REFLECTION ON EMR VERSUS PAPER CHART DOCUMENTATION
In reflecting back on a little over two years into what we call the electronic medical records (EMR) implementation. Since, there has been a gradual roll-out in this process, the entire process has been relatively uneventful. Most of the credit goes to the EMR implementation goes to the heads of the IT departments across the country and the practice administrator and then it goes down the line from there to make the EMR work. The electronic medical record (EMR) is increasingly being deployed within health care organizations to improve the safety and quality of care. However, to achieve these goals, the EMR must be used by clinicians, and this remains a major challenge. Various factors appear to be associated with EMR use. Maximization of the technical characteristics supporting the system such as speed and value-added functionality such as order entry systems or automated reports have been documented with higher rates of EMR use. User-related characteristics as well as training are also believed to be important. The integration of the EMR into clinical workflow must be taken into consideration in the early phases of planning in order to optimize the integration of the system into routine clinical use. Indeed, the need for a good fit between the EMR and routine clinical practice is recognized as essential and time efficiency is one of several factors that is used to assess the quality of this integration.
Clinicians spend the majority of their time providing direct care to patients and hope that an EMR could increase this patient-interaction time and consequently the quality of care delivered. On the other hand, provision of care requires the documentation of clinical information as an intrinsic aspect of routine clinical activity and is essential from both professional and legal standpoints. Thus, clinicians will consider a system to be efficient if the system reduces their documentation time, even if the time savings do not translate into better patient care. For this reason, in evaluating the impact of EMR on clinician activities, some studies use documentation time as a primary outcome and direct patient care time as a secondary outcome. The importance of evaluating time efficiency in documentation is also related to the observation that increased time for documentation is one of the most commonly stated barriers to successful implementation of an EMR.
Electronic health record implementation requires considerable investment with most projects averaging several dollars. For the EMR to be successful, it is essential that managers are able to identify and manage elements of EMR implementation that are critical to enhance time efficiency of documentation by physicians and nurses. Clinical information systems and user populations vary in their characteristics and for this reason, individual studies are unable to identify common trends that would predict EMR implementation success.
In reflecting back on a little over two years into what we call the electronic medical records (EMR) implementation. Since, there has been a gradual roll-out in this process, the entire process has been relatively uneventful. Most of the credit goes to the EMR implementation goes to the heads of the IT departments across the country and the practice administrator and then it goes down the line from there to make the EMR work. The electronic medical record (EMR) is increasingly being deployed within health care organizations to improve the safety and quality of care. However, to achieve these goals, the EMR must be used by clinicians, and this remains a major challenge. Various factors appear to be associated with EMR use. Maximization of the technical characteristics supporting the system such as speed and value-added functionality such as order entry systems or automated reports have been documented with higher rates of EMR use. User-related characteristics as well as training are also believed to be important. The integration of the EMR into clinical workflow must be taken into consideration in the early phases of planning in order to optimize the integration of the system into routine clinical use. Indeed, the need for a good fit between the EMR and routine clinical practice is recognized as essential and time efficiency is one of several factors that is used to assess the quality of this integration.
Clinicians spend the majority of their time providing direct care to patients and hope that an EMR could increase this patient-interaction time and consequently the quality of care delivered. On the other hand, provision of care requires the documentation of clinical information as an intrinsic aspect of routine clinical activity and is essential from both professional and legal standpoints. Thus, clinicians will consider a system to be efficient if the system reduces their documentation time, even if the time savings do not translate into better patient care. For this reason, in evaluating the impact of EMR on clinician activities, some studies use documentation time as a primary outcome and direct patient care time as a secondary outcome. The importance of evaluating time efficiency in documentation is also related to the observation that increased time for documentation is one of the most commonly stated barriers to successful implementation of an EMR.
Electronic health record implementation requires considerable investment with most projects averaging several dollars. For the EMR to be successful, it is essential that managers are able to identify and manage elements of EMR implementation that are critical to enhance time efficiency of documentation by physicians and nurses. Clinical information systems and user populations vary in their characteristics and for this reason, individual studies are unable to identify common trends that would predict EMR implementation success.