Giving Compass' Take:

• In this story from The Conversation, James Lynch and Richard Gunderson argue that electronic health records cannot replace, and sometimes distract from, a doctor's relationship with their patients.

• How can health advocates know if their contributions are having the intended consequences? What research should you do before implementing a new technology for medicine? How could engaging with doctors about what they need most prevent problems like those caused by electronic health records?

• To learn more about how to make effective contributions in health funding, click here.

The introduction of electronic health records (EHRs) was accompanied by a great deal of fanfare. Such systems, which replace old paper-based charts in doctor’s offices and hospitals, were designed to make patient data more accurate, safer and more accessible. It was also claimed that they would make it easier for doctors and other health professionals to monitor medical care and ensure that guidelines were followed. The federal government was so keen on EHRs that it provided financial incentives to doctors and hospitals to adopt them, totaling US$25 billion by 2016.

More recently, we and many other doctors have realized that EHRs are no panacea, or cure-all. They are expensive; one study showed for a five-doctor group, the cost is $162,000 to install and $85,000 per year to maintain. These systems force doctors to follow generic templates that may not reflect the needs of a particular patient.

In addition, health professionals often find themselves spending more time and energy tending to the EHR than to their patient. One study at Dartmouth showed that physicians spend two hours on the EHR for every hour they spend with patients. Too often, the EHR seems better adapted to coding and billing, or collecting revenue, than excellence in patient care.

Too often, sophisticated new technology – in this case, the EHR – interposes itself between the patient and the doctor, drawing the doctor’s attention away from the patient and sometimes making the data in the medical record – physical examination findings, laboratory values, radiology scan results – seem more reliable and even more real than patients themselves.

Read the full article about electronic health records by James W. Lynch and Richard Gunderman at The Conversation