23.9% of Physicians Use Electronic Medical Records

[Admin]

"The CDC's National Center for Health Statistics has issued a new Health E-Stat, "Electronic Medical Record Use by Office-based Physicians: United States, 2005." The E-Stat is the latest look at the growing trend towards electronic record-keeping in the medical community. Some of the key findings in the report include:

-- Nearly one in four (23.9 percent) of physicians reported using full or partial electronic medical records (EMRs) in their office-based practice in 2005, a 31 percent increase from the 18.2 percent reported in 2001.

-- Physicians in the Midwest (26.9 percent) and West (33.4 percent) were more likely to use EMRs than those in the Northeast (14.4 percent).

-- Physicians in metropolitan statistical areas (nearly 24.8 percent) were more likely to use EMRs than were those in non-metropolitan areas (16.9).

-- Only one in 10 (9.3 percent) physicians, however, used EMRs with all four of the basic functions (computerized orders for prescriptions, computerized orders for tests, reporting of test results, and physician notes) considered necessary for a complete EMR system."

Source: http://www.surgicenteronline.com/hot...393587365.html

[techguy]

Very nice stats. I think the partial EMR usage really skews those numbers. There are a lot of doctors that partially use an EMR I think.

[cctualatin]

Personal opinion: The reasons why about 1-in-4 Physicians use to some extent EMRs include:
1)HIPAA was not initially conceived and designed for Physicians and has, as a consequence, remained ill-conceived, unusable and controlled by the wrong set of administrators, goals and objectives
2)Even through statistics are quite useful on occasion it is a basic fact that Physicians are neither clones or close copies, e.g., GPs are in a different world than Surgeons
3)The Commercial Medical Informatics Industry is still looking for the 'Slam-Dunk' product that will be perfect for all Users
4)Healthcare Organisations are almost copies of other Commercial Organisation in that Corporate structures deal best with customised, proprietary information structures and typically oppose change.

That said, one must look at how the current Healthcare Industries are structured AND how they must re-structure to handle future demands.

Neither populations nor Healthcare-related Industries are static. Certainly costs refuse to contain themselves. The realistic side of EMRs shows:
1)Physicians are 'over-booked' now without EMRs
2)The EMRs are possibly very-good for Support Personnel charged with keeping records
3)Physicians have little time for in-depth, detailed record-keeping
4)Physicians rely upon mostly experience, which includes non-verbal communications, in forming a diagnosis and treatment, which presents a problem because definitive, detailed written descriptions of the basis for a diagnosis and treatment is typically impossible
5)Performance evaluations can show negative improvements, e.g., the practical necessity of running two record-keeping systems in parallel.
6)EMRs require the translation of activities and information into a structured database, which is interesting because Patients are typically unique.

This is a small set of issues.

Suggestions:
1)Build EMRs that are transparent for specific types of Physicians and Researchers making the information interchangeable
2)Build EMRs that are transparent and supportive of different types of Patients making them accessible to Physician and Researcher EMRs
3)Personalise all EMRs so that they adapt to Users and even anticipate Users.

This is feasible and the technologies do exist. Moreover, the Research Industry is more than adequately positioned to accomplish this in the short-term.

Whether this approach is acceptable to entrenched Medical Industries and Governments are other issues.