Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod
I've got to disagree with you on this point a little bit. We activated an EMR in the medical group just a bit before I retired. I was actively involved in developing the module for the eye department. We insisted on several things that would enhance the interaction between provider and patient. One simple thing was to put the keyboard/monitor on a swing-out shelf so that the provider could face the patient while taking notes and discussing the patient's condition. I've noted here that the terminal is located to make that interaction less personal, which I feel is a mistake. It promotes the feeling in the patient that they are interrupting if they speak while the provider is typing. .......
Another benefit was clear records. No more trying to decipher the poor penmanship of some of the providers. , Also, since we had clinics spread over many counties and states, the EMR was a godsend when a patient made an urgent visit. We had all the important information on hand right away. No need to call for a chart or have something faxed.
In short, designed correctly an EMR can enhance patient care and not be a barrier. Note, this system I am describing was not designed for patient billing. It did communicate with the patient billing system only as far as sending the procedure codes.
|
I said that wrongly. You're right....EMR can be very helpful and more efficient IF the computer system and software are set up right.
If it's a
patchwork-hodgepodge of various-aged modules that are poorly integrated, it can literally drive the clinicians crazy, because they cannot do patient care the way they know is best and want to do--efficiently and personalized.
Many nurses speak of this in various cities/states where we know them, and TVRH is said to have a patchwork/hodgepodge system that causes patients and clinicians
big problems like the O.P. described (i.e. the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing).