Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (11467)	11/18/2009 9:40:36 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

But yesterday you opposed computerizing medical records because we're too far ahead of the curve. I'm just not convinced the EMR situation is ripe. Enough. The software is as good as it can be right now, but I've not seen one that is as efficient as the tried-and-true methods that were in use 10 years ago. As I pointed out yesterday, the interface to data collection systems isn't ready. To put in in perspective, I have a small cardiology practice I work with that has been on EMR for 3 years. One doctor practice. This system has a total of 180,000 scans that have been put into the system thus far. Scans, of course, represent a slow, manual operation where there is no true data interface. I would be much more favorable toward these systems if the volume of manually entered data could be reduced. As it now stands, when radiology delivers a report, it must be scanned. When another specialty renders a report, it must be scanned. Reference lab data can general be stored as ASCII but pretty much every thing else is scanned, a highly inefficient process both for storage and retrieval. There are numerous other problems, however. I think a looming problem is the lack of any standard "health care id".