Second Student
I agree that the most serious problem with electronic medical record-keeping is the cut and paste dilemma. Repetition and cutting and pasting of notes by physicians can be extremely problematic, and cause inaccuracies to be passed on from record to record. But this problem can also occur with paper records.
In terms of the financial barriers, it is important to note that any shift to safer and more effective technology comes at a cost to the physician, and this is, to some extent, one of the 'hazards' of doing business. Shifting to more sanitary procedures, using machines that are less risky in terms of disseminating radiation, and other changes in medical technology have all been expensive, yet deemed necessary because of the resultant improvements in patient health. The same is true regarding medical record-keeping. Patient health and keeping accurate records...
Perhaps in the future, physicians will have required coursework in EMR at medical school, given what a critical aspect of practice the technology is likely to become in the future. Once more effective and standardized methods of record-keeping are adopted, resistance is likely to abate. Also, younger physicians more accustomed to reading and using electronic data are entering the profession. Gradually the most intransigent die-hards who are against the adaptation of EMR will begin to retire from the profession.
As you have said, no new technology is implemented through an entirely "smooth and seamless process." The question is if the period of discomfort is worth the final result: in the case of the potential benefits of EMR, the answer is clearly yes.
