Talk:Electronic medical record

The main article for this talk page has been moved. For discussion of the new target article, go to Talk:Electronic health record.

Over 9000 Strikes Again

Some nerd at 207.74.79.75 thought he was funny and changed a statistic from 600,000 to "over 9000". I reverted it back. The original reference has been moved by the LA Times, however Electronic Health Records has the correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.170.130 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

130.215.170.130 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The charts

appear to be a hive of nonnotable websites trying to promote themselves. Does anybody agree with me that the charts should be removed? ThemFromSpace 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Link Microchip implant (human)

Could we add a link to Microchip implant (human)? Stars4change (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And say that's the future of every person's medical history, which gets lost from changing doctors often. No one knows what shots they had from birth but the chip implant will make it easy to know that info for a lifetime. It can also eliminate paper and save forests. Stars4change (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do speculation. An implantable chip also seems rather unnecessarily invasive since people can always get looked up by name and birthday and birthplace, or ID number like SSN. -- Beland (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger attempts 2009?

Please don't just redirect, but start a discussion if you think this article should be merged with EHR. Thanks Mootros (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, but when I read what was left, I didn't see anything, with the possible exception of the protocol list, that wasn't already there. I've commented at WT:WikiProject Medicine to try to get more input on the topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think they are two distinct topics. But lets see what input we get.Mootros (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with merging. I'm in the medical field though not IT, and I don't consider them different. So I doubt the average reader will; they will only be confused and scattered to and fro. If the articles' information is really redundant, then that's more reason to merge. - Draeco (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have said this before but point it out again (and I am an IT professional rather than health). An EHR is the idea of a record containing health information. That includes but is not limited to medical information. EMR implies only information relevant to medicine which is more restrictive. But still, the difference basically a minor point of language. I'd support the merging of the two articles because, for the lay person (and increasingly the expert) they are one and the same. Donama (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. (130.37.60.174 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Joris)

I agree too. pojoman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.142.232.7 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

KnowESys Hi I am new to editing Wikipedia but I do know that these are two different topics and have added a paragraph to the page that explains the difference. I have a pdf on the topic but don't know how to attach it to my reference. Help would be appreciated. —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

I agree too. Electronic health record is a much more complete and useful article.Dikteren (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

--KnowESys (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Many people in the US healthcare industry, our government, and the press use the terms electronic medical record (EMR) and electronic health record (EHR) interchangeably. However, these terms describe completely different concepts, both of which are crucial to the success of local, regional, and national goals to improve patient safety, improve the quality and efficiency of patient care, and reduce healthcare delivery costs. EHRs are reliant on EMRs being in place, and EMRs will never reach their full potential without interoperable EHRs in place. It s important to understand the differences, and to reduce confusion in the market.

So, basically, everybody except KnowESys thinks the articles should be merged?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the addition of links to this page

There are several IPs placing large numbers of search result and other links to several talk pages without any discussion or explanation other than confusing edit summaries. Could you please first discuss why these links are being added and what's meant by the edit summaries that say the edits are "required" and "legislative." Are you referring to a Wikipedia policy or some external entity that's requiring these additions or inclusion of information to the articles based on info from these links? What do these links accomplish and how are editors supposed to use them in the current and future editing of these articles? Talk pages are for discussion and clarification among editors, not as extensions of articles or an index or bibliography, so if there's a requirement to be included as part of these subjects, then the links need to be part of the actual article, not the talk page. If you need help, there are plenty of experienced editors who can help. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 20:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If this person is here to interfere my writing, it's impossible for me to do things properly

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mootros

How can ond do things without traceability....???

