×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Opinion/Perspectives/Commentary

A Plea for Critical Changes to the Electronic Medical Record

By
M. Ted Braid
M. Ted Braid

Abstract

The electronic medical record (EMR) is significantly more than a digitalized format for converting patient data into easily stored and recalled information. Today, each patient’s EMR is a vast, growing accumulation of health data sourced from physicians and professional medical devices. And, according to HIPAA, it is the absolute property of the patient. At its best, the EMR is a trusted data source that contributes to improved patient care. It is my concern that in its current state and considering existing legislation, the very thing we are building will fall in upon itself long before its potential is realized. It must change or the promise of national access to critical care data in the emergency department (ED), for example, may never be realized.

References

1.
International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
2.
Archive H. Health Data Volumes Skyrocket, Legacy Data Archives on The Rise. 2017;
3.
Tuten T. EHR/EMR Facts and Amazing Statistics. Soliant Health. 2017;
4.
Kern C. Healthcare Miscommunication Costs 2,000 Lives And $1.7 Billion. Health IT Outcomes. 2017;
5.
Swain M, Charles D, Patel V, Search T. Health information exchange among U.S. non-federal acute care hospitals: 2008-1014. National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2015;
6.
Braid MT. A Plea for Critical Changes to the Electronic Medical Record. Telehealth and Medicine Today. 2018;2(4).
7.
Category: Opinion and Interview Tags: electronic medical record, EMR, improved patient care.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.