Providers having access to all your visits, your various diagnoses, notes, films, and other records within, will allow for better patient health, and lower mortality rates. And this is just the beginning. Once years of accumulated patient data has been gathered, data mining groups will be able to identify trends and help improve what it is that doctors and nurses do within their various daily workflows, as well as identify relationships between patients who have X, and then later on end up developing Y - something that just cannot be done in the paper world.

Other than a low-probability of record theft, and the cost, the pros of being up on EMR far outweigh any perceived cons. And it just so happens I work on the largest EMR deployment in the world, so you may think I have a bias for this particular reason, and I do. My bias is based on first hand experience and evidence I have seen that shows a huge benefit, despite the cost to deploying, as large organizations will in the end save millions of dollars in the long run.

Naysayers can continue to denounce EMR's, but I tell you this - there is no escape. This technology is not going away, and right now there are massive federally funded incentives going out to all doctors and healthcare providers, to help make the transition to EMR. All Americans will, at some point, end up with their medical records in electronic form. This is the future, and the present, so I suggest you change your perspective.

Last, I use the metaphor of the internet. Before the internet, you had to look up facts in an encyclopedia, or go to the library. Now all imaginable information is available online. Now look at patient care. Before, you had charts on paper, which had to be transferred from one part of a facility to the other via chart pulls, and paper is subject to degrading over time, as well as the legibility issues with doctor handwriting. Now, it's all available, all the time, from any location (within your given organization). Even better? Multiple providers can view your chart at the same time. And the list of benefits goes on and on.

Wishing to keep your own records on paper is akin to wanting medical treatment that was derived 100 years ago, and never validated using scientific means. Why would you do that, when there is so much we have learned from science? And why would you put yourself at a higher risk, but not wanting all of your doctors and caregivers to have access to all your health information? It's simply crazy.

With ANSI 5010 and ICD 10 coming to fruition, EMR systems will be more and more useful as they evolve. One should not just consider the patient visit. One should look at the big picture, including the time saved after the patient visit that is included in the true ROI value of a REC endorsed EMR system. Various industries across the board use information systems to process information and healthcare can benefit from such. Those who think otherwise are living in the past, not seeing the potential for the future.

You have just arrived at work and your first task is to make sure all patient medical records are retrieved from the filing cabinet and placed in order of appointment times for the doctor to access easily.

Describe how would you complete this task and include how you would ensure confidentiality of the patient records?

more accurate coding of conditions and treatments, reduced medication errors, increased efficiency, reduced use of paper, and better, faster coordination of care between providers.

Legibility of records has been a problem for at least 60 years, and has been successfully addressed using dictation. At the end of a visit, or at the end of the day (using scribbled notes) narrative reports were dictated, transcribed and placed in the chart. Since the 1980's the problem-oriented medical record POMR format has become the standard, taught in medical schools, and used in every hospital.

Scanning narrative notes seems to be a logical bridge to integrate this method with EHR. Unfortunately, the government's new "meaningful use" criteria excludes this, insisting that all entries be created using templates, with the addition of (limited) notes narrative.

Thus, the physician is forced into the role of data entry clerk while sitting with the patient. As your article points out, this is disruptive and distracting during an encounter. Patients perceive this as rude. Eye contact is reduced. Many docs over the age of 45 do not type (they didn't train to be clerks) which slows the process further.

Medication errors are not necessarily reduced, because a physician, PA or NP can now enter the wrong drug with the click of a key.

Coding was introduced in the mid 1980's for purposes of cost containment by hospitals, but has become the instrument for tracking, chart review, payment and

now "meaningful use". At a coding seminar, one speaker said, "this is important, because the codes tell your patient's story". If that is so, it tells a very superficial tale, and a less human account of my patient's situation than a narrative.

Life cannot be reduced to a digital framework without sacrificing the most human aspects. Ultimately, what has been a very personal blend of art and science will be reduced to a mere technical exercise, coded, catalogued and digitized, for various agencies and insurers to review while the doctor and patients are sleeping. A

truly Orwellian scenario is at our doorstep.

As the article pointed out, software security is not in its 100 percent best. It can be compromised anytime by intelligent hackers from around the globe. Basically, your personal information is stored in a server, where anyone can access to given that they have permission to do so or get hacked unknowingly.