Electronic medical records and quality of cancer care.

ABSTRACT

The implementation of electronic medical records (EMR) systems was mandated by the U.S. federal government in large part due to research indicating that difficulty accessing clinical data was one of the most common causes of preventable deaths. Several assumptions were implicit in this mandate, including the assumption that the implementation of EMR would indeed improve clinicians' access to clinical data, that implementation of EMR would pose little to no risk to patients, and that the clinical benefit of improved access to clinical data would outweigh any risks that might arise. As detailed in this review, both formal research and extensive experiential observation have called all three assumptions into question. Specifically, as detailed below, there is clear evidence that EMR systems are associated with multiple specific risks to patients, whereas few, if any, scientifically rigorous outcomes-based studies have demonstrated that the potential benefits of EMR outweigh the known risks. In addition, there is currently little to no scientifically rigorous evidence that EMR systems constitute a cost-effective methodology for improving patient outcomes.