Electronic medical records not a cure-all

() Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Full Story »

Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV - via Washington Post
Stats Help
# Tweets: 12 (as of 2009-10-24)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Oct 24, 2009 - 10:33 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
2.9
by Chris Finnie - Oct. 25, 2009

First off, as somebody who works with Silicon Valley companies, I have to tell you that 4 years is practically a lifetime in technology. Since his first quote is from the author of a study published in 2005, that's already dated. Some of the other, more recent quotes, are probably more accurate. In fact, a recent outage of fiber-optic telephone lines in my area crippled clinics that rely on electronic records. So there are undoubtedly some flaws. That said, other studies repeatedly ... More »

A fairly one-sided look at the issue that doesn't explore the downsides of the current system at all, or many of the successes of the new systems. ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
3.1
by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Oct. 24, 2009

A biased report one possible reason being a matter this complex should have had more then one author.

Having been an IT manager in a medical practice that tried to go electronic 100% in 2003 I can understand some of the problems but we by no means ... More »

Today, barely 8 percent of hospitals have even a basic electronic medical system. Only 17 percent of physicians use electronic records, and many of those are uninstalling ... More »

See Full Review » (18 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.0

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (25% confidence)
Quality
2.9
Fairness
1.0
Information
3.5
Insight
3.0
Style
2.5
Accuracy
2.0
Balance
1.0
Context
3.0
Depth
2.5
Expertise
3.5
Originality
3.5
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.3
Recommendation
2.5
Credibility
4.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!