There has been a great deal discussed regarding the rise of electronic medical records, which for the remainder of this article will be referred to as EMR.
The spectrum lies in one end stating that they have no need for electronic records as medicine has gotten along famously without it and can continue doing so in the future. While the competing side of the spectrum states that the future is with the EMR and that we will only be able to move forward, if all physicians decide to move forward and every patient have their medical information readily available. There are some very intriguing ways that this has been discussed; using a USB device, having it on apps on one’s phone or possibly using a barcode on the health card which links to a cloud storage (patent pending). All have drawbacks and their own benefits, but come with the same flaw.
What is the information present? Is it information that the patient ascertained from their physician appointment and scrawled on a piece of paper, or that their family members placed in the notes section of their smartphone? Is it a typed progress note that their health care provider printed out and gave to them (i.e. complete patient profile)? This variety changes how likely the information will be helpful and the other side is simply, who reads the information. When information is given in an unfamiliar format, things can be pushed aside as extraneous. This will cause confusion and often lead to mistakes.
Don’t get me wrong, I am clearly on the side of the spectrum that states that EMRs are here to stay and that every patient should have their medical records handy for any new physician that they see (whether it’s an emergency room physician, specialist or heaven forbid, walk in clinic physician. For these physicians, or any health care provider to actually have useful information so that good, sound clinical decision making can occur is critical.
But this is not new, this has been an issue that has been wrestled around with for a while. The Canadian government attempted to help move EMRs forward using eHealth with …. interesting results. OntarioMD continues to work forward using Peer Leaders, some of whom I follow on twitter to keep my ear to the ground. I personally have been a Physician Practice Champion, working with both eHealth and OntarioMD, piloting the Ontario Laboratory Information Service (OLIS) using our EMR, which will likely allow for a smoother roll out.
So what’s the problem? Unfortunately, the issue as with all things is the bell curve. Any student will recognize the bell curve, this one is about innovation.
The “laggards” (recently this slide was shown at FM rounds, and I got a kick out the verbiage) will cause significant issues. Not because things will hinge on their decision of when to come onboard to getting an EMR, but more about what they do when they get there.
The biggest issue with someone that is not fully invested in moving forward with a good EMR is that the information that they put into it, will simply be… garbage!
So what does that mean? If we take the Complete Patient Profile (CPP) as an example, we will note that there are a few sections where information may duplicate. If there is no standardized way of displaying data, what will happen is some people might put the fact that a person is a smoker in the “Medical History” or “History of Problems”, while others may place this in “Social History” or “Lifestyle”. This may seem confusing to think of abstractly, but take this as an example.
Medical History – Tobacco Abuse – 1 pack per day for 14 years.
vs.
Social History – Smoker – 1 ppd – started 1998
Both give the same information with different presentations. To a reader, it might be quite easy to pick up the fact that both are the same, however, the purpose of EMR should not just be a cleaner looking chart, but something that can pull data out and use it in a way that can benefit patients, individually and as a whole.
Other providers may put that a patient who has never smoked a day in his life as a “Smoker” with a negative check box or as a Non-Smoker. Again, in this instance, both say the same thing.
However, in order for EMRs to be more helpful for a physician and eventually larger entities, this information needs to become standardized, because the information is likely going to be read by automated queries which will be looking for specific phrases and if the information is haphazardly thrown into the system, with abbreviations and with a complete lack of standardization, the EMR will be as worthless as a sticky note that was used to make a quick diagram for a patient.
Information needs to be usable, readable and searchable. Standardization is the key. Our office is working on a way within our Family Health Team but there will likely need to be a larger scale approach, and I am afraid when that comes that the steps we make, may end up being extra work. “All’s well that ends well.” – Shakespeare. Let’s hope so.