How can having better records give poorer results?
I look at it this way - We know that 100 years from now people aren't going to be pushing paper medical records around in the US - it's too expensive, too inefficient, too wasteful, too prone to errors. Why not accelerate the transition?
I don't know about where you are, but when we had to take the oldsters into the hospital we always had to fill out the same paperwork. Name, address, insurance policy numbers, ever had surgery, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, infectious diseases, drug allergies, family history of same, etc., etc. It was a colossal waste of time and money. Just recently, they finally started rolling out a computerized system with the staff able to call up old records instantly. It's nice to be able to just give your insurance card and they can call up your records - "Oh, you were here X months ago. How did that go?..."
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks the lawsuit is about other issues than the benefits of a computerized system.)
