Would a paper-based scan of a paper-based record be an EHR? What are 2 limitations and advantages of such a system based on scans only?
Would a paper-based scan of a paper-based record be an EHR? What are 2 limitations and advantages of such a system based on scans only? Since beginning my pursuit of a Masters degree in eHealth, I have noticed a great deal of variability in what can be considered an electronic health record (EHR). According to the National Alliance for Health Information Technology, an electronic health record is a record of health-related information on an individual that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be created, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff across more than one health care organization1. When using this definition to assess whether or not a paper-based scan of a health record should be considered an EHR, there are a couple key words that I paid attention to. First, the EHR must be created, managed, and consulted. When considering a paper-based scan of a health record, the record is created when it is scanned into the clinic or hospitals patient system. Once the scan is uploaded, these documents can be managed and organized within the system. Given current technology, however, this method of managing records is not ideal. When physicians or other healthcare professionals consult this record for future reference, I believe it meets the minimum criteria, but again this situation is not ideal. The second part of this definition that I focused on was that in an EHR, patient records must be accessible across more than one health care organization, which implies interoperability. As scanned paper records can be sent between healthcare organizations, I believe having scanned patient records again meets the minimum criteria. Although I believe a paper-based scan of a patient record meets the minimum criteria for an EHR as outlined by the National Alliance for Health Information Technology, I do not believe a paper-based scanning system exemplifies the true potential of an EHR. Systems that…; Would a paper-based scan of a paper-based record be an EHR? What are 2 limitations and advantages of such a system based on scans only? Since beginning my pursuit of a Masters degree in eHealth, I have noticed a great deal of variability in what can be considered an electronic health record (EHR). According to the National Alliance for Health Information Technology, an electronic health record is a record of health-related information on an individual that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be created, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff across more than one health care organization1. When using this definition to assess whether or not a paper-based scan of a health record should be considered an EHR, there are a couple key words that I paid attention to. First, the EHR must be created, managed, and consulted. When considering a paper-based scan of a health record, the record is created when it is scanned into the clinic or hospitals patient system. Once the scan is uploaded, these documents can be managed and organized within the system. Given current technology, however, this method of managing records is not ideal. When physicians or other healthcare professionals consult this record for future reference, I believe it meets the minimum criteria, but again this situation is not ideal. The second part of this definition that I focused on was that in an EHR, patient records must be accessible across more than one health care organization, which implies interoperability. As scanned paper records can be sent between healthcare organizations, I believe having scanned patient records again meets the minimum criteria. Although I believe a paper-based scan of a patient record meets the minimum criteria for an EHR as outlined by the National Alliance for Health Information Technology, I do not believe a paper-based scanning system exemplifies the true potential of an EHR. Systems that…
