I n this month’s Practice Pearls column, “What You Should Know About EMRs,” the authors take on the important topic of the transition in the healthcare profession from one mode of technology (the paper chart) to another (electronic records). Historically, such technological transitions are either accepted with great fanfare — especially those that offer a fantastic new capability like the telephone — or with slowness and skepticism given innovations that seemingly offer only machine-efficiency for something already performed by craft. In this regard, the typewriter and the EMR seem to have much in common. Slow Market Growth When first shown to the public at an industrial fair in the mid 1800s, the typewriter attracted little interest. Many professionals felt a typed letter would appear rude to potential clients, as there would be no personal touch. Writers believed that the typewriter would blunt the creativity that flows from wrist to pen to paper. As a result, the market growth for this new invention that eventually revolutionized personal and professional communication was disappointingly slow. In the first 5 years of production, an average of only 1,000 machines per year were sold with a price tag of $125 apiece. Like today’s EMRs, there were many typewriter manufacturers, vendors, styles and competing formats (eventually the QWERTY keyboard prevailed and is now universal). And, like the typewriter, EMRs may at first seem to turn something highly personalized into something mechanical. However, the EMR will prove to be at least as technologically important as the adoption of the typewriter — and arguably more so. Dermatologists will someday tell their residents, “In the old days, we used to record everything by hand and store it all in file rooms bigger than our office.” The Benefits of New Technology The learning curve in adopting the electronic medical record may for some still seem terribly inefficient for the reasons accurately cited by Dr. Philip Werschler and colleagues in “Practice Pearls” on page 28. But, they are also correct that it is a matter of when, not if, EMRs will become standard in primary care. We will need to learn about these systems. EMR installments are expanding, lured by market forces that pay a premium for efficiency and effectiveness. The potential benefit of EMR systems is far more than just displacing information from the file room to the computer room. It allows clinical information, the “raw material” of the medical profession, to be effectively harnessed, giving us, the doctor, greater power to benefit the patient. The EMR revolution places at the fingertips of the doctor all of the information that is relevant to treating the patient and the ability to set algorithms that track patient outcomes or flag need for care. Connecting The Pieces Eventually, EMRs will coalesce to form a large information grid connecting patients, providers and administrators; allowing communication across practices or “silos.” As a further benefit, researchers will be more easily able to study healthcare quality, helping practices continuously improve. The time and effort that pioneer dermatologists devote today in implementing, refining, and changing EMR systems could make large strides in how future dermatologists practice, and how patients benefit from their services. And this point deserves emphasis. While there is agreement on what an EMR is and how it functions technically, there are still many ideas but little practical experience to how to exactly best use EMRs to improve patient care. The implication is that dermatologists can shape future EMR systems for their specialty by implementing them now rather than later. So the advice of Dr. Werschler and the other columnists is timely. Catch the wave.
EMRs: A Powerful Tool
I n this month’s Practice Pearls column, “What You Should Know About EMRs,” the authors take on the important topic of the transition in the healthcare profession from one mode of technology (the paper chart) to another (electronic records). Historically, such technological transitions are either accepted with great fanfare — especially those that offer a fantastic new capability like the telephone — or with slowness and skepticism given innovations that seemingly offer only machine-efficiency for something already performed by craft. In this regard, the typewriter and the EMR seem to have much in common. Slow Market Growth When first shown to the public at an industrial fair in the mid 1800s, the typewriter attracted little interest. Many professionals felt a typed letter would appear rude to potential clients, as there would be no personal touch. Writers believed that the typewriter would blunt the creativity that flows from wrist to pen to paper. As a result, the market growth for this new invention that eventually revolutionized personal and professional communication was disappointingly slow. In the first 5 years of production, an average of only 1,000 machines per year were sold with a price tag of $125 apiece. Like today’s EMRs, there were many typewriter manufacturers, vendors, styles and competing formats (eventually the QWERTY keyboard prevailed and is now universal). And, like the typewriter, EMRs may at first seem to turn something highly personalized into something mechanical. However, the EMR will prove to be at least as technologically important as the adoption of the typewriter — and arguably more so. Dermatologists will someday tell their residents, “In the old days, we used to record everything by hand and store it all in file rooms bigger than our office.” The Benefits of New Technology The learning curve in adopting the electronic