Electronic medical record (EMR) is “an enabling technology that allows physicians to pursue more powerful quality improvement programs than is possible with paper-based records” (Hede, 2013, p. 271). Nevertheless, realizing quality improvement does not come without a cost. Physicians encounter a myriad of challenges when using electronic medical records. The challenges include the initial cost of installing an EMR system, time costs, and technological costs. Despite the costs, electronic medical record boosts the quality of healthcare because it is readily available and portable. Even though electronic medical record enhance the quality of health services, it invades on patients’ privacy.
The Case for Availability and Portability
Electronic medical record (EMR) has become popular among health practitioners. The primary reason for EMR popularity is because it is readily available. Miller and Sim (2004) argue that technology has made it easy for doctors to create varied methods of storing data. Besides, technology has enabled patients to communicate with healthcare providers and chose the most appropriate health alternatives. According to Miller and Sim (2004), the electronic medical record is available in a majority of the doctors’ offices worldwide. They allege that most healthcare providers use EMR systems to retrieve the medical history of their patients. Miller and Sim (2004) claim that the desire to offer quality healthcare calls for efficient access to patient information at all times. Therefore, clinicians had to look for ways to share health information without compromising the patients’ privacy. It marked the onset of electronic medical record system. Today, over 75% of doctors have electronic medical record systems. Besides, the U.S. federal government has invested in the EMR system to ensure that patients and health providers have access to medical records at all times. According to Miller, Sim and Newman (2003), most healthcare facilities store medical records in multiple databases that are available to patients and doctors. Prior to EMR, patients were advised not to visit multiple health facilities to enable doctors to keep a consistent record of their medical history. The introduction of EMR meant that a patient did not have to visit a single health facility at all time. Doctors could promptly retrieve patients’ data at any health center, thanks to the EMR system.
Apart from being readily available, the electronic medical record is also portable. Technological advancement has resulted in the invention of multiple ehealth tools and applications that enable healthcare providers to carry and relay patient data without challenges. According to Walker (2005), the introduction of Medi-Chips has made it possible for patients to store and carry medical records while traveling. In Massachusetts, independent hospitals have established a grid system that allows them to share data through a web portal. Each autonomous hospital keeps its electronic medical records and utilizes a secure network to share data with other hospitals. Apart from Medi-Chips and grid systems, there are portable flash drives that are used to store and carry medical records. The data stored on the flash drive is encrypted to safeguard it from unauthorized users.
Case for Privacy
One reason healthcare providers fear using electronic medical records is its vulnerability to privacy and security breach. Many people have access to shared electronic medical records. Consequently, opponents of EMR consider it as a severe invasion of community and patient privacy. Promoters of EMR argue that electronic documents are secured through passwords. Only the authorized people can access the data, thus safeguarding the privacy of the patient. Nevertheless, this does not mean that EMRs are not prone to a security breach. In the United States, healthcare providers reported 767 cases of security breaches between 2006 and 2012. Such an enormous number of cases is a clear indication that EMRs amount to invasion of patient privacy. Barrows and Clayton (2011) claim, “While hospitals keep tab on who accesses the charts of patients, they are powerless to act against a meddlesome pharmacist who looks up the urine toxicology on his daughter’s fiancé to know if he has a cocaine habit” (p. 141). The fact that it is hard to hold the users of EMR accountable for their actions gives rogue medical practitioners and individuals with access to electronic data an opportunity to infringe on the privacy of patients.
The Writer’s Opinion
As the demand for sharing medical data among healthcare providers intensifies, a majority of the medics are likely to adopt EMR systems. Most health facilities have promised to institute strict privacy policies to safeguard patient data. However, it is hard for doctors to recognize individuals that wish to access patient data for malicious purposes. Thus, healthcare providers should ensure that they emphasize on security and protection when developing EMR systems.
The establishment of the electronic medical record has enhanced the quality of healthcare as doctors can access patient data from other health facilities. Electronic medical records are not only readily available, but also portable. Flash drives and Medi-Chips enable patients to carry their medical records electronically. The primary limitation of EMR is that it is accessible to many people, therefore compromising patient privacy. Healthcare providers must enhance the security of EMR systems as a way to safeguard patient privacy.
References
Barrows, R., & Clayton, P. (2011). Privacy, confidentiality, and electronic medical records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 3(2), 139-148.
Hede, K. (2013). Portable electronic medical records are closer to reality, but not without hitches. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 99(4), 268-273.
Miller, R., & Sim, I. (2004). Physicians’ use of electronic medical records: Barriers and solutions. Health Affairs, 23(2), 116-126.
Miller, R., Sim, I., & Newman, J. (2003). Electronic medical records: Lessons from small physician practices. Oakland: California Healthcare Foundation.
Walker, J. (2005). Electronic medical records and healthcare transformation. Health Affairs, 24(5), 1118-1120.