Paper charts are no better. I know many organizations are resistant to changing from paper to electronic charts, but papers get lost, aren't accessible, are illegible, and take much longer to write. They're not as green; they require storage and medical records staff. They require things to be faxed or copied. To read notes, I have to physically run around the hospital. Paper orders have fewer protections; a computerized order entry system can check whether a medication is stocked by pharmacy or whether a dosage is correct. I know a lot of practitioners hate these "checks" but I think if you get the system right, it can be unobtrusive and improve patient care.
In the end, I honestly believe the companies who should design electronic health records need to be big companies who have successfully released user-friendly high-powered wide-reaching software. For example, Microsoft, Apple, and Google need to enter this field (and to some extent, they already have) because software companies run by physicians have failed to deliver good software. I actually am very partial to Google because of their innovative ideas of putting everything on the internet (ie. docs.google.com). It would be incredibly convenient to be able to access electronic health records from any internet-linked computer; obviously, security would be the big issue, but I don't think it's an insurmountable barrier. Google's focus on speed, the user experience, compatibility, and big enterprises makes them an ideal contender. Furthermore, they already have Google Health, and if they made a foray into inpatient hospital systems that linked to patient-driven Google Health records, this could be ideal for continuity, accessibility, and completeness of charts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment