Are we ready for EHRs?(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

Electronic health record systems are promoted seemingly more for the sake of acquiring and using the technology than for specific benefits that cannot be gained in some other way ("Feds Outline Strategies for Increasing Use of EHRs," Sept. 1, 2004, p. 33).

Improving patient health status is one reason used to justify the use of EHRs. If indeed that is a goal, where is a systematic study of the many potential methods to improve patient health status, with a systematic assessment of all methods?

Another reason to justify promotion of EHRs is to reduce medical errors. What are the real numbers, decreasing the error from 1% to 0.5%, or what? Where are the data, from an unbiased source, to show that the number of errors that have been prevented by EHRs substantially impacted patient outcomes?

EHRs require computers, which are prone to several deficiencies. For example, too many programs are not self-explanatory and require a learning curve of time.

Hardware used for EHRs is subject to breakdown. Hard copy records, on paper, do not have this deficiency.

Computers are at risk for exposure to hackers. Devices such as firewalls and obstructing dams, called filters, are then employed, with variable success.

In spite of all the above problems, EHRs could actually have some benefit. For example, if a computer ...