User:DefStOrm/sandbox

Electronic Medical Records (EMRs)
Technology has also started to become involved in the medical field. One of the most used E-health applications worldwide is electronic medical records (EMRs). Electronic medical records have multiple functions in the medical field. Some of the functions include but are not limited to documentation, communication, and management of patient data. Electronic medical records are the technological replacement for paper-based documentation, which is not only labor intensive but also repetitive, inaccurate at times, and can consume a lot of time. Electronic health records (EHRs) are another E-health application used by physicians. However, despite the many similarities in both health applications, they are not the same. The main difference between the two is that EHRs have an additional feature which includes the ability to share the data for multiple authorized physicians.

Due to the initial gap between the expectations and performances of electronic medical records, they are frowned upon by clinicians. The initial failures have shaped physicians' perceptions of EMR. Therefore before considering adopting the EMRs in the medical field, the quality of the information system has to be accounted for. Physicians that use the EMRs have a different view of how effective this new technology is and most of this has to do with age. Younger primary care physicians (PCP) find the technology easier to use as they have more knowledge about technology, therefore were inclined to use EMRs than older physicians with less knowledge of technology. Electronic medical records still have positive and negative implications for the medical field. Some of the positives of the EMRs in the medical field include the accuracy of results by both minimalizing the errors that used to occur as well as having more complete records. This leads to having a better quality of healthcare for patients because the guidelines are better followed. Not only that, but the efficiency of the work also increases because not only can the data be shared more readily, but also the time required to work on the medical records is less. However, there is contrary information which is that when it comes to data management and communication function, EMRs are less effective. Another positive is that there is better privacy for the records as they are harder to access by non-authoritative personnel. However, all these benefits are debatable because there is no tangible evidence that there has been an improvement in the quality of the work being performed by primary care physicians.

There are also negative consequences of using electronic medical records. Firstly, the place where the EMRs are being implemented would have to be financially capable as there is a very high cost of implementation. Additionally, the systems that are being used at the location would have to be modified so that the EMRs would be relevant and useful to the location. This implementation of EMRs would not be possible at locations that lack the resources to instruct physicians in charge of using the new E-health applications, especially in smaller or solo clinics. Not only that, but EMRs also are unable to factor in the social and psychological aspects of a patient into the record. To better understand how EMRs would compare with paper-based records in a hospital setting, a study was conducted between two hospitals and each of the hospitals adopted one of the methods. The results were that the quality of healthcare service in the hospital that had adopted the usage of EMRs was better than the other hospital. The quality of health care services is defined by how health results are improved. Multiple factors play a role in quality enhancement. Some factors are regarding the interaction between the patient and physician. For example, whether the patient gets assurance from the responses given by the physician.