Electronic Medical Records
by Natalie Knight
The New York Times article “The Ups and Downs of Electronic
Medical Records” written by Milt Freudenheim is an informative account of newly
installed electronic methods of recording information of patients. Freudenheim
includes details of various doctors throughout the country of differing
specializations. One general issue with electronics, as he highlights, is the
necessary tolerance for things such as crashes and bugs that threaten all
technology. Many of the doctors featured by Freudenheim agreed on the fact that
electronics could not possibly fit all the necessary aspects of a doctor or
patient. Dr. David J. Brailer, a national coordinator for health information
technology, originally supported the idea of incorporating technology into
doctors’ offices, but later stated, “The current
information tools are still difficult to set up. They are hard to use. They fit
only parts of what doctors do, and not the rest.” However, other doctors and
clinics have found new technology helpful, not limiting. For example, the Mayo
Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota has overcome many issues with the technology.
They are now making the best use out of it, and have detailed plans of what to
do if something fails.
Overall,
it appears that technology will eventually benefit both doctors and patients.
Despite the fact that there are still many issues that need to be worked out,
the advantages over handwritten medical records are tremendous. As one doctor
states, typed records eliminate the contemplation over bad handwriting. Apps
have been created that patients can access on their phones, which allow them to
retrieve previous records from certain doctors and healthcare centers. However,
since the whole idea of technology in the medical field is relatively new to
many medical centers, the kinks that go along with it are numerous. It is
important for doctors to get these worked out before transferring all
information.
It
seems that, based on his research, Freudenheim is predominantly against the use
of electronic medical records. Though he does underline a few benefits of the
technology, including accessibility to medical records, he mostly focuses on
the downsides and flaws. He highlights the fact that there are many issues with
the systems currently, but he does not go into detail about how the technology
will eventually help society. These
benefits are innumerable, and Freudenheim should have focused more on them. He
also kept citing more and more doctors, without giving readers a chance to
process his thoughts.
I read Natalie Knight’s report on “The Ups and Downs of Electronic Medical Records”. I enjoyed how she clearly presented both sides of the argument over new technology in medical offices, just like the article did. I also thought it really set the stage for the review so there were no questions about either side of the main argument. Another thing that I thought Natalie did well on was quoting the information. In her first paragraph she used a quote that explains one of the issues and it shows a shift in the argument, portraying both sides, which I again thought was a necessity. A third thing that I thought was well presented was the critique of the article. I thought it was very detailed and showed a few examples that I personally wouldn’t have thought of. One being “he does not go into detail about how technology will eventually help society”. I thought it was good how she was looking for more information than what was given.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading this review and article I was impressed to learn that medical technology only fits some parts of what doctors need in keeping records. With all the technology that is around today I would’ve thought that there would be very detailed programs that highlight all of a doctor’s needs. Another thing that I learned, that I probably should’ve known but never paid any attention to, was the use of medical applications on a smart phone. I didn’t realize that a person could receive all their previous medical records on a smartphone, and make keeping documents a lot easier and portable.
Altogether I thought this article was well written and showed many sides. I do not think there is anything that Natalie could’ve done better because she showed both sides of the argument and explained her belief and the writer’s belief. She incorporated a lot of good and important information that was necessary in understanding the article and she did not overdo it with too many facts, like the author of the original article did.