I'm sure that although there are so many login names by which my editions were reverted almost every time ever since I start writing here, the reliable IP address is able to figure out who is who. In this sense, the site is somehow corrupted too. Therefore, I can tell every one who is interested in my writing that I'll never ever edit the page systematically but do it in my interest unless the site also have a edit guidance directory for one to tracking and follow up

See the versions of the article before what User:Mootros was doing

--222.64.22.132 (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer my specific questions. Please respond to them before raising other issues. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 10:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See my discussion at Talk:Title 21 CFR Part 11 --222.67.200.69 (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no discussion or explanation on the page you mention, just more gibberish and dozens of links added by similar IPs. There are dozens and dozens of talk pages with similar edits and no explanation why or any corresponding addition of content (expansion templates don't count) using the links as references. Why are you adding these links? Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no legitimate discussion about the dozens of links added to numerous articles, I am removing them. Flowanda | Talk 10:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully support that. I think it's time to follow WP:EL to the letter with future links added. Mainly, we need to keep them to an absolute minimum. Donama (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Control in Electronic Medical Recrods

I feel there is much more to be discussed involving the Quality surrounding the Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Possible points could include the ability to restrict access to the document ensuring the document is edited by those with permission. The ability to create input boxes that restrict what the user can enter. Eg. Under the "Weight" input it will only allow for a numeric input rather the alphabetical. This is a minor technical addition but will ensure correct data is input. This method can also be used across the entire record, for example not allowing the user to progress to the next screen until the appropriate data has been entered (all relevant boxes has data in them). Also the joys of having an EMR is can instantly inform the user if this patient already has a file to reduce duplicate medical records. Just some things to ponder on

Ssstephens27 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are these features of current EMRs?

You might want to take a look at the WP:SOAP guideline. Talk pages are for discussions of the article itself, not for discussions of the topic of the article. just FYI. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradicting statistics

It says in the first sentence of 'Comparison with paper-based records' that "Paper-based records are still by far the most common method of recording patient information for most hospitals and practices in the U.S." But in the usage section, it states that 72% of office physicians are using basic electronic medical records. I believe the first statement is outdated data from 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.102.185 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I've removed what seems to be the outdated text. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge needed

Even if electronic health record (EHR) is sometimes defined as a collection of electronic medical records (EMRs), I don't think it makes sense for these two articles to remain separate. The sections on social issues, technology, legal context, by country listings, etc., are entirely duplicative. It's not worth keeping up two separate articles which are 90% overlapping. -- Beland (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_15#EHR.2FEMR

Strong support of merge. From the current hatnotes, the definitions that aim to distinguish the terms are:

• Electronic medical record: local computerized records in a specific health-care organization.
• Electronic health record: shared or comprehensive computerized health-care records in enterprise-wide systems.

By these definitions, I think it is better to have one single article, and explain the differences in that article, such as, from the merger discussion above, "EHRs are reliant on EMRs being in place, and EMRs will never reach their full potential without interoperable EHRs in place." With these two articles, I found it necessary to read both of them anyway to get a better idea of what is the difference between them. It would be a lot easier if we can merge similar sections, also because the sources rarely specify in a clear way whether they refer to EHRs or EMRs. I think the only contraindication to a merger would be the presence (or needed presence) of incoming internal links that need to be specific to either EHRs or EMRs, but I don't know any such link (or need of it). Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the target article should be Electronic health record, since it has a higher view count than EMR. EHR appears to be wider in scope and therefore the article is more appropriate to fit EMR in it than the other way around. This also includes the possibility that electronic medical record can in some senses be distinguished from an electronic surgical record, but EHR includes both senses. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be no contender to the merge. Also, I notice that the Electronic medical record article actually starts with "An electronic health record is...". I'm starting the merge now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the merge but I am not sure that EHR should be the name. I would have chosen EMR. Perhaps in the future if others feel the same way this issue could be revisited. It is not so important right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Stuff moved from Category:Informatics Content Review/Feedback

Positive:

The article attempts to address the many areas associated with Electronic Medical Records,it describes the overall goal and objectives of the system including its uses, advantages, quality control, legalities, technical features which are essential to address.

Suggestions:

As Electronic Medical Records are a higher quantification of current Paper based medical records, I suggest that further detail is required in terms of privacy. It would also be good if infrastructure topics are explored within the article in order to highlight its importance and reasons why EMR's haven't been implemented world wide.

The above was placed on the category page by User:PHUIII. DexDor (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The main page has been moved now, so perhaps you want to place this at Talk:Electronic health record? Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)