Here we go again: Another article on how electronic medical records are not a "cure-all." Can we please divorce EMRs and EHRs from the "cure-all" designation? EHR and EMR advocates don't see it as cure-alls, so why should critics?
 

Yes, there are challenges and problems related to EHRs. But to only focus on the negative reports is not a balanced story. To be fair, the journalist fleetingly mentioned "other studies" that have "concluded that health IT saves time and reduces errors," but spent more time on the negative reports.

I don't dismiss the charges of medical errors introduced by EHRs, but look at the industry as a whole. Medical errors are not new. One need only to recall the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report, "To Err is Human: Building a Safer System," in which it claimed that as many as 98,000 people die due to medical error. The reasons vary from human error to lack of standards or processes. Everyone can come up with an instance of medical error. In 2002 I had a false positive reading on a Nuchal Translucency Screening that led to an amniocentesis, and in the same year my nephew was misdiagnosed and given medication that worsened his condition, which was later correctly diagnosed as cryptogenic infantile spasms.

The articles states that David Blumenthal, MD, head of the ONC, acknowledges that the systems had flaws. Ultimately, he was quoted as saying, "But the critical question is whether, on balance, care is better than before. I think the answer is yes." Not surprisingly, I totally agree with Blumenthal.

It's not unlike the privacy issue regarding EHRs. There's talk about the rise of privacy breaches with EHRs. Few people talk about what privacy breaches occurred with paper records. Privacy breaches can be tracked with EHRs. Who can say what unauthorized medical office or hospital staff member looked at your records, regardless of whether the consequences were insignificant or not?

Again, I don't dismiss the complaints and the charges in the least. They should never, ever be silenced. They should be highlighted but not to scare the public. They should be highlighted to the health IT vendors to force them to continually improve their systems for workforce flow and ensure that their systems do not introduce any errors and their staff are properly trained.

The only way health IT vendors are going to be held accountable is for the rest of the industry to constantly be after them to provide superior products, services and support. Accountability should be tied to certification. (And by the way, about the anonymity, if we need to create protection for "whistle-blowers," let's do so. Then again, if lives are at stake, why are people remaining anonymous and anonymous reports being circulated?)

The bottom line is that there are problems that definitely need to be addressed. We'll only get physician adoption and better results if we meet those issues head-on and solve them.