Ehr (Electronic Health Record System)
The Electronic Health Record (HER) is a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters in any care delivery setting. Included In this Information are patient demographics, progress notes, problems, medications, vital signs, past medical history, immunization, laboratory data and radiology reports. The automates and streamlines the clinician’s workflow.
The FEAR has the ability to generate a complete record of a clinical patient encounter – as well as supporting other care-related activities directly or indirectly via interface – including evidence-based decision support, quality management, and outcomes reporting. Electronic record has significant advantages: 1 . It allows for simultaneous. Remote access to patient data by all authorized providers. 2. It facilitates faster and better communication among providers. 3. It reduces errors which results in better health care and lower cost. 4. Electronic systems facilitate safer data and Improve patient data confidentiality. . It allows for flexible data layout and therefore integrates easier with other information resources. 6. It allows for incorporation of various related electronic data, and records are may be continuously processed and updated. . It makes the searching and finding of data considerably easier. 8. Systems can provide excellent cost savings and increase clinical staff productivity. However, they can be an expensive gamble if you cannot find a long-term solution DISADVANTAGES: The relatively new concept of electronic health record () avoids some of the controversial aspects of the CAR, such as the unique identifier.
It also attempts a more realistic approach in regards to the exchange of Information among various organizations while promoting full interoperability among specialties. However, the races of achieving data standards to meet even only the most important requirements of an EAR have proven to be complex. And although a number of respected institutions and companies are working on standards, at this time HER is still a concept of the future. One of the reasons that medical practices are stating that they are not adopting Electronic Health Records (HER) is that there are too many choices.
Couple this with the failure rates of HER early adopters – now most medical offices are choosing not to choose. However, if doctors could only find the right products and companies, the reasons to adopt technology far outweigh the reasons to avoid It. Critics point out systems, may not benefit financially. Price tags range widely, depending on what’s included, how robust the system is, and how many providers use it. Asked what they paid in an online survey, about a third of respondents paid between $500 and $3,000 per physician. A third paid between $3,001 and $6,000, and 33 percent paid more than $6,000 per physician for their HER.
Physicians do tend to see at least short-term decreases in productivity as they implement an EAR. They spend more time entering data into an empty than they used to spend updating a paper chart with a simple dictation. Such hurdles can be overcome once the software has some data, as physicians learn to use templates for data entry, and as workflow in the practice changes, but not every practice gets that far. Studies also call into question whether, in real life, Hers improve quality. 2009 produced several articles raising doubts about HER benefits. Research an example of a medical office incorporating Hers. How did it help them?
Did it hurt them in any way? British study, funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council, uses electronic health records to find a link between autism and the mumps-measles-rubella (MR.) vaccination. Electronic health databases offer tremendous opportunities for evaluating the adverse effects of vaccines. However there is much scope for bias and confounding. The rigorous validation of all diagnoses and the collection of additional information by parental questionnaire in this study are essential to minimize the possibility of misleading results.