In 1968, hospital researchers launched a project called the Computer Stored Ambulatory Record. It contained a modular design that gave room to various clinical vocabularies and enabled vocabulary mapping. In 1972, the Regenstrief Medical Record System was created and automated clinical information and data, integrated and structured them as they are gathered from pharmacies and laboratories.
These systems may have varied descriptions, but all of them have the been developed to serve a purpose. It may have been described differently over the last fifty years up to its present day description of Meaningful Use certified EHR. But these systems exist because of the need to eradicate logistical issues, to reduce the time consuming clinical bookkeeping, and to have access to medical and healthcare information readily available to healthcare professionals.
EHRs went mainstream and commercial when technology did as well. The systems bred by academic medical centers developed together with the IT industry. When personal computers arrived in the 1990s and Internet became available, EHRs were challenged with the increasing heterogeneity of its users.
Perhaps that is still the same issue we are working with today. We know from the news that the death of the latest Ebola victim was blamed through an error in the electronic health record. We know that even though he stated he came from a place where Ebola was rampant, he was still sent home, only to be diagnosed with the disease days later when he returned to the hospital.
EHR vendors loved systems that have manageable footprints. Those are systems that can be handled by smaller IT team and launched on Windows OS. Electronic health records also tend to have physician specific workflows, meaning that doctors are typically shielded away from the hospital EHR except when they are specifically looking for data entered by finance personnels or unit clerks.
Our society, the government, and healthcare professionals should learn something from the Ebola case. While technology may provide us with ease, it is not an excuse to be lenient about its usage. Some studies theorize that because of the illusion of efficiency EHRs seem to offer, they have rather bred the attitude of seeing cases as simply routine, regular ones, mistaking a serious, fatal illness for something common.
Those speculations are still open to debate. However, the more pressing issue is that we have to make our move in making electronic health records more effective, not counterproductive, counter logic, and ironic. If it was a lack of communication between nurse and doctor in the Ebola news, then it was more of a training and awareness problem. Technology will be there, but without proper safety guidelines and trained users, they are prone to becoming a means of pain rather than prevention.
Check if your device hardware and software are all working fine. A glitch or bug or any malfunction can impair not just a department but can cripple the entire community. Use the EHR appropriately, that is, to comprehensively monitor and improve patient safety. CPOE should be implemented.
It has been suggested that all orders should be entered via CPOE to maximize safety. Stage One of the Meaningful Use declares that at least thirty percent of these orders should be entered through CPOE, while Stage Two should have at least sixty percent. Institutions that have not yet implemented this coding should already make their move.
These systems may have varied descriptions, but all of them have the been developed to serve a purpose. It may have been described differently over the last fifty years up to its present day description of Meaningful Use certified EHR. But these systems exist because of the need to eradicate logistical issues, to reduce the time consuming clinical bookkeeping, and to have access to medical and healthcare information readily available to healthcare professionals.
EHRs went mainstream and commercial when technology did as well. The systems bred by academic medical centers developed together with the IT industry. When personal computers arrived in the 1990s and Internet became available, EHRs were challenged with the increasing heterogeneity of its users.
Perhaps that is still the same issue we are working with today. We know from the news that the death of the latest Ebola victim was blamed through an error in the electronic health record. We know that even though he stated he came from a place where Ebola was rampant, he was still sent home, only to be diagnosed with the disease days later when he returned to the hospital.
EHR vendors loved systems that have manageable footprints. Those are systems that can be handled by smaller IT team and launched on Windows OS. Electronic health records also tend to have physician specific workflows, meaning that doctors are typically shielded away from the hospital EHR except when they are specifically looking for data entered by finance personnels or unit clerks.
Our society, the government, and healthcare professionals should learn something from the Ebola case. While technology may provide us with ease, it is not an excuse to be lenient about its usage. Some studies theorize that because of the illusion of efficiency EHRs seem to offer, they have rather bred the attitude of seeing cases as simply routine, regular ones, mistaking a serious, fatal illness for something common.
Those speculations are still open to debate. However, the more pressing issue is that we have to make our move in making electronic health records more effective, not counterproductive, counter logic, and ironic. If it was a lack of communication between nurse and doctor in the Ebola news, then it was more of a training and awareness problem. Technology will be there, but without proper safety guidelines and trained users, they are prone to becoming a means of pain rather than prevention.
Check if your device hardware and software are all working fine. A glitch or bug or any malfunction can impair not just a department but can cripple the entire community. Use the EHR appropriately, that is, to comprehensively monitor and improve patient safety. CPOE should be implemented.
It has been suggested that all orders should be entered via CPOE to maximize safety. Stage One of the Meaningful Use declares that at least thirty percent of these orders should be entered through CPOE, while Stage Two should have at least sixty percent. Institutions that have not yet implemented this coding should already make their move.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment