When it comes to electronic health and medical records, there are few limitations to the capabilities of the digital technology itself. From the mechanical ability and methods for storage and transmission, to the ways they can be accessed, new and more advanced systems are becoming available every day.
However, definite limitations and issues arise from the implementation and use of EMRs and PHRs. You may have already reviewed the hurdles created by the questions of privacy and security of these types of records. Additional problems exist with the local nature of the systems currently in use, and the lack of standards as EMR systems are adopted across the country.
One concern is access while away from home. Most systems are locality-based. Doctors with admitting rights to a hospital may share their records with that hospital and vice versa. Doctors within a practice, large or small, will share records with each other, and sometimes with specialties that complement their own work. Some insurance companies provide access to their records, but the territory covered by that insurance company may be limited to a region within one or more states.
The local nature of these existing EMR systems means that if you venture away from home, perhaps on a business trip or on vacation, and you get hurt or sick, then your records won't be accessible to the providers who care for you in your alternate location.
One exception to the local area limitation is the Veteran's Administration which has developed an EMR system called VistA. A veteran who uses the VA healthcare system will find access to his VA records just as easy while traveling anywhere in the country, as he does when he is home.
Patients who make use of a PHR (personal health record) make it easier to access their medical records when they are away from home. When records are kept online, those records are easily accessible with a password, which you can give any doctor, no matter where in the world she is located. Or, if you carry information on a travel (thumb) drive, and it is identified as containing medical information or health records, it can be used by providers in any location.
Lack of Standardization Inhibits Use of Electronic Medical Records in More Than One Locality
The reason access to electronic patient records is not more geographically favorable, and one of the reasons use of electronic medical records have not expanded more quickly is because few, if any, standards exist. The systems being used in one location don't necessarily talk to systems being used in other locations. The databases are not accessible by multiple systems.
A good metaphor for this problem is like the struggle between beta and VHS in the days when standards did not exist for videotape. Today's more current metaphor is the struggle between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray as the platform for high definition playback.
And so it is with recording patients' medical records. Until a standard is developed, many doctors' practices or facilities do not want to spend the money on one system, only to learn later that the other system was the one that became the standard.
However, unlike Beta or Blu-Ray systems, there are at least dozens and possibly hundreds of electronic medical record keeping systems that developers and sales organizations hope will become THE standard.
Further concerns and issues exist regarding the privacy and security of electronic patient health and medical records. A wise patient is aware of all of them.
Learn More:
- What is an EMR (Electronic Medical Record)?
- What is a PHR (Personal Health Record)?
- What is an EMR / PHR Hybrid System?
- The History of EMRs and PHRs
- The Benefits of Using Electronic Medical Records or Personal Health Records
- What Records are Kept in an EMR or PHR?
- A Lack of Standards Limit the Use of Electronic Medical Record Keeping Systems
- Limitations of the Use of Electronic Medical Records Due to Privacy and Security Concerns
