Talk:Electronic health record

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brbrbrledesma. Peer reviewers: Brbrbrledesma.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Time Requirements for Electronic Health Record Use
This is one of many articles in peer-reviewed journals about the time it takes to fill out EHRs.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2656337 Time Requirements for Electronic Health Record Use in an Academic Ophthalmology Center Sarah Read-Brown, et al. JAMA Ophthalmol. October 12, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.4187 Findings. In this single-center cohort study of 27 ophthalmologists, mean total ophthalmologist examination time was 11.2 minutes per patient, of which 27% was spent on electronic health record use, 42% on conversation, and 31% on patient examination. Mean total ophthalmologist time spent using the electronic health record was 10.8 minutes per encounter, translating to 3.7 hours per day using the electronic health record (2.1 hours during patient examinations, and 1.6 hours outside the clinic session). --Nbauman (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, good content to add. See also
 * Kuisma M, Väyrynen T, Hiltunen T, Porthan K, Aaltonen J. Effect of introduction of electronic patient reporting on the duration of ambulance calls. Am J Emerg Med. 2009 Oct;27(8):948–55.
 * ... which found ambulance call durations increased as a result. Also interesting here is...
 * Hill RG, Sears LM, Melanson SW. 4000 Clicks: a productivity analysis of electronic medical records in a community hospital ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:1591-4. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All three of these articles are single-center studies. While a single-center study may tell us a lot about the impact of EHR-use at one location, we can't assume similar results everywhere. A meta-analysis of such studies would be far preferable. See WP:MEDPRI. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame credit › 15:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but while WP:MEDRS says that a review article would be ideal, review articles don't always exist on particular topics. And as you probably know, in a fast-moving field like EHRs, a review article can be obsolete by the time it's published.
 * If you know of a meta-analysis of the efficiency of EHRs, I'd like to see it. --Nbauman (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a new line of thinking that the electronic medical record is one of the causes of physician and health care provider burnout, affecting the more recently trained and those long in practice equally. Is that worth addressing here? EdirolUA25 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comparison with paper-based records
Although this sections is supported with good sources, I feel as if this section can be enhanced and supported with more research and statistical data to paint a clearer picture about the strengths and weakness of EHR/EMRs. I also believe that more information should be added about feedback received from the end users themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeribe.ezeanuna (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added more text based on a large systematic review. Bondegezou (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft
Please would an interested editor assess whether the draft article at User:JessicaLWeaver/sandbox has an usable content, and if so then incorporate it into this article? Please leave a note here when done. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Synthetic EHR
Current "Turing test" section seems misplaced. It must go under a section "Synthetic EHR", which is yet to be written Dlituiev (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)