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.
All those designs might have very unique ways in defining their purpose for launching these systems. In present day circumstances, electronic health records have come a long way to have the Meaningful Use certified EHR description. Yet the goal can be summarized in three aspects, which are eliminating the problems of healthcare logistics, to lessen paperwork, and to create an accessible, informational treasure trove.
The commercialization of EHRs happened in the nineties. Homegrown systems matured academically and technology became widely available. The IT industry provided greater computing knowledge, and the customer base began developing. Eventually, heterogeneity among users became a challenge with the arrival of personal computers and of course, the Internet.
That could be the same old problem with EHR in the millenium age. It might still have been the case for the Ebola victim who died because of an error in the EHR system. While it might have been a flaw in electronic health records, let us first look at the way EHR was designed in order to cater to the exclusive demands of each healthcare professional.
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.
The lesson to be learned in the Ebola case was that the routine use of EHRs might have bred a leniency with regards to healthcare professionals treating cases as routine and not something of grave danger. According to research, it was a case of misdiagnosis and the inefficient and ineffective usage of electronic health records. Although errors in diagnosis would typically only affect one patient at a time, sometimes, it only takes a single mistake to ruin its public health reputation.
Whether theory or valid facts, we need to move forward in improving our electronic health records. EHR safety guidelines should be strictly imposed. In the situation of the Ebola case, it seemed to be just a simple, but fatal, failure to relay the message from nurse to physician that the patient should really be checked for Ebola. As such, it was more of a lack of training in the use of EHRs.
Ensure that the software and hardware areas are all in good condition. A simple malfunction may not just affect one department, but it could have a domino effect to all communities. Physicians should utilize the CPOE and all kinds of health records should be handled accordingly.
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.
All those designs might have very unique ways in defining their purpose for launching these systems. In present day circumstances, electronic health records have come a long way to have the Meaningful Use certified EHR description. Yet the goal can be summarized in three aspects, which are eliminating the problems of healthcare logistics, to lessen paperwork, and to create an accessible, informational treasure trove.
The commercialization of EHRs happened in the nineties. Homegrown systems matured academically and technology became widely available. The IT industry provided greater computing knowledge, and the customer base began developing. Eventually, heterogeneity among users became a challenge with the arrival of personal computers and of course, the Internet.
That could be the same old problem with EHR in the millenium age. It might still have been the case for the Ebola victim who died because of an error in the EHR system. While it might have been a flaw in electronic health records, let us first look at the way EHR was designed in order to cater to the exclusive demands of each healthcare professional.
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.
The lesson to be learned in the Ebola case was that the routine use of EHRs might have bred a leniency with regards to healthcare professionals treating cases as routine and not something of grave danger. According to research, it was a case of misdiagnosis and the inefficient and ineffective usage of electronic health records. Although errors in diagnosis would typically only affect one patient at a time, sometimes, it only takes a single mistake to ruin its public health reputation.
Whether theory or valid facts, we need to move forward in improving our electronic health records. EHR safety guidelines should be strictly imposed. In the situation of the Ebola case, it seemed to be just a simple, but fatal, failure to relay the message from nurse to physician that the patient should really be checked for Ebola. As such, it was more of a lack of training in the use of EHRs.
Ensure that the software and hardware areas are all in good condition. A simple malfunction may not just affect one department, but it could have a domino effect to all communities. Physicians should utilize the CPOE and all kinds of health records should be handled accordingly.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment