1. everyone should have an electronic health record that is interoperable
2. not everyone might need one, and the most vulnerable and those with chronic conditions are those who most need them and probably are also those least technologically inclined to learn how to use them or even access them, but I am overgeneralizing
3. at least physicians should grant an "access level view" of their EMR records to patients - from anywhere
4. personal health records should be the master record for all patients - one version is the clinically legal one, and the other is the version patients themselves control and annotate
5. a provincial or national architecture won't work successfully, as has been discussed elsewhere on this blog
6. we should all get started by insisting with our family physicians for a personal health record - the technicalities on how they can be interoperable or mobile to other healthcare clinics can be left to later (if it can't ideally be built into the system from the start)
7. start keeping your own electronic records of your health information
8. subscribe to a "stand alone" personal health record if all else fails
Medical records should follow patients, health staff say
Thunder Bay medical professionals struggle to get accurate data with new patients
CBC News
Posted: Mar 14, 2013 12:42 PM ET
Last Updated: Mar 14, 2013 12:59 PM ET
Health care providers in Thunder Bay say they often have to play detective to piece together new patients' medical histories.
The head of the Anishnawbe Mushkiki Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic said a lot of new patients had family doctors who retired or left their practices. The patients never received their medical records and often don't know how to get them.
"And then when some attempts are made to get their records, there's a fairly often hefty cost associated with it that some people just can't afford to pay,” Deborah McGoldrick said.
She noted clinics don't have the money to pay for the medical files either.
Health-care workers track down information, with a patient's permission, from electronic hospital records and from labs, pharmacies and specialists.
Patient information can be vague
They also take a thorough history from patients themselves.
However, the medical record is an important tool to ensure the information is complete, McGoldrick said.
"[Patients] just may say, 'I know I have diabetes,' but they're very vague about ... the course of it and what's been done for it,” she said.
“So having some kind of record to … refer to is always good and always backs up ... what a client has been telling you."
McGoldrick added that medical records can also save time in diagnosing health issues.
"You've done some ... general screening and all of the sudden you find ... this client's got an abnormality that has been well-documented in the past and there's been a lot of investigation done on it,” she said.
“The client didn't relate this to you and now you've sort of duplicated things to find out stuff that we already knew."
Better system needed
Kristin Shields, a manager with the NorWest Community Health Centre, agreed it's a challenge to get a comprehensive picture of a new patient's health background without access to previous medical records.
"The difficulty really is it takes provider time,” Shields said.
“But more importantly, it really requires that the patient is able to recall exactly who they've seen, approximately when and for what types of service."
Shields said it's especially important for health care workers to have past records for clients with chronic conditions.
"They have very complex cases,” she said.
“They've often seen a lot of different care providers, whether that's other primary care providers or specialists."
McGoldrick added that a better system is needed for accessing patient records. She said medical records should be considered part of patient care and suggested the cost of transferring them be covered by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
No comments:
Post a Comment