ABSTRACT
This article explores the current reasons why orthopedic surgeons might consider the adoption of an electronic medical record system in their practices today. The costs and benefits as well as the barriers to implementation are discussed.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Orthopedics/organization & administration , Practice Management, Medical , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/economics , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/standards , Costs and Cost Analysis , Decision Making , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/economics , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/standards , Microcomputers , Orthopedics/economics , Practice Management, Medical/economicsSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/economics , Economics, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/economics , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Diffusion of Innovation , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/supply & distribution , Systems Integration , Tax Exemption/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , United States Government AgenciesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/standards , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Patient Access to Records , Practice Management, Medical , Access to Information/legislation & jurisprudence , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/economics , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/legislation & jurisprudence , Organizational Policy , Patient Access to Records/economics , Patient Access to Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Physician-Patient Relations , Practice Management, Medical/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Legislation, Hospital , Physician Self-Referral/legislation & jurisprudence , Clinical Pharmacy Information Systems/instrumentation , Diffusion of Innovation , Hospital-Physician Relations , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/instrumentation , United StatesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/legislation & jurisprudence , Systems Integration , Certification/legislation & jurisprudence , Fraud/legislation & jurisprudence , Physician Self-Referral/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , United States Dept. of Health and Human ServicesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Computer Security/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/standards , Computer Security/standards , Guideline Adherence , Practice Management, Medical/legislation & jurisprudence , Practice Management, Medical/organization & administration , Risk Management , United StatesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/standards , Guideline Adherence , Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , Practice Management, Medical/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Practice Management, Medical/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Computer Security/legislation & jurisprudence , Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , Practice Management, Medical/legislation & jurisprudence , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Consultants , Humans , Internet , Marketing , Medicaid , Medicare , United StatesSubject(s)
Ambulatory Care Information Systems/organization & administration , Computer Communication Networks , Risk Management/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care Information Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Appointments and Schedules , Computer Communication Networks/legislation & jurisprudence , Computer Security/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Prescriptions , Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , Humans , Insurance Claim Reporting , Medical Records , Referral and Consultation , Risk Management/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesABSTRACT
In 1991, about 150 general practitioners in 37 health care units in the county of Oslo introduced computerized systems of case records which replaced the previous paper records. The hardware units were located outside the units, and were physically interconnected by a large computer network within the county of Oslo. By losing physical contact, the general practitioners also lost control of their patient records. The files could be looked into and manipulated with or without the doctors' knowledge. It was no longer clear who was responsible for the computerized case records. These experiences are discussed, paying attention to the Norwegian legislation and official regulations in the area. The conclusions are that a health care unit using EDP should have its hardware at the unit itself. The chief doctor of the unit should be responsible for the daily management of the EDP-unit, and for safeguarding the confidentiality of the patient records.