Talk:Electronic health record

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge-arrow.svg Electronic medical record was merged into this article on August 3, 2013. See also Talk:Electronic medical record for previous discussions related to the content of this article.

Outdated picture[edit]

The picture in the lede (File:Electronic_medical_record.jpg) needs to be updated with a newer sample image if we can find one. Looks like that image is from 2009ish, and EMRs have changed a lot since then. Per WP:SCREENSHOT, screenshots should "portray the software in its most common form", which is definitely not an almost decade-old screenshot. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 15:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Electronic health record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Time Requirements for Electronic Health Record Use[edit]

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)
@Nbauman and Bondegezou: 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. Adamsblame
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)

Comparison with paper-based records[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 London 14:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)