Pitfalls of EMR

Electronic Medical Records (EMR) are documents that detail patient symptoms, history and treatment electronically instead of on paper. While they do document information in a more accessible, better-organized manner, they also--like all large-scale system changes--have their share of problems.

Layers

• One pitfall of EMR systems is that they add layers of communication in some areas while removing it in others. A doctor has to transcribe information twice--since most doctors do not carry computers with them when they talk to patients, they have to write it down (as they did prior to EMR systems), then copy it over to the computerized system later. So, if a doctor writes something down then forgets to transcribe it, subsequent doctors will not have access to the information that was not included in the electronic records.

  In addition, the doctor is the one doing this transcribing, not the nurses or secretaries. This means that potential for error is compounded by putting the entire effort on one person.

Expense

• EMR systems are also expensive. For one, they require people to install and maintain them. This cost inevitably is passed on to insurance companies and then patients.

  What's more, it is a time expense. Because doctors are writing down information, then transcribing it later, they are spending more time sitting in front of a computer doing what is essentially clerical work. Having a doctor do clerical work is not an efficient allocation of resources; a doctor's time is better spent treating patients.

Patient Interaction

• A computer commands a great deal of eye contact and focus; some nurses have reported that putting data into an EMR system in a treatment room distracts them from being close to newborn babies, for instance, which in turn results in fewer medical and lifestyle recommendations that could benefit those newborns. The same is true for other patients as well--diagnosing and treating people requires the full attention of a doctor or nurse, and an EMR can hog it.