¶ … Pulse of Electronic Medical Records
Taking the Pulse
Dr. Cara is treating a patient for congestive heart failure in the hospital emergency room. The elderly female patient has made multiple trips to the ER the last four months after suffering chest pains, palpitations and other health scares.
Before ending her 12-hour shift, Dr. Cara writes instructions on the patient's medical chart. Under the column that reads "medications," she writes "now nec,," an abbreviation for "now necessary."
An hour later, the next attending ER physician reviews the chart -- and then, struggling for clarity, reads it several times again. Is that a "w" or a "t"? Is that word "now" or "not"? He cannot reach Dr. Cara by phone, but sees that she has been consulting with the patient's cardiologist. Assuming from this piece of information that the patient has been prescribed medication from the cardiologist, the physician reads Dr. Cara's note as "not nec.," or "not necessary."
His interpretation is as wrong as it can be.
Quality health care has been defined as "doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right person and having the best possible results" (Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, 2004). But this patient, and perhaps thousands like her across the United States every day, receive less than quality health care. In fact, errors like this one can, and have, cost patients their lives.
"Quality health care" can be measured by many yardsticks -- error reduction and patient safety among them. And it's long been assumed that these two crucial measures would be improved through the use of electronic medical records, or EMRs.
Taking the Pulse 3
But that's not exactly what A.S. Kazley and Y.A. Ozcan (2008) found...
Their research questions were: Do hospitals with EMRs provide higher quality care? And in which conditions can EMRs affect quality?
The sample in the study included 4,605 nonfederal, acute care hospitals in the United States. Of these hospitals, 479 used fully automated EMR systems. However, the authors said they included "only" 2,969 hospitals in the quality analysis because of limitations in the reporting and validity of the quality measures." Of the 2,969 hospitals, 348 used EMRs in 2004.
In the end, they found little support for their hypothesis that hospitals with EMRs provide higher quality care in all areas. In fact, they found that higher quality care associated with EMR use in hospitals tends to be "sporadic."
"We find no consistent evidence that EMR use can increase care in any particular condition over another," they write.
Discussion
Even the authors express surprise at their findings, and it's easy to understand why. When viewed against the current backdrop of expectations consumers are placing on the medical field, no expectation appears unjustified or unreasonable.
Taking the Pulse 4
As Kovnar and Knickman (2011) point out, consumers may understand that safe, quality health care is not "automatic," but they still have high expectations of their physicians -- once they find one, that is. With the ability to scan Web sites, read physician profiles and study symptoms and even possible remedies before they walk into…
