While generally supportive of the use of EHRs, the author(s) take an almost fatalistic approach to it, i.e., “Well, looks like this whole computer fad isn’t going away. Might as well make the best of it.”
The authors relate a story of one physician who dictated an operative note before the operation and who was revealed to have done so only because electronic meta data made the discovery possible. The authors seem to be concerned that juries don’t understand why doctors might write about things as though they’ve already happened before they’ve actually happened. Hmm, can’t imagine why somebody ought to have a problem with that.
The article is really pretty well balanced and merely points out that there are still quite a few unknowns when it comes to electronic health records. I just can’t help myself but to poke fun at the hysteria of these doctors. They seem to think that anything that might expose the truth is a threat to their way of life and the attitude comes through pretty loud and clear in articles about medical malpractice.
If you’re interested at all in the recent effort to get health care providers to use a digital record keeping system, the article is worth a read.