Topic
Instruction
In the United States, medical information about patients traditionally has been recorded and stored on paper forms. However, there are efforts to persuade doctors to adopt electronic medical record systems in which information about patients is stored in electronic databases rather than on paper. It is argued that storing patients’ medical records in electronic databases has several advantages over traditional paper-based record keeping.
Reducing Costs
First, the use of electronic records can help reduce costs by saving money on storing and transferring medical records. While paper records require a significant amount of storage space, electronic medical records take up virtually no space. Moreover, by having patients’ records computerized in databases, doctors can easily access the records from almost anywhere and can easily duplicate and transfer them when necessary. This costs much less than copying, faxing, or transporting paper records from one location to another.
Preventing Errors
Second, electronic medical records are crucial to reducing the chances of medical errors. Illegible handwriting, improper transcription of data, and nonstandard organization of paper records have caused errors that in some cases have had serious consequences for the patients* health. In contrast, electronic records are associated with standardization of forms and legible computer fonts and thus minimize the possibility of human error.
Aiding Research
Third, electronic medical records can greatly aid medical research by making it possible to gather large amounts of data from patient records. It is often impractical, impossible, or prohibitively expensive to manually go through thousands of patients’ paper records housed in doctors’ offices. However, with the existence of electronic medical records, it would be simple to draw out the needed information from the medical databases because the databases are already formatted for data collection. Once in the electronic system, the records could be accessed from any research location.
Content
The lecture explains why the electronic medical records system can’t replace the paper forms. Here are the reasons.
First of all, the doctors who use the electronic medical records system still use the paper forms as the backup of the digital forms. Therefore, they still have to paid for storage. This directly refutes the reading passage which states that the electronic forms are able to reduce to storage cost for doctors.
Secondly, the lecturer states that most of the doctors take the notes by hand, then their assistants interpret the notes and enter them into the electronic system. This implies that there are still many possibilities that the data being entered wrong or being interpreted with error. This, again, contradict to what was stated in the passage that the standard form of digital system can help reducing the mistakes cause by handwriting.
Lastly, the lecturer mentions that there are many obstacles on the road of researching, such the privacy law. Due to the privacy law, the research often needs to undergo many procedures and wait for a long time. Furthermore, the patients can also block the doctors to use their data, this cause the research to be even more difficult. Therefore, the fact is not like what was mentioned in the passage that the research become more easily because of the easy access and the large amount of data.
In summary, the lecturer points out many facts about the workflow of the doctors, which counter what was stated in the passage.
Revision
Chatgpt
The lecture elaborates on reasons why the electronic medical records system may not fully replace paper forms, countering the assertions in the reading passage. Here are the key points presented by the lecturer.
Firstly, despite adopting the electronic medical records system, physicians still use paper forms as a backup to digital records, incurring expenses related to storage. This challenges the claim in the reading passage that electronic forms would reduce storage costs.
Secondly, the lecturer notes that many doctors manually take notes, introducing potential errors in data entry or interpretation when assistants enter them into the electronic system. This contradicts the passage’s assertion that the digital system would alleviate mistakes from handwritten notes.
Moreover, the lecturer highlights obstacles in medical research, such as privacy laws, leading to prolonged procedures and waiting times. Patients can also restrict data use, complicating research efforts. This challenges the passage’s notion that research becomes easier due to easy data access.
In summary, the lecturer provides evidence on doctors’ workflows, countering claims in the passage. This reinforces that while electronic medical records offer advantages, practical challenges hinder their complete substitution for traditional paper forms.