My organisation has done many EHR/EMR, PAS and EMPI implementations using systems from third party vendors (i.e. I don't have any dog in the which-system-is-best fight). With modern systems (i.e. applications developed during and after the HIPAA act) we have seen significant reductions in error rates relating to drug interactions and dosing.
> What people don't tell you is with the electronic health record, they also required that all these required elements be "charted" - on EVERY visit. So in new system pretty soon charts become a pages of boilerplate per visit - copy and paste stuff. It was not useful anymore to do a case history from this chart.
I did not know we were meant to keep this a secret. Yes, it is important that you record every encounter with "boilerplate" code. There are funding impacts (as case complexity rises with these lifestyle and prior history codes). If a patient presents with a cough and blood in the sputum, it is important to know that they were once a smoker. If a patient presents with a broken leg and they have a history of diabetes, their treatment will be considerably more difficult and expensive.
> And in this new system, every sysadmin could basically snoop on anyone (all in the name of patient coordination) as could lots of others who just ended up with the extra permissions because the system was so locked down we all basically had to be superusers.
I have worked on these systems as well. I find more recent systems to be far better better at accountability with regards to patient record access tracking. It has been a long evolutionary path, however.