medical record may for some still seem terribly inefficient for the reasons accurately cited by Dr. Philip Werschler and colleagues in “Practice Pearls” on page 28. But, they are also correct that it is a matter of when, not if, EMRs will become standard in primary care. We will need to learn about these systems. EMR installments are expanding, lured by market forces that pay a premium for efficiency and effectiveness. The potential benefit of EMR systems is far more than just displacing information from the file room to the computer room. It allows clinical information, the “raw material” of the medical profession, to be effectively harnessed, giving us, the doctor, greater power to benefit the patient. The EMR revolution places at the fingertips of the doctor all of the information that is relevant to treating the patient and the ability to set algorithms that track patient outcomes or flag need for care. Connecting The Pieces Eventually, EMRs will coalesce to form a large information grid connecting patients, providers and administrators; allowing communication across practices or “silos.” As a further benefit, researchers will be more easily able to study healthcare quality, helping practices continuously improve. The time and effort that pioneer dermatologists devote today in implementing, refining, and changing EMR systems could make large strides in how future dermatologists practice, and how patients benefit from their services. And this point deserves emphasis. While there is agreement on what an EMR is and how it functions technically, there are still many ideas but little practical experience to how to exactly best use EMRs to improve patient care. The implication is that dermatologists can shape future EMR systems for their specialty by implementing them now rather than later. So the advice of Dr. Werschler and the other columnists is timely. Catch the wave.
I n this month’s Practice Pearls column, “What You Should Know About EMRs,” the authors take on the important topic of the transition in the healthcare profession from one mode of technology (the paper chart) to another (electronic records). Historically, such technological transitions are either accepted with great fanfare — especially those that offer a fantastic new capability like the telephone — or with slowness and skepticism given innovations that seemingly offer only machine-efficiency for something already performed by craft. In this regard, the typewriter and the EMR seem to have much in common. Slow Market Growth When first shown to the public at an industrial fair in the mid 1800s, the typewriter attracted little interest. Many professionals felt a typed letter would appear rude to potential clients, as there would be no personal touch. Writers believed that the typewriter would blunt the creativity that flows from wrist to pen to paper. As a result, the market growth for this new invention that eventually revolutionized personal and professional communication was disappointingly slow. In the first 5 years of production, an average of only 1,000 machines per year were sold with a price tag of $125 apiece. Like today’s EMRs, there were many typewriter manufacturers, vendors, styles and competing formats (eventually the QWERTY keyboard prevailed and is now universal). And, like the typewriter, EMRs may at first seem to turn something highly personalized into something mechanical. However, the EMR will prove to be at least as technologically important as the adoption of the typewriter — and arguably more so. Dermatologists will someday tell their residents, “In the old days, we used to record everything by hand and store it all in file rooms bigger than our office.” The Benefits of New Technology The learning curve in adopting the electronic medical record may for some still seem terribly inefficient for the reasons accurately cited by Dr. Philip Werschler and colleagues in “Practice Pearls” on page 28. But, they are also correct that it is a matter of when, not if, EMRs will become standard in primary care. We will need to learn about these systems. EMR installments are expanding, lured by market forces that pay a premium for efficiency and effectiveness. The potential benefit of EMR systems is far more than just displacing information from the file room to the computer room. It allows clinical information, the “raw material” of the medical profession, to be effectively harnessed, giving us, the doctor, greater power to benefit the patient. The EMR revolution places at the fingertips of the doctor all of the information that is relevant to treating the patient and the ability to set algorithms that track patient outcomes or flag need for care. Connecting The Pieces Eventually, EMRs will coalesce to form a large information grid connecting patients, providers and administrators; allowing communication across practices or “silos.” As a further benefit, researchers will be more easily able to study healthcare quality, helping practices continuously improve. The time and effort that pioneer dermatologists devote today in implementing, refining, and changing EMR systems could make large strides in how future dermatologists practice, and how patients benefit from their services. And this point deserves emphasis. While there is agreement on what an EMR is and how it functions technically, there are still many ideas but little practical experience to how to exactly best use EMRs to improve patient care. The implication is that dermatologists can shape future EMR systems for their specialty by implementing them now rather than later. So the advice of Dr. Werschler and the other columnists is timely. Catch the wave.
