop this crucial new healthcare delivery tool , caution had better be the watchword.