ADVERTISEMENT
Blog
Why EMRs Are Moving In The Wrong Direction
07/22/2014
As many hospitals and institutions work at transitioning to electronic medical records (EMR), the ability to obtain information on a patient has become more difficult than ever. In my opinion, electronic medical records as we know them today are probably the largest setback to the advancement of medicine that we have seen. It's frustrating for me, someone who loves technology and even contemplated a career in it, to watch medicine and technology collide instead of seeing the advancements of computers and accessibility of information complement medical records. Before giving my opinion as to why this has happened, I will share with you my personal example that occurs routinely when I am at any of my three hospitals.
I was performing an I&D of a diabetic foot abscess and began the process by seeing my patient in the holding area in pre-op. Before talking to the patients, I wanted to see the laboratory results as well as the reports of other physicians who were seeing the patients. This particular institution was in the process (which has lasted well over two years now) of transitioning from paper charts to electronic records so the information is in two places. The laboratory reports were not yet on the paper chart, and there were no computers in the holding area to pull up the patient’s chart.
The patient then went back to the OR and I began the dreaded process of logging into the electronic records, which of course are protected by countless screens with passwords. I find this somewhat amusing as there were no barriers to finding a patient’s Social Security number on a paper chart. Instead of making the process easier with electronic records, it has become more time consuming as we see with the password issues. That is a debatable area as well, which I will not go into.
So I finally get through the log in process and now it’s time to recall all the steps presented to me in the two-hour crash course on using this system. Mind you, I’m on staff at three institutions, all using different electronic records. So, we have to find the patient in the system. You would think the patient would be under a list of patients I’m treating but of course I was not “tagged” or “attached” to the patient. Luckily there is a paper chart in the room with the patient’s birthdate and medical record number on it (not protected with log in screens) and I can use this to look up the patient in the EMR and find the patient in the system.
Now it’s time to cursor over the 50 or so icons on the screen that are almost too small to read even if there were letters under them describing the icon. I can’t remember which one brings me to the laboratory section so I have to ask a nurse. She responds, “Oh, our screen is different from the doctors’ but I can try to help you.” She is able to get me to the results section, which shows the results of every complete blood cell count (CBC) and other test ever done on this patient at the hospital. Of course, today’s is not visible. Why, you ask? Because I didn’t select the range to display “to date.” Why that would not be automatically selected when the software installs is beyond me, but the fact is I had to select it.
Then we found the labs. It took roughly 10 minutes if you add in the time I couldn’t find a computer in the holding area and had to walk back to the OR with the patient and get logged into one in the OR. I then ask anesthesia if the patient received a dose of antibiotics in pre-op. The anesthesiologist informs me that he will call pre-op and see if anyone gave any antibiotics because it’s much faster than trying to see if it was “entered in the computer.” There is also the fact that sometimes doctors give antibiotics and the nurse hasn’t had time to enter the medication in the electronic chart yet so you’re better off calling.
One who has any basic background of understanding computers could spend a few days and create a process to take notes that far surpasses the current EMRs implemented in healthcare practices. The problem is that process would not be Medicare approved. I watched an internist do this and take pride in his ability to simplify his practice through self-created templates that streamlined his ability to take notes. It was eventually sidelined as a result of not being Medicare compliant.
Consider that there is no one EMR that physicians are longing to have. It’s an untapped industry that is awaiting an overhaul. This means people are not lining up or waiting to get their hands on a new electronic record system that will streamline their office and make their job easier. On the contrary, the same physicians are all in love with their iPhones or Android smart phones, which have revolutionized the way we all communicate and access information.
Things have progressed from the philosophy of “It wasn't in the note” and “It wasn't done for malpractice purposes” to “If you want it done, put it in your note.” This is not from a malpractice standpoint but from a standpoint of billing purposes. This is across the board with all aspects of medicine, not just podiatry or any subspecialty. We create templates from a standpoint of reaching billing points, not covering aspects that look at patient care. It’s pretty clear when you look at a consultation note sent from a family physician that is six pages long, full of all normal findings. However, if this physician were to have covered every aspect in the note, he probably could only see 10 patients a day and never survive from a financial standpoint. This is also probably a topic for another discussion, but without a doubt medical notes are being designed to hit points for billing purposes, and then secondarily to cover all aspects of necessary physical exams and tests.