Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

EHRs Beat Paper in Head-to-Head Competition



After accounting for patient differences, practices using electronic health records show annual improvements in diabetes care that are 10% greater than paper-based practices, according to a study in New England Journal of Medicine.



2 comments on "EHRs Beat Paper in Head-to-Head Competition"
A Davis (9/14/2011 at 1:06 PM)

While the paper does demonstrate mild improvements in patient outcomes, it raises as many questions as it answers. Quality ultimately relates to outcomes, but there is a strong argument that it also relates to costs. If the EMR has caused treatments and, presumably their related costs, to increase by 41%, but have improved outcomes by only 4%, there is a strong suggestion that EMRs are, in fact, detrimental to quality, and this analysis ignores the additional cost of the purchase, implementation and use of the EMR itself, as well as the opportunity costs of taking on what is likely the biggest single budget expansion, for IT implementation, in any given hospital.. I expect that we will see additional articles in the future demonstrating improvements in outcomes associated with EMR use, but I question whether these improvements are affordable in the current context of constraining costs. Given that the outcomes improvements are only slightly better than marginal, in the economic sense, it seems that a sense of caution may be in order.
laura stenger (9/13/2011 at 10:22 AM)

The study on electronic record keeping is very impressive. It is imperative that the patient's health information is not shared to the detriment of the individual patient-insurance denied because of "conditions" by insurance carriers (I am aware that the "new health care bill-law" is supposed to prevent this but the health care legislation will be shaped according to the wants of insurance companies, and providers to bring in more money?because of after the fact lobbing.