In article <[log in to unmask]>, dated
Sat, 1 Aug 1998 at 22:24:33, Adrian Midgley
<[log in to unmask]> writes in response to a post from David
Roberts <[log in to unmask]>
>>Over to the IT enthusiasts, again :-)))
>Indeed. Paper, despite 512 years of development, doesn't do the job
>sufficiently well.
One factor in favour of 'electronic' patient records that doesn't seem
to get a mention, is the increased feasibility of retaining a detailed
medical history of a patient from the moment of birth, maybe even from
conception. Many Polio Survivors, for example, would have benefited
greatly from having their childhood medical history available when
seeking diagnosis for new symptoms. 'Would have' is the key phrase
because in most cases these records were destroyed long ago. I am sure
the same is true for many other illnesses and conditions. How many
patient records have travelled intact through a patients life? How many
include all the hospital records? Even if they had been kept in paper
form, for patients who have had serious long-term illness the volume of
paper to wade through would be significant. As a patient, I have to say
I look on with dismay when I see my GP get out that little A5 size
pouch; my medical history would probably fill a few filing draws!
Obviously what's done is done and records that have been destroyed can't
be recreated. However, the capability to access and efficiently search a
patients *complete* medical history will improve the quality of medical
care for future generations.
Chris
--
Chris Salter (Vice Chairman) Lincolnshire Post-Polio Network
Registered Charity No. 1064177
<URL:http://www.zynet.co.uk/ott/polio/lincolnshire/>
Web Site & Vice Chairman Email: [log in to unmask]
Honorary Secretary Email: [log in to unmask]
Member of the British Healthcare Internet Association
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|