Thoughts on Electronic Medical Records

Posted by Anthony Lee Mar 14, 2009

In my days as a medical student and an intern physician, I have worked in various hospitals and clinics and have seen the different ways that medical records are kept. Some did it entirely the old-fashioned way with paper charts. Others maintained some or all records electronically. Between the two, many would say that electronic medical records (EMRs) are much better.

In my opinion, there is nothing more frustrating, and sometimes more risky, than reviewing a paper chart or doctor's orders with illegible handwriting. It's also more challenging to see groups of information, such as lab results, as a series of pages and not all at one time. If one needs medical records from another hospital, he or she would have to call the other facility and ask them to fax the records over. With EMRs, one can easily read computerized text, see lab results in a trend format, and access records from within a network of hospitals and clinics, not just from one facility alone. With these and other benefits, EMRs can save a lot of time.

There may be some issues regarding the need for traditional physicians to learn how to use EMRs, how much money would be spent for implementation, and the long-term clinical and financial outcomes. After all, EMRs are like anything in medicine. They have to demonstrate proven benefit before they can be widely accepted. For now, I am a big supporter of EMRs and would love to see them put in place everywhere.