EHR Not Magic Bullet
Based on new evidence from Stanford University, EHR may not be the magic bullet, which the federal government hoped they would. According to an article this week by Rosanne Spector in Stanford’s online news journal (http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2011/january/records.html), researchers performed a national survey of 250,000 patient visits over three years and determined that quality of health care was no better than before the use of EHR.
According to Spector, ‘“There’s a lot of enthusiasm and money being invested in electronic health records,” said the senior author of the study, Randall Stafford, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center.
The federal government’s economic stimulus package of 2009 invested $19 billion in health information technology, including incentives for adoption of electronic health record systems. “It makes sense, but on the other hand it’s an unproven proposition. When the federal government decides to invest in health-care technology but evidence shows, it will not improve the quality of care. That’s a presumption.”
The “Law of Parsimony” dictates we see maximum results employing the simplest solution. Back file scanning is the exact opposite. The need for medical records older than 24 months is very limited in fact. Studies show medical practices are accessing only 3% of charts after 24 months of the last visit. Therefore, the incredible costs & work associated with back file scanning only to call up 3% of the info is ineffective and expensive. Can our economy stand to waste money on a poor solution? At a time when we are actually asking those in the medical profession to do more with less what seems like efficiency may be the opposite.
Conclusion EHR Not Magic Bullet
In light of this evidence Admiral Records Management Intelligent Archiving rises to the top as a solution to the cost and hassle of digitally archiving all historical records. If you would like more on this solution, call 334-396-5430 or email email@example.com.