| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Toronto, Ontario
My hospital, like thousands of others, is moving towards a paperless medical record. When I recently could not find important medical information in the paper chart of one of my patients, I was told (by the "authorities") to look it up on the computer, that the paper record was on its way out, and is no longer a hospital priority.
I now envision each new batch of interns and residents having to learn to use a drawing program, or worse, a scanning program, just to make a quick sketch of an operation or to draw a quick picture of a skin rash.
More important though, when the computer network is "down" or even just quite sluggish (hardly a rare occurrence where I work), it is important to think about the kinds of clinical information one can still obtain in a hurry should something clinically untoward (like a seizure) suddenly happen to the patient. Or, imagine the surgeon who wants to recheck the MRI image series before proceeding further in a difficult operation, only to find that the network is too slow to be useful.
In a cardiac arrest setting (we average about one a day), it is particularly important that the resuscitation team leader be able to develop a treatment plan quickly with no prior familiarity with the patient. If accessing the required information requires an endless series of menu selections on a sometimes overloaded network, it is not hard to see how it might be quicker to thumb through the paper record manually.
Should there be requirements (by hospital policy or by accreditation agencies) for a minimal paper chart that at least documents the basics, such as diseases, medications and allergies?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |