Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
OtherDebates

Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?

No

Michelle Greiver
Canadian Family Physician October 2015, 61 (10) 847-849;
Michelle Greiver
Family physician at North York General Hospital, Assistant Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, and CPCSSN Network Director for UTOPIAN (University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mgreiver@rogers.com
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Do electronic medical records (EMRs) improve care? There was certainly a lot of hope that they would, and quite a lot of money and effort expended based on that hope. Electronic medical records were specifically identified as critical to quality improvement activities.1 The Romanow reports had recommended the establishment of electronic health records for all Canadians.1 The First Ministers committed to accelerating the implementation of these electronic records as part of their 2003 accord on a 10-year plan to transform health care.2 Various policies supporting and subsidizing EMRs have been implemented in most Canadian provinces, and as a result, most family physicians currently report using EMRs.3

Little evidence of improvement

However, there is still little conclusive evidence that EMRs make a substantial difference in the quality of care provided to patients. Some studies have had positive results; those studies often used custom-built systems rather than commercial software. Other studies have had negative results. The net result, according to recent systematic reviews, has largely been neutral.4 More important, there is still little evidence of improvement in patient outcomes.4 Evidence about physician efficiency5 and physician or patient satisfaction continues to be conflicting.6 The return on investment certainly seems underwhelming given the high hopes, floods of money, and eons of time invested by the entire health care system.

I admit to being one of the early enthusiasts. When I implemented an EMR in 2006, I was certain that this would improve care for my patients. In fact, I was so certain that I embarked on a research project as part of my master’s thesis to prove the fact. I compared provision of preventive services covered by a pay-for-performance program for a group of physicians implementing EMRs with a group continuing to use paper records. I looked at influenza vaccinations, Papanicolaou tests, colorectal cancer screening tests, and mammograms. Much to my dismay, the results were negative (0.7% less increase in preventive services provided for the group of physicians using EMRs).7 To my even greater dismay, the study won the 2012 Canadian Family Physician Best Original Research Article award. I also ran focus groups to find out what my colleagues thought of the EMR; there were many complaints about unexpected costs, software immaturity, system crashes, lack of connectivity with external systems, and lack of ongoing training to enable more advanced use.8 Although the interviews took place in 2008, the findings likely continue to resonate 7 years later for those of us using EMRs. There were some perceived benefits; for example, one physician stated, “I think patients are pleased. You know, ‘Oh, finally, you are in the modern age, I see. Good for you.’”

What can we do about it?

This now begs the question, why are most results negative and what can we do about this? Perhaps we should look no further than Ralph Nader’s classic book on car safety, Unsafe at Any Speed.9 In the 1950s, extra styling costs were $700 (US) per car, while safety measures amounted to about $0.23 (US) per car.10 The result was an appalling death toll, which was blamed on poor drivers. It seems unproductive to blame individual physicians for failing to use their EMRs properly to obtain better results; the system is not designed to produce better results. Perhaps incentives include too much emphasis on software details that are pleasing to the eye or to EMR regulators and funders, but that actually have little effect on care. Important but hidden benefits such as efficient and interoperable database design might not have received as much attention or funding.

There are very few incentives to record patient information so that the EMR works properly to help improve care. Many of our data are in free text, which is familiar and easy to enter. However, EMRs often need structured or coded data to enable automated recalls, point-of-care reminders, and computerized decision support.11 The EMRs often have rudimentary reporting, data export, and analytic capabilities.12 As well, running a large query can crash servers. The net result is that EMR applications help record care for one patient at a time, as was the case with paper records, rather than measure and monitor quality of care in practice populations.

In addition, responsibility for running EMR queries and analyzing and interpreting results often falls to the family physician. In most companies, executives are not tasked with running queries; analysts will do this in response to queries or to produce ongoing reports on company functioning and profits. Primary care teams, including physicians, will need similar personnel to help them with data management and analysis—this is starting to happen in Ontario and Alberta. This specialized function will require a move away from autonomous practice toward larger, more organized teams.

Conclusion

Current EMRs are not making much of a difference. To enable their potential will require support for a redesign of EMR databases. We need user interfaces that make data entry for clinical decision support easy to do. As well, we require system changes, such as interoperability and functioning health information exchanges. Finally, EMRs should enable data export to applications designed for data analysis; we need funding for people to do the analyses and reporting in ways that are meaningful and usable for primary care physicians and their teams.

Without funding and regulations to support these changes, it is likely that EMRs will remain what they are today: a very expensive version of paper records.

Notes

CLOSING ARGUMENTS — NO

Michelle Greiver msc md ccfp fcfp

  • Electronic medical records were funded and promoted because they were thought to improve care.

  • The health care system did not change to allow electronic support of better care. Electronic medical records are still used in much the same ways as paper charts.

  • The overall result is no improvement in care or outcomes.

Footnotes

  • Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 852.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • The parties in these debates refute each other’s arguments in rebuttals available at www.cfp.ca. Join the discussion by clicking on Rapid Responses at www.cfp.ca.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Romanow RJ
    . Building on values. The future of health care in Canada. Saskatoon, SK: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; 2002.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Government of Canada
    . 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on health care renewal. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada; 2006. Available from: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/cards-cartes/collaboration/2003-accord-eng.php. Accessed 2015 Aug 19.
  3. 3.↵
    1. College of Family Physicians of Canada, Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
    . National Physician Survey, 2014. Results by FP/GP or other specialist, sex age and all physicians: Ontario. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2014. Available from: http://nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-ON-EN.pdf. Accessed 2015 Aug 19.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Khangura S,
    2. Grimshaw J,
    3. Moher D
    . Evidence summary: electronic health records (EHRs). Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Champlain Local Health Integration Network; 2014.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Shekelle PG,
    2. Morton SC,
    3. Keeler EB
    . Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 132. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Irani JS,
    2. Middleton JL,
    3. Marfatia R,
    4. Omana ET,
    5. D’Amico F
    . The use of electronic health records in the exam room and patient satisfaction: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22(5):553-62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Greiver M,
    2. Barnsley J,
    3. Glazier RH,
    4. Moineddin R,
    5. Harvey BJ
    . Implementation of electronic medical records. Effect on the provision of preventive services in a pay-for-performance environment. Can Fam Physician 2011;57:e381-9. Available from: www.cfp.ca/content/57/10/e381.full.pdf+html. Accessed 2015 Aug 19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Greiver M,
    2. Barnsley J,
    3. Glazier RH,
    4. Moineddin R,
    5. Harvey BJ
    . Implementation of electronic medical records. Theory-informed qualitative study. Can Fam Physician 2011;57:e390-7. Available from: www.cfp.ca/content/57/10/e390.full.pdf+html. Accessed 2015 Aug 19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Nader R
    . Unsafe at any speed: the designed-in dangers of the American automobile. New York, NY: Grossman Publishers; 1965.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Wikipedia [encyclopedia online]
    . Unsafe at any speed. Los Angeles, CA: Wikipedia Foundation Ltd; 2015. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed. Accessed 2015 Aug 19.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Baron RJ
    . Quality improvement with an electronic health record: achievable, but not automatic. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(8):549-52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Fernandopulle R,
    2. Patel N
    . How the electronic health record did not measure up to the demands of our medical home practice. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29(4):622-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 61 (10)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 61, Issue 10
1 Oct 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?
Michelle Greiver
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2015, 61 (10) 847-849;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?
Michelle Greiver
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2015, 61 (10) 847-849;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Little evidence of improvement
    • What can we do about it?
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • What if electronic medical records were unnecessary?
  • Les dossiers médicaux électroniques améliorent-ils la qualité des soins?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Right tool for the job
  • An EMR-driven talk
  • Response
  • Rebuttal: Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?: Yes
  • What if electronic medical records were unnecessary?
  • Refutation : Les dossiers medicaux electroniques ameliorent-ils la qualite des soins?: Oui
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Will the new opioid guidelines harm more people than they help?
  • Will the new opioid guidelines harm more people than they help?
  • Should peanut be allowed in schools?
Show more Debates

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire