Electronic health record

Terminology

The terms electronic health record (EHR), electronic patient record (EPR), and electronic medical record (EMR) have often been used interchangeably, but "subtle" differences exist. The EHR is a more longitudinal collection of the electronic health information of individual patients or populations. The EMR, in contrast, is the patient record created by providers for specific encounters in hospitals and ambulatory environments and can serve as a data source for an EHR.

EMRs are essentially digital versions of the paper documents used in a clinician's office, typically functioning as an internal system within a practice. An EMR includes the medical and treatment history of patients treated by that specific practice.

In contrast, a personal health record (PHR) is an electronic application for recording individual medical data that the individual patient controls and may make available to health providers.

Comparison with paper-based records

While there is ongoing debate regarding the advantages of electronic health records compared with paper records, the research literature presents a more nuanced view of their benefits and limitations.

Increasing discontent and burnout among healthcare professionals is well documented as of 2023, with several studies finding that a leading cause of job frustration and increasing stress for most doctors and nurses is the increasing burden of increasingly complex record-keeping, paperwork, and administrative workloads.. Proponents of EHR note that these systems can substantially reduce such burdens, for example cutting spent on insurance eligibility tasks by more than 80%.

But along with increased convenience, transparency, portability, and accessibility, there is also an increased risk that sensitive information may be accessed by unauthorized persons or unscrupulous users (versus paper medical records). This is acknowledged by the increased security requirements for electronic medical records included in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and by large-scale breaches in confidential records reported by EMR users.

Meanwhile, handwritten paper medical records may be poorly legible, which can contribute to medical errors. Pre-printed forms, standardization of abbreviations, and standards for penmanship were encouraged to improve the reliability of paper medical records. An example of possible medical errors is the administration of medication. Medication is an intervention that can turn a person's status from stable to unstable very quickly. With paper documentation it is very easy to not properly document the administration of medication, the time given, or errors such as giving the "wrong drug, dose, form, or not checking for allergies," and could affect the patient negatively. It has been reported that these errors have been reduced by "55-83%" because records are now online and require specific steps to avoid these errors.

Electronic records may help with the standardization of forms, terminology, and data input. Digitization of forms facilitates the collection of data for epidemiology and clinical studies. However, standardization may create challenges for local practice. Overall, those with EMRs that have automated notes and records, order entry, and clinical decision support had fewer complications, lower mortality rates, and lower costs.

EMRs can be continuously updated (within certain legal limitations: see below). If the ability to exchange records between different EMR systems were perfected ("interoperability"), it would facilitate the coordination of health care delivery in non-affiliated health care facilities. In addition, data from an electronic system can be used anonymously for statistical reporting in matters such as quality improvement, resource management, and public health communicable disease surveillance. However, it is difficult to remove data from its context.

Patient access to electronic health records

Providing patients with information is central to patient-centered health care and has been shown to positively affect health outcomes. Providing patients access to their health records, including medical histories and test results via an EHR, is a legal right in some parts of the world.

There is evidence that patient access may help patients understand their conditions and actively involve them in their management. For example, granting people who have type 2 diabetes access to their electronic health records may help these people to reduce their blood sugar levels.

Challenges with sharing the electronic health record with patients include a risk of increased confusion or anxiety if a person does not understand or cannot contextualize the testing results. In addition, many EHRs are not designed for people of all educational levels and do not consider the needs of those with a lower level of education or those who are not fluent in the language. Accessing the EHR requires a level of proficiency with electronic devices, which adds to a disparity for those without access or for those who have a mental or physical illness that restricts their access to the electronic system.

Use in research and development

Electronic medical records could also be studied to quantify disease burdens – such as the number of deaths from antimicrobial resistance – or help identify causes of, factors of, links between,

• News article about the study: and contributors to diseases, especially when combined with genome-wide association studies.

This may enable increased flexibility, improved disease surveillance, better medical product safety surveillance, better public health monitoring (such as for evaluation of health policy effectiveness), increased quality of care (via guidelines and improved medical history sharing), and novel life-saving treatments.

Issues

Privacy: For such purposes, electronic medical records could potentially be made available in securely anonymized or pseudonymized forms to ensure patients' privacy is maintained, even if data breaches occur. There are concerns about the efficacy of some currently applied pseudonymization and data protection techniques, including the applied encryption.

Documentation burden: While such records could enable avoiding duplication of work via records-sharing, documentation burdens for medical facility personnel can be a further issue with EHRs. This burden could be reduced via voice recognition, optical character recognition, other technologies, physician involvement in software changes, and other means which could possibly reduce the documentation burden to below paper-based records documentation and low-level documentation.

Applications using software

Theoretically, free software such as GNU Health and other open-source health software could be used or modified for various purposes that use electronic medical records, i.e., via securely sharing anonymized patient treatments, medical history, and individual outcomes (including by common primary care physicians).

• Decision support: Electronic health records could support clinical decision-support systems.
• Personalized medicine: They could be used among other biodata for digital twins (also called health avatars) for personalized medicine.
• mHealth integration: They could be coupled with mHealth mobile applications and wearable technology.
• Screening: Artificial intelligence systems could use this data, as well as other integrated data, to screen for potential diseases via multimodal learning.
• Syndromic surveillance: Real-time analysis and data mining of the records could be used, along with other data, in syndromic surveillance to rapidly identify common exposures among patients suspected of being part of an outbreak, for epidemic forecasting and for early outbreak detection, especially in identified potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) hotspot regions and potentially as a means for pandemic prevention.
• Vaccination deployment: Interoperable, collaboratively developed, standardization-based health records systems could increase the speed of vaccination campaigns and reduce their costs or workloads. According to Dr. Bob Kocher, as of 2021, there are "1,000 different electronic health record systems in the U.S., and almost every hospital and clinic has a slightly different system tailored to its own needs" which caused difficulties and delays during COVID-19 vaccinations, with similar problems being reported in other countries.
• Medical outcomes data: Such records could also be used to match patients to clinical trials with software, reducing the burden on users to partake in research and making previously siloed primary care data more valuable to society at larger or other patients.

Emergency medical services

Ambulance services in Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom have introduced EMR systems. EMS Encounters in the United States are recorded using various platforms and vendors in compliance with the NEMSIS (National EMS Information System) standard. The benefits of electronic records in ambulances include patient data sharing, injury/illness prevention, better training for paramedics, review of clinical standards, better research options for pre-hospital care and design of future treatment options, data-based outcome improvement, and clinical decision support.

Technical features

EHRs enable health information to be used and shared over secure networks to:

• Track care (e.g., prescriptions) and outcomes (e.g., blood pressure)
• Trigger warnings and reminders
• Send and receive orders, reports, and results
• Decrease billing processing time and create more accurate billing systems
• Facilitate Health Information Exchange - a technical and social framework that enables information to move electronically between organizations

Using an EMR to read and write a patient's record is not only possible through a workstation but, depending on the type of system and health care settings, may also be possible through mobile devices that are handwriting capable, such as tablets and smartphones. Electronic medical records may include access to personal health records (PHR) which makes individual notes from an EMR readily visible and accessible to consumers.

Some EMR systems automatically monitor clinical events by analyzing patient data from an electronic health record to predict, detect, and potentially prevent adverse events. This can include discharge/transfer orders, pharmacy orders, radiology results, laboratory results, and any other data from ancillary services or provider notes. This type of event monitoring has been implemented using the Louisiana Public Health Information Exchange, which links statewide public health with electronic medical records. This system alerted medical providers when a patient with HIV/AIDS had not received care in over twelve months. This system greatly reduced the number of missed critical opportunities.

Philosophical views

Within a meta-narrative systematic review of research in the field, various different philosophical approaches to the EHR exist. The health information systems literature has seen the EHR as a container holding information about the patient and a tool for aggregating clinical data for secondary uses (billing, audit, etc.). However, other research traditions see the EHR as a contextualized artifact within a socio-technical system. For example, actor-network theory would see the EHR as an actant in a network, and research in computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) sees the EHR as a tool supporting particular work.

Several possible advantages to EHRs over paper records have been proposed, but there is debate about the degree to which these are achieved in practice.

Implementation

Quality

Several studies call into question whether EHRs improve the quality of care. One 2011 study in diabetes care, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found evidence that practices with EHR provided better quality care.

EMRs may eventually help improve care coordination. An article in a trade journal suggests that since anyone using an EMR can view the patient's full chart, it cuts down on guessing histories and seeing multiple specialists, smooths transitions between care settings, and may allow better care in emergency situations. EHRs may also improve prevention by providing doctors and patients better access to test results, identifying missing patient information, and offering evidence-based recommendations for preventive services.

Costs

At one time, the steep price and provider uncertainty regarding the value they might derive from adoption (in terms of return on investment) lead to significant resistance to EHR adoption. As late as 2010, doctors complained that such systems were too cumbersome, eating up time otherwise spent with patients. In a 2008 project initiated by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, surveyors found that hospital administrators and physicians who had adopted EHR noted that any gains in efficiency were offset by reduced productivity as the technology was implemented, as well as the need to increase information technology staff to maintain the system. At that time the U.S. Congressional Budget Office concluded that the cost savings may occur only in large integrated institutions like Kaiser Permanente and not in small physician offices. They challenged the Rand Corporation's estimates of savings, noting:

"Office-based physicians in particular may see no benefit if they purchase such a product—and may even suffer financial harm. Even though the use of health IT could generate cost savings for the health system at large that might offset the EHR's cost, many physicians might not be able to reduce their office expenses or increase their revenue sufficiently to pay for it. For example, the use of health IT could reduce the number of duplicated diagnostic tests. However, that improvement in efficiency would be unlikely to increase the income of many physicians."

Doubts about cost saving from EHRs continued through the early 2000s, raised by researchers at Harvard University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and others. At this time only around 10% of U.S. hospitals and 20% of private practices used EHR systems. By 2015, with the rise of cloud-based EHR platforms, this had changed drastically, with 96% of all hospitals and nearly 80% of office-based physicians implementing an EHR system.

In 2022, the chief executive of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, one of the biggest NHS organisations, said that the £450 million cost over 15 years to install the Epic Systems electronic patient record across its six hospitals, reducing more than 100 different IT systems down to just a handful, was "chicken feed" when compared to the NHS's overall budget.

Time

The implementation of EMR can potentially decrease the identification time of patients upon hospital admission. Research by the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that since the adoption of EMR, a relative decrease in time by 65% has been recorded (from 130 to 46 hours).

Software quality and usability deficiencies

The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, a very large U.S. healthcare IT industry trade group, observed in 2009 that EHR adoption rates "have been slower than expected in the United States, especially compared to other industry sectors and other developed countries. Aside from initial costs and lost productivity during EMR implementation, one key reason is lack of efficiency and usability of EMRs currently available." The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce studied usability in 2011 and lists a number of specific issues that have been reported by health care workers. The U.S. military's EHR, AHLTA, was reported to have significant usability issues. Furthermore, studies such as the one conducted in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making showed that although the implementation of electronic medical records systems has been a great assistance to general practitioners, there is still much room for revision in the overall framework and the amount of training provided. It was observed that the efforts to improve EHR usability should be placed in the context of physician-patient communication.

However, physicians are embracing mobile technologies such as smartphones and tablets at a rapid pace. According to a 2012 survey by Physicians Practice, 62.6 percent of respondents (1,369 physicians, practice managers, and other healthcare providers) say they use mobile devices in the performance of their job. Mobile devices are increasingly able to sync up with electronic health record systems, allowing physicians to access patient records from remote locations. Most devices are extensions of desktop EHR systems, using a variety of software to communicate and access files remotely. The advantages of instant access to patient records at any time and place are clear, but raise security concerns. As mobile systems become more prevalent, practices will need comprehensive policies that govern security measures and patient privacy regulations.

Other advanced computational techniques allow EHRs to be evaluated at a much quicker rate. Natural language processing is increasingly used to search EMRs, especially through searching and analyzing notes and text that would otherwise be inaccessible for study when seeking to improve care. One study found that several machine learning methods could be used to predict the rate of a patient's mortality with moderate success, with the most successful approach including using a combination of a convolutional neural network and a heterogenous graph model.

Hardware and workflow considerations

When a health facility has documented its workflow and chosen its software solution, it must consider the hardware and supporting device infrastructure for the end users. Staff and patients must engage with various devices throughout a patient's stay and charting workflow. Computers, laptops, all-in-one computers, tablets, mouse, keyboards and monitors are all hardware devices that may be utilized. Other considerations include supporting work surfaces and equipment, wall desks or articulating arms for end users to work on. Another important factor is how all these devices will be physically secured and how they will be charged so that staff can always utilize them for EHR charting when needed.

The success of eHealth interventions largely depends on the adopter's ability to fully understand workflow and anticipate potential clinical processes prior to implementations. Failure to do so can create costly and time-consuming interruptions to service delivery.

Unintended consequences

Per empirical research in social informatics, information and communications technology (ICT) use can lead to both intended and unintended consequences.

A 2008 Sentinel Event Alert from the U.S. Joint Commission, the organization that accredits American hospitals to provide healthcare services, states, "As health information technology (HIT) and 'converging technologies'—the interrelationship between medical devices and HIT—are increasingly adopted by health care organizations, users must be mindful of the safety risks and preventable adverse events that these implementations can create or perpetuate. Technology-related adverse events can be associated with all components of a comprehensive technology system and may involve errors of either commission or omission. These unintended adverse events typically stem from human-machine interfaces or organization/system design." The Joint Commission cites as an example the United States Pharmacopeia MEDMARX database, where of 176,409 medication error records for 2006, approximately 25 percent (43,372) involved some aspect of computer technology as at least one cause of the error.

The British National Health Service (NHS) reports specific examples of potential and actual EHR-caused unintended consequences in its 2009 document on the management of clinical risk relating to the deployment and use of health software.

In February 2010, an American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) memorandum noted that EHR unintended consequences include EHR-related medical errors from (1) errors of commission (EOC), (2) errors of omission or transmission (EOT), (3) errors in data analysis (EDA), and (4) incompatibility between multi-vendor software applications or systems (ISMA), citing various examples. The FDA also noted that the "absence of mandatory reporting enforcement of H-IT safety issues limits the numbers of medical device reports (MDRs) and impedes a more comprehensive understanding of the actual problems and implications."

A 2010 Board Position Paper by the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) contains recommendations on EHR-related patient safety, transparency, ethics education for purchasers and users, adoption of best practices, and re-examination of regulation of electronic health applications. Beyond concrete issues such as conflicts of interest and privacy concerns, questions have been raised about how the physician-patient relationship would be affected by an electronic intermediary.

During the implementation phase, cognitive workload for healthcare professionals may be significantly increased as they familiarize themselves with a new system.

EHRs are almost invariably detrimental to physician productivity, whether the data is entered during the encounter or sometime thereafter. It is possible for an EHR to increase physician productivity. It can provide a fast and intuitive interface for viewing and understanding patient clinical data and minimizing the number of clinically irrelevant questions. However, that is almost never the case. The other way to mitigate the detriment to physician productivity is to hire scribes to work alongside medical practitioners, which is almost never financially viable.

As a result, many have conducted studies like the one discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, "The Extent And Importance of Unintended Consequences Related To Computerized Provider Order Entry," which seeks to understand the degree and significance of unplanned adverse consequences related to computerized physician order entry and understand how to interpret adverse events and understand the importance of its management for the overall success of computer physician order entry.

Governance, privacy, and legal issues

Privacy concerns

In the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, the concept of a national centralized server model of healthcare data has been poorly received. Concerns include issues of privacy and security.

In the European Union (EU), a new directly binding instrument, a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council, was passed in 2016 to go into effect in 2018 to protect the processing of personal data, including that for purposes of health care, the General Data Protection Regulation.

Threats to health care information can be categorized under three headings:

• Human threats, such as employees or hackers.
• Natural and environmental threats, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and fires.
• Technology failures, such as a system crashing.

These threats can either be internal, external, intentional, or unintentional. Health information systems professionals consider these particular threats when discussing ways to protect patients' health information. It has been found that there is a lack of security awareness among health care professionals in countries such as Spain. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has developed a framework to mitigate the harm of these threats that is comprehensive but not so specific as to limit the options of healthcare professionals who may have access to different technology. With the increase of clinical notes being shared electronically due to the 21st Century Cures Act, an increase in sensitive terms used across the records of all patients, including minors, are increasingly shared amongst care teams, complicating efforts to maintain privacy.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) was given Royal Assent in Canada on 13 April 2000 to establish rules on the use, disclosure, and collection of personal information. The personal information includes both non-digital and electronic forms. In 2002, PIPEDA extended to the health sector in Stage 2 of the law's implementation. There are four provinces where this law does not apply because their privacy laws were considered similar to PIPEDA: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom led to radical changes. NHS Digital and NHSX made changes, said to be only for the duration of the crisis, to the information sharing system GP Connect across England, meaning that patient records are shared across primary care. Only patients who have specifically opted out are excluded.

Legal issues

Liability

Legal liability in all aspects of health care was an increasing problem in the 1990s and 2000s. The surge in the per capita number of attorneys in the USA and changes in the tort system caused an increase in the cost of every aspect of health care, and health care technology was no exception.

Failure or damages caused during installation or utilization of an EHR system has been feared as a threat in lawsuits. Similarly, the implementation of electronic health records can carry significant legal risks.

Liability is of special concern for small EHR system makers, which may be forced to abandon markets based on the regional liability climate. Larger EHR providers (or government-sponsored providers of EHRs) are better able to withstand legal challenges.

Electronic documentation of patient visits and data could open physicians to an increased incidence of malpractice suits. Disabling physician alerts, selecting from dropdown menus, and using templates can encourage physicians to skip a complete review of past patient history and medications and thus miss important data.

Another potential problem is electronic time stamps. Many physicians are unaware that EHR systems produce an electronic time stamp every time the patient record is updated. If a malpractice claim goes to court, the prosecution can request a detailed record of all entries made in a patient's electronic record. Waiting to chart patient notes until the end of the day and making addendums to records well after the patient visit can be problematic in that this practice could result in less than accurate patient data or indicate possible intent to illegally alter the patient's record.

In some communities, hospitals attempt to standardize EHR systems by providing discounted versions of the hospital's software to local healthcare providers. A challenge to this practice has been raised as being a violation of Stark rules that prohibit hospitals from preferentially assisting community healthcare providers. In 2006, however, exceptions to the Stark rule were enacted to allow hospitals to furnish software and training to community providers, mostly removing this legal obstacle.

Legal interoperability

In cross-border use cases of EHR implementations, the additional issue of legal interoperability arises. Different countries may have diverging legal requirements for the content or usage of electronic health records, which can require radical changes to the technical makeup of the EHR implementation in question, especially when fundamental legal incompatibilities are involved. Exploring these issues is, therefore, often necessary when implementing cross-border EHR solutions.

Contribution under UN administration and accredited organizations

The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) administration intentionally does not contribute to an internationally standardized view of medical records nor to personal health records. However, the WHO contributes to minimum requirements definitions for developing countries.

The United Nations-accredited standardization body International Organization for Standardization (ISO) however has reviewed and adopted certain standards in the scope of the HL7 platform for health care informatics. Respective standards are available with ISO/HL7 10781:2009 Electronic Health Record-System Functional Model, Release 1.1 and subsequent set of detailing standards.

Medical data breach

The majority of the countries in Europe have made a strategy for the development and implementation of electronic health record systems. This would mean greater access to health records by numerous stakeholders, even from countries with lower levels of privacy protection. The implementation of the Cross-Border Health Directive and the European Commission's plans to centralize all health records are of prime concern to the EU public who believe that the health care organizations and governments cannot be trusted to manage their data electronically and expose them to more threats.

The idea of a centralized electronic health record system was poorly received by the public who are wary that governments may use of the system beyond its intended purpose. There is also the risk for privacy breaches that could allow sensitive health care information to fall into the wrong hands. Some countries have enacted laws requiring safeguards to be put in place to protect the security and confidentiality of medical information. These safeguards add protection for records that are shared electronically and give patients some important rights to monitor their medical records and receive notification for loss and unauthorized acquisition of health information. The United States and the EU have imposed mandatory medical data breach notifications.

Breach notification

The purpose of a personal data breach notification is to protect individuals so that they can take all the necessary actions to limit the undesirable effects of the breach and to motivate the organization to improve the security of the infrastructure to protect the confidentiality of the data. U.S. law requires the entities to inform the individuals in the event of a breach while the EU Directive currently requires breach notification only when the breach is likely to adversely affect the privacy of the individual. Personal health data is valuable to individuals and it is therefore difficult to assess whether a breach will cause reputational or financial harm or adversely affect one's privacy.

The breach notification law in the EU provides better privacy safeguards with fewer exemptions, unlike the US law, which exempts unintentional acquisition, access, or use of protected health information and inadvertent disclosure under a good faith belief.

Technical issues

Standards

• ASC X12 (EDI) – transaction protocols used for transmitting patient data. Popular in the United States for transmission of billing data.
• CEN's TC/251 provides EHR standards in Europe, including:
  • EN 13606, communication standards for EHR information.
  • CONTSYS (EN 13940), supports continuity of care record standardization.
  • HISA (EN 12967), a services standard for inter-system communication in a clinical information environment.
• Continuity of Care Record – ASTM International Continuity of Care Record standard.
• DICOM – an international communications protocol standard for representing and transmitting radiology (and other) image-based data, sponsored by NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association).
• HL7 (HL7v2, C-CDA) – a standardized messaging and text communications protocol between hospital and physician record systems, and between practice management systems.
• Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) – a modernized proposal from HL7 designed to provide open, granular access to medical information.
• ISO – ISO TC 215 provides international technical specifications for EHRs. ISO 18308 describes EHR architectures.
• xDT – a family of data exchange formats for medical purposes that is used in the German public health system.

The U.S. federal government has issued new rules of electronic health records.

Open specifications

• openEHR: an open community-developed specification for a shared health record with web-based content developed online by experts. Strong multilingual capability.
• Virtual Medical Record: HL7's proposed model for interfacing with clinical decision support systems.
• SMART (Substitutable Medical Apps, reusable technologies): an open platform specification to provide a standard base for healthcare applications.

Common data model (in health data context)

A common data model (CDM) is a specification that describes how data from multiple sources (e.g., multiple EHR systems) can be combined. Many CDMs use a relational model (e.g., the OMOP CDM). A relational CDM defines names of tables and table columns and restricts what values are valid.

• Sentinel Common Data Model: Initially started as Mini-Sentinel in 2008. Use by the Sentinel Initiative of the USA's Food and Drug Administration.
• OMOP Common Data Model: A model that defines how electronic health record data, medical billing data, or other health care data from multiple institutions can be harmonized and queried in unified way. It is maintained by Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics consortium.
• PCORNet Common Data Model: First defined in 2014 and used by PCORI and People-Centered Research Foundation.
• Virtual Data Warehouse: First defined in 2006 by HMO Research Network. Since 2015, by Health Care System Research Network.

Customization

Each health care environment functions differently, often in significant ways. It is difficult to create a "one-size-fits-all" EHR system. Many first-generation EHRs were designed to fit the needs of primary care physicians, leaving certain specialties significantly less satisfied with their EHR system.

An ideal EHR system will have record standardization but also interfaces that can be customized to each provider environment. Modularity in an EHR system facilitates this. Many EHR companies employ vendors to provide customization, which can often be done so that a physician's input interface closely mimics previously utilized paper forms.

Providers have reported negative effects in communication, increased overtime, and missing records when a non-customized EMR system was utilized. Customizing the software when released yields the highest benefits because it is adapted for the users and tailored to workflows specific to the institution.

However, customization can have its disadvantages. Implementing a customized system may incur higher initial costs, as more time must be spent by both the implementation team and the healthcare provider to understand the workflow needs. Development and maintenance of these interfaces and customizations can also lead to higher software implementation and maintenance costs.

Long-term preservation and storage of records

An important consideration when developing electronic health records is to plan for the long-term preservation and storage of these records. The field will need to come to a consensus on the length of time to store EHRs, methods to ensure the future accessibility and compatibility of archived data with yet-to-be-developed retrieval systems, and how to ensure the physical and virtual security of the archives.

Additionally, considerations about the long-term storage of electronic health records are complicated by the possibility that the records might one day be used longitudinally and integrated across sites of care. Records have the potential to be created, used, edited, and viewed by multiple independent entities. These entities include, but are not limited to, primary care physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients. Mandl et al. have noted that "choices about the structure and ownership of these records will have profound impact on the accessibility and privacy of patient information."

The required length of storage of an individual electronic health record will depend on national and state regulations, which are subject to change over time. Ruotsalainen and Manning have found that the typical preservation time of patient data varies between 20 and 100 years. In one example of how an EHR archive might function, their research "describes a co-operative trusted notary archive (TNA) which receives health data from different EHR-systems, stores data together with associated meta-information for long periods and distributes EHR-data objects. TNA can store objects in XML-format and prove the integrity of stored data with the help of event records, timestamps and archive e-signatures."

In addition to the TNA archive described by Ruotsalainen and Manning, other combinations of EHR systems and archive systems are possible. Again, overall requirements for the design and security of the system and its archive will vary and must function under ethical and legal principles specific to the time and place.

While it is currently unknown precisely how long EHRs will be preserved, it is certain that length of time will exceed the average shelf-life of paper records. The evolution of technology is such that the programs and systems used to input information will likely not be available to a user who desires to examine archived data. One proposed solution to the challenge of long-term accessibility and usability of data by future systems is to standardize information fields in a time-invariant way, such as with XML language. Olhede and Peterson report that "the basic XML-format has undergone preliminary testing in Europe by a Spri project and been found suitable for EU purposes. Spri has advised the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish National Archive to issue directives concerning the use of XML as the archive-format for EHCR (Electronic Health Care Record) information."

Synchronization of records

When care is provided at two different facilities, it may be difficult to update records at both locations in a coordinated fashion. Two models have been used to satisfy this problem: a centralized data server solution and a peer-to-peer file synchronization program (as has been developed for other peer-to-peer networks). However, synchronization programs for distributed storage models are only useful once record standardization has occurred. Merging of already existing public health care databases is a common software challenge. The ability of electronic health record systems to provide this function is a key benefit and can improve health care delivery.

eHealth and teleradiology

The sharing of patient information between health care organizations and IT systems is changing from a "point to point" model to a "many to many" one. The European Commission is supporting moves to facilitate cross-border interoperability of e-health systems and to remove potential legal hurdles. To allow for global shared workflow, studies will be locked when they are being read and then unlocked and updated once reading is complete. This enables Radiologists to serve multiple health care facilities and read and report across large geographical areas, thus balancing workloads. The biggest challenges will relate to interoperability and legal clarity. In some countries, it is almost forbidden to practice teleradiology. The variety of languages spoken is a problem, and multilingual reporting templates for all anatomical regions are not yet available. However, the market for e-health and teleradiology is evolving more rapidly than any laws or regulations.

Initiatives

USA

See Electronic health records in the United States

Russia

In 2011, Moscow's government launched a major project known as UMIAS as part of its electronic healthcare initiative. UMIAS - the Unified Medical Information and Analytical System - connects more than 660 clinics and over 23,600 medical practitioners in Moscow. UMIAS covers 9.5 million patients, contains more than 359 million patient records, and supports more than 500,000 different transactions daily. Approximately 700,000 Muscovites use remote links to make appointments every week.{{cite web |access-date=2014-03-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331113803/http://gov.cnews.ru/news/line/index.shtml?2013%2F04%2F23%2F526742 |archive-date=2014-03-31

European Union

The European Commission wants to boost the digital economy by enabling all Europeans to have access to online medical records anywhere in Europe. With the new European Health Data Space (EHDS) Regulation, steps are being taken toward a centralized European health record system.

However, the concept of a centralized supranational central server raises concern about storing electronic medical records in a central location. The privacy threat posed by a supranational network is a key concern. Cross-border and interoperable electronic health record systems make confidential data more easily and rapidly accessible to a wider audience and increase the risk that personal data concerning health could be accidentally exposed or easily distributed to unauthorized parties by enabling greater access to a compilation of the personal data concerning health, from different sources, and throughout a lifetime.

United Kingdom

The Lloyd George envelope digitisation project aims to have all paper copies of all historic patient data transferred onto computer systems. As part of the rollout, new patients will no longer be given a transit label to register when moving practices. Not only is it a step closer to a digital NHS, the project reduces the movement of records between practices, freeing up space in practices that are used to store records as well as having the added benefit of being more environmentally friendly

Lyniate was selected to provide data integration technologies for Health and Social Care (Northern Ireland) in 2022. Epic Systems will supply integrated electronic health records with a single digital record for every citizen. Lyniate Rhapsody, already used in 79 NHS Trusts, will be used to integrate the multiple health and social care systems.

In veterinary medicine

In UK veterinary practice, the replacement of paper recording systems with electronic methods of storing animal patient information escalated from the 1980s, and the majority of clinics now use electronic medical records. In a sample of 129 veterinary practices, 89% used a Practice Management System (PMS) for data recording. There are more than ten PMS providers currently in the UK. Collecting data directly from PMSs for epidemiological analysis abolishes the need for veterinarians to manually submit individual reports per animal visit and therefore increases the reporting rate.

Veterinary electronic medical record data are being used to investigate antimicrobial efficacy, risk factors for canine cancer, and inherited diseases in dogs and cats in the small animal disease surveillance project 'VetCOMPASS' (Veterinary Companion Animal Surveillance System) at the Royal Veterinary College, London, in collaboration with the University of Sydney (the VetCOMPASS project was formerly known as VEctAR).

Synthetic and real patients (like 'Turing test' for EHRs)

A letter published in Communications of the ACM describes the concept of generating synthetic patient populations and proposes a variation of the Turing test to assess the difference between synthetic and real patients. The letter states: "In the EHR context, though a human physician can readily distinguish between synthetically generated and real live human patients, could a machine be given the intelligence to make such a determination on its own?"

Further, the letter states: "Before synthetic patient identities become a public health problem, the legitimate EHR market might benefit from applying Turing Test-like techniques to ensure greater data reliability and diagnostic value. Any new techniques must thus consider patients' heterogeneity and are likely to have greater complexity than the Allen eighth-grade-science-test is able to grade."

References

Sources

Please be cautious adding more external links.

Wikipedia is not a collection of links and should not be used for advertising.

Excessive or inappropriate links will be removed.

See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for details.

If there are already suitable links, propose additions or replacements on the article's talk page, or submit your link to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link there using .

--

References

1. (March 2005). "The emergence of national electronic health record architectures in the United States and Australia: models, costs, and questions". Journal of Medical Internet Research.
2. (22 May 2014). "Mobile Tech Contributions to Healthcare and Patient Experience". Top Mobile Trends.
3. {{Cite Q. Q59454975
4. (January 2017). "Electronic health records to facilitate clinical research". Clinical Research in Cardiology.
5. "What are the advantages of electronic health records?".
6. (2010). "EHRs, meaningful use, and a model EMR". Drug Benefit Trends.
7. (2011). "Electronic health record: Wiring Europe's healthcare". Computer Law & Security Review.
8. (2017-03-01). "A review of PHR, EMR and EHR integration: A more personalized healthcare and public health policy". Health Policy and Technology.
9. "What is a personal health record?". Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT.
10. (December 2009). "Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method". The Milbank Quarterly.
11. (2023-10-24). "Health Worker Mental Health Crisis".
12. "EHR Beginner's Guide: Top 10 EHR Requirements to Create Flexible and Sustainable Charting Workflows". link. AdvancedMD, Inc.. (2024)
13. (2025-12-16). "AdvancedMD Helps Modern MOjO Cut Time Spent On Insurance Eligibility By More Than 80%".
14. "Griffin Hospital reports of dozens of patient medical records breaches", CtPost.com, 29 March 2010
15. Kate Ramunni; "UCLA hospital scandal grows" Los Angeles Times, 5 August 2008
16. Institute of Medicine. (1999). "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (1999)". The National Academies Press.
17. (June 2009). "Medication errors: prevention using information technology systems". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
18. Walker, Mark. (2024). "Digital Health: How modern technology is changing medicine and healthcare". Sicklebrook publishing.
19. (2015). "2015 IEEE 17th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, 2015 IEEE 7th International Symposium on Cyberspace Safety and Security, and 2015 IEEE 12th International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems".
20. (2011). "EMR Software Information Exchange, January 25, 2011". EMR Software Pro.
21. "Health Information Exchanges and Your EMR Selection Process", ''New England Journal of Medicine'', 25 January 2011
22. (30 March 2009). "Clinical Information Technologies and Inpatient Outcomes". Medical Benefits.
23. Adapted from the IEEE definition of interoperability, and legal definitions used by the FCC (47 CFR 51.3), in statutes regarding copyright protection (17 USC 1201), and e-government services (44 USC 3601)
24. (2003). "EHR Definition, Attributes and Essential Requirements". Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society.
25. (2021-02-26). "Adult patient access to electronic health records". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
26. (December 2020). "Impact of providing patients access to electronic health records on quality and safety of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMJ Quality & Safety.
27. (2020-10-21). "Sharing electronic records with patients led to improved control of type two diabetes". NIHR Evidence.
28. (2022). "What is digital health technology and what can it do for me?".
29. (February 2022). "Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis". Lancet.
30. (29 November 2022). "Identifying and visualising multimorbidity and comorbidity patterns in patients in the English National Health Service: a population-based study". The Lancet Digital Health.
31. (September 2016). "Effects of colchicine on risk of cardiovascular events and mortality among patients with gout: a cohort study using electronic medical records linked with Medicare claims". Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
32. (June 1997). "Comorbidity measurement in elderly female breast cancer patients with administrative and medical records data". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
33. (2 January 2016). "Increasing knowledge of mental illness through secondary research of electronic health records: opportunities and challenges". Advances in Mental Health.
34. (September 2018). "Genome-wide association study of familial lung cancer". Carcinogenesis.
35. (20 December 2021). "Broadening the reach of the FDA Sentinel system: A roadmap for integrating electronic health record data in a causal analysis framework". npj Digital Medicine.
36. (20 March 2017). "Surveillance Systems to Track and Evaluate Obesity Prevention Efforts". Annual Review of Public Health.
37. (1 June 2015). "The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review". Population Health Management.
38. (17 January 2023). "Primary care asthma surveillance: a review of knowledge translation tools and strategies for quality improvement". Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology.
39. (April 2019). "PAX: Using Pseudonymization and Anonymization to Protect Patients' Identities and Data in the Healthcare System". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
40. (May 2012). "Anonymization of longitudinal electronic medical records". IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.
41. (April 2010). "Anonymization of electronic medical records for validating genome-wide association studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
42. (May 2019). "Use and Understanding of Anonymization and De-Identification in the Biomedical Literature: Scoping Review". Journal of Medical Internet Research.
43. (1 May 2019). "Privacy preserving publication of relational and transaction data: Survey on the anonymization of patient data". Computer Science Review.
44. (29 April 2022). "Alle gesetzlich Versicherten betroffen: Bürgerrechtler klagen gegen Weitergabe von Gesundheitsdaten". Der Spiegel.
45. (2020). "Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record: Opportunities and Challenges". IEEE Access.
46. (1 July 2022). "Uplifting Primary Care Through the Electronic Health Record". The Annals of Family Medicine.
47. (September 2017). "Electronic health record innovations: Helping physicians – One less click at a time". Health Information Management Journal.
48. (23 April 2021). "Building the evidence-base to reduce electronic health record–related clinician burden". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
49. (1 December 2020). "Automatic classification of scanned electronic health record documents". International Journal of Medical Informatics.
50. (9 April 2020). "Tackling the beast: Using GNU Health to help the fight against the {{!}} Joinup".
51. (March 2020). "Healthcare 4.0: A review of frontiers in digital health". WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.
52. (31 December 2019). "Digital twins to personalize medicine". Genome Medicine.
53. (2024-08-20). "The Use of Deep Learning and Machine Learning on Longitudinal Electronic Health Records for the Early Detection and Prevention of Diseases: Scoping Review". Journal of Medical Internet Research.
54. "New AI technology integrates multiple data types to predict cancer outcomes". medicalxpress.com.
55. (1 August 2019). "Real-time Epidemic Forecasting: Challenges and Opportunities". Health Security.
56. (March 2019). "Automated data mining of the electronic health record for investigation of healthcare-associated outbreaks". Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.
57. (1 May 2009). "Syndromic Surveillance Using Ambulatory Electronic Health Records". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
58. (29 November 2022). "Effectiveness of early warning systems in the detection of infectious diseases outbreaks: a systematic review". BMC Public Health.
59. (July 2017). "A Practitioner-Driven Research Agenda for Syndromic Surveillance". Public Health Reports.
60. (February 2021). "Electronic Health Records May Be Delaying COVID-19 Vaccinations". NPR.
61. "COVID-19 vaccine rollout may be delayed - with IT system 'failing constantly'". Sky News.
62. (6 October 2022). "MatchMiner: an open-source platform for cancer precision medicine". npj Precision Oncology.
63. (5 May 2011). "EMR in Ambulances". Emergency Medical Paramedic.
64. (2020). "Electronic health records in ambulances: the ERA multiple-methods study.". Health Services and Delivery Research.
65. "NEMSIS - National EMS Information System".
66. (4 October 2009). "Ambulance Victoria Annual Report". Ambulance Victoria.
67. (2011-07-26). "Electronic Health Records: What's in it for Everyone?". Cdc.gov.
68. "Handwriting and mobile computing experts". Scriptnetics.
69. "M958 revision-Event monitors in PHS 1-02-02.PDF".
70. (2011). "Implementation of an innovative, integrated electronic medical record (EMR) and public health information exchange for HIV/AIDS". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
71. (1997). "Of Forms, Containers, and the Electronic Medical Record: Some Tools for a Sociology of the Formal". Science, Technology, & Human Values.
72. (June 2010). "Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study". BMJ.
73. (2008). "Do EMRs Make You a Better Doctor?". Physicians Practice.
74. (14 December 2009). "Electronic health records not a panacea". Healthcare IT News.
75. (2009). "2009 a pivotal year in healthcare IT". Drexel University.
76. (January 2010). "Hospital computing and the costs and quality of care: a national study". The American Journal of Medicine.
77. (September 2011). "Electronic health records and quality of diabetes care". The New England Journal of Medicine.
78. "Improve Care Coordination using Electronic Health Records | Providers & Professionals". HealthIT.gov.
79. (2013-06-19). "Primary Care Patients Use Interactive Preventive Health Record Integrated With Electronic Health Record, Leading to Enhanced Provision of Preventive Services". Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
80. "Column: Why MDs Dread EMRs". Journal of Surgical Radiology.
81. (2006). "Health Information Technology in the United States: The Information Base for Progress". Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, George Washington University Medical Center, and Institute for Health Policy.
82. (May 2008). "Evidence on the costs and benefits of health information technology.". Congressional Budget Office.
83. (10 June 2009). "Information Technology: Not a Cure for the High Cost of Health Care". Knowledge@Wharton.
84. (20 June 2009). "The Myth of Prevention". The Wall Street Journal.
85. (2025-12-03). "National Trends in Hospital and Physician Adoption of Electronic Health Records".
86. (18 March 2022). "£450m cost of US records system is 'chicken-feed' says trust CEO". Health Service Journal.
87. (May 2006). "Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care". Annals of Internal Medicine.
88. (15 May 2019). "7 big reasons why EHRs consume physicians' days and nights". The American Medical Association.
89. (June 2009). "Defining and testing EMR usability: Principles and proposed methods of EMR usability evaluation and rating.". Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
90. (September 2011). "NISTIR 7804: Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records". National Institute of Standards and Technology.
91. "''U.S. Medicine – The Voice of Federal Medicine, May 2009.''".
92. (May 2013). "A study of general practitioners' perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHSScotland". BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
93. (2011). "Electronic medical record use in pediatric primary care". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
94. (July–August 2012). "EHRs Go Mobile". Physicians Practice.
95. (May 2021). "Using Natural Language Processing to Measure and Improve Quality of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review". Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
96. (2021-09-08). "Deep Learning with Heterogeneous Graph Embeddings for Mortality Prediction from Electronic Health Records". Data Intelligence.
97. (May 2018). "Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature". Journal of Medical Internet Research.
98. (15 September 2005). "Understanding And Communicating Social Informatics: A Framework For Studying And Teaching The Human Contexts of Information And Communication Technologies". Information Today Inc.
99. (2000). "Social informatics in the information sciences: Current activities and emerging directions.". Informing Science.
100. (1997). "[[Why Things Bite Back". Knopf Doubleday Publishing.
101. USA Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. (December 2008). "Safely implementing health information and converging technologies". Sentinel Event Alert.
102. "MEDMARX Adverse Drug Event Reporting database".
103. "Health informatics – Guidance on the management of clinical risk relating to the deployment and use of health software (formerly ISO/TR 29322:2008(E)). DSCN18/2009".
104. "Internal FDA Report on Adverse Events Involving Health Information Technology".
105. "FDA, Obama digital medical records team at odds over safety oversight". FDA memo..
106. (2010). "Challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT vendors, their customers, and patients: a report of an AMIA special task force". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
107. (2011). "Doctors Go Digital". The New Atlantis.
108. (2007). "The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
109. (July 2015). "Cognitive workload changes for nurses transitioning from a legacy system with paper documentation to a commercial electronic health record". International Journal of Medical Informatics.
110. (16 September 2014). "8 top challenges and solutions for making EHRs usable". American Medical Association.
111. (2019). "Electronic Health Record Implementation: A Review of Resources and Tools". Cureus.
112. (2007). "The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
113. (May 2016). "Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future". Yearbook of Medical Informatics.
114. (December 2007). "Opposition calls for rethink on data storage". e-Health Insider (UK).
115. (January 2008). "German doctors say no to centrally stored patient records". e-Health Insider (UK).
116. (June 2015). "Analysis of health professional security behaviors in a real clinical setting: an empirical study". International Journal of Medical Informatics.
117. (2009). "Health Care Information Systems: A Practical Approach for Health Care Management". Jossey-Bass.
118. (2022-06-10). "Prevalence of Sensitive Terms in Clinical Notes Using Natural Language Processing Techniques: Observational Study". JMIR Medical Informatics.
119. (1 April 2004). "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act – Implementation Schedule". Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
120. (24 April 2020). "Radical relaxation of GP records and booking rules". Health Service Journal.
121. "Lawyers Per 100,000 Population 1980–2003". Congressional Budget Office.
122. (May 2011). "Tort reform". News Batch.
123. (2007-02-05). "Bigger focus on compliance needed in EMR marketplace". Health Imaging News.
124. (2010-01-10). "Ben Kerschberg, Electronic Health Records Dramatically Increase Corporate Risk". Huffington Post.
125. "Medical Manager History".
126. (March 2012). "Can Technology Get You Sued?". Physicians Practice.
127. (2007-04-06). "Electronic HeaĠlth Records: Interoperability Challenges and Patient's Right for Privacy". Shidler Journal of Computer and Technology.
128. (August 2006). "Newly Issued Final Rules under Stark and Anti-kickback Laws Permit Furnishing of Electronic Prescribing and Electronic Health Records Technology". GKLaw.
129. (August 2006). "New Stark Law Exceptions and Anti-Kickback Safe Harbors For Electronic Prescribing and Electronic Health Records". SSDlaw.
130. "epSOS: Legal and Regulatory Issues".
131. (March 2001). "Medical Records Manual". World Health Organization.
132. "ISO/HL7 10781:2009". International Organization for Standardization.
133. "Electronic Primary Care Research Network". Regents of the University of Minnesota.
134. (2012). "Medical data breaches: Notification delayed is notification denied". Computer Law & Security Review.
135. (13 July 2010). "U.S. Issues Rules on Electronic Health Records". The New York Times.
136. "About". smartplatforms.org.
137. (31 March 2006). "Paper on Concept Processing".
138. (2006). "Issues to be improved after introduction of a non-customized Electronic Medical Record system (EMR) in a Private General Hospital and efforts toward improvement". Studies in Health Technology and Informatics.
139. (March 2006). "Optimising workflow in andrology: a new electronic patient record and database". Asian Journal of Andrology.
140. The Digital Office, September 2007, vol 2, no.9. HIMSS
141. (June 2006). "The perils of customization". Journal of AHIMA.
142. (February 2001). "Public standards and patients' control: how to keep electronic medical records accessible but private". BMJ.
143. (February 2020). "Where do I Find Medical Record Retention Laws for My State?".
144. (2007). "A notary archive model for secure preservation and distribution of electrically signed patient documents". International Journal of Medical Informatics.
145. (2000). "Archiving of care related information in XML-format". Studies in Health Technology and Informatics.
146. (November 2004). "Integrating the New York citywide immunization registry and the childhood blood lead registry". Journal of Public Health Management and Practice.
147. (2001). "Quality improvement in pediatric well care with an electronic record". Proceedings. AMIA Symposium.
148. (November 2004). "Perspectives on integrated child health information systems: parents, providers, and public health". Journal of Public Health Management and Practice.
149. (June–July 2010). "Images can now cross borders, but what about the legislation?". Diagnostic Imaging Europe.
150. (15 April 2017). "New programmes and the best doctors, or how Moscow healthcare is being developed / News / Moscow City Web Site". Moscow City Web Site.
151. (2011). "Electronic health record: Wiring Europe's healthcare". Computer Law & Security Review.
152. .https://pcse.england.nhs.uk/services/medical-records/digitisation/
153. (5 September 2022). "Northern Ireland to become first UK country with connected electronic patient record". Home Care Insight.
154. Gill, M. (2007) Attitudes to clinical audit in veterinary practice, Royal Veterinary College elective project, unpublished work
155. (2009). "Disease surveillance in small animal practice". In Practice.
156. "VEctAR (Veterinary Electronic Animal Record) (2010)".
157. (2011). "Companion Animal Practice Based Disease Surveillance in the UK". Épidémiologie et Santé Animale.
158. (January 2018). "A Leap from Artificial to Intelligence". Communications of the ACM.
159. (2019-09-04). "A Breakthrough for A.I. Technology: Passing an 8th-Grade Science Test". The New York Times.
160. (August 2004). "HealthConnect and the duty of care: a dilemma for medical practitioners". Journal of Law and Medicine.
161. [https://www.csail.mit.edu/research/solid-social-linked-data Investigating Decentralized Management of Health and Fitness Data]