Posts Tagged ‘EMR’
Harris Interactive Report – Patients Communicating with Doctors Online
September 28, 2006
A 7 page summary of this report by Harris and the Wall Street Journal is now available in PDF format. Although “few patient user or have access to online services for communicating with their doctors, …most would like to.”
More conclusions: 68% think an EMR can reduce “redudant and unnecessary testing” but 62% think that EMRs make it more difficult to ensure privacy. 60% believe EMRs would reduce healthcare costs and 55% believe they would reduce medical errors.
Share this:
eCleveland Clinic Services include Sharing EMR with Referring Physicians
September 22, 2006
In the Cleveland Plain Dealer today, the DrConnect product is described as opening up the EMR to outside physicians. With the patient’s permission, a referring physician can view the record of that patient in a view only mode. This provides the potential for instant data exchange without the traditional methods of paper or fax. The article also explains the MyChart product from Epic Systems which allows to patient view into the EMR as well. The potential for improved continuity of care and reduction of errors is clearly evident as this kind of data exchange is expanded. The article did not emphasize strongly enough the security behind these ehealth products which is necessary to reassure the public.
Share this:David Brailer’s Op-Ed in the New York Times
September 21, 2006
On September 19th, the NY Times published a piece by Dr. David Brailer on EMR and PHRs. In discussing current legislation on EMRs, he says, “These rules help doctors improve care, and at the same time push health information portability into the mainstream.” The difference in House and Senate bills are highlighted by a difference of opinion on portability: “Congress must confront as it tries to reconcile the competing versions of the bill: opposition to portable health information is, by definition, support for proprietary health information.” He cites the imporatance of portability as a do no harm issue – that is, that a vote against portability is harmful.
Couldn’t agree more with this and also his admission that getting there is costly and requires a significant commitment.
Share this: