The future of electronic medical records

           The electronic medical records are a software based solution that provides for the digital computerization, recording, and maintenance of patient and medical practice information and it deals the need to set up excellence in patient care and practicality in medical practice. It is one of the main tools currently being used to fix the ailing health care system through patient monitoring which will enable doctors to shift from only curing ailments to preventing them instead. One of the main goals for using this system is to increase efficiency within the healthcare system to the point of significantly reducing health care costs while saving millions of lives. Over the past five years, health-care providers, insurers, drug companies and research institutions have initiated a massive transformation from a paper-based health-care system to one that increasingly relies on electronic records to manage patient information with full government support.

               The increasing number of those who are expected to be regular users of the American health care system due to the passage of the health care reform bill has been touted as one of the reasons why digitizing the medical data of patients is very important in managing the already burdened health care system. Putting people’s health information in databases will not only reduce redundancies but is already shifting the way people receive and seek health care. With better contact to an individualized health record, whether it is through an official electronic record by a doctor, a private record created by an individual, or a fast instant messaging contact with a doctor, the customary roles of doctors and patients are experiencing swift changes. It is expected that in the future, patients will arrive for appointments with their doctors having gone through their medical records and the recommended articles about their health concerns.

            It is believed that even more people will be able to skip the hospital visit altogether due to their busy schedules and will instead prefer to stay in touch with their doctors through text messaging and emails in order to receive answers for their health concerns. Electronic medical records are the future because in emergencies, such as attending to a patient with a heart attack, finding and reading the paper medical records of a patient costs a lot of time, and this time might be crucial in the saving of the life of this patient. If electronic data is available, then it would be easier to treat whatever medical condition a patient has because the doctors have almost instant access to their medical records, and in fact, the chances of such a patient living would be significantly higher.

        Electronic medical records are here to stay because they reduce the chances of physicians making errors in their diagnosis of a patient’s illness due to the fact that they will have the patient’s entire medical history before they start attending on him or her. Although electronic medical records have been said to have saved the lives of many and that there are even higher possibilities of their doing so in future, it still has the problem of cost. Installing an electronic medical records system in a hospital or clinic, for example, can be very expensive and many doctors opt not to do it because of the cost. Unless cheaper ways are found to ensure that electronic data systems are more available to doctors at cheaper prices, then the future of electronic medical records will be threatened, not only increasing the risk to the lives of the patients but will also continue to burden the already strained medical health care system as it is today, making medical services even slower.

          However, the health reform law and the stimulus package put in place recently by the American government have encouraged the shifting of the health care system from paper records to electronic ones. Billions of dollars have been put into incentive programs to reward doctors who meet the standards set for establishing electronic records. The problem with having electronic medical records currently is that although many medical practitioners keep electronic records, they have no centralized system through which the patient’s information can be shared and this leads to the same problem as that experienced by the use of the paper system, that is, the loss of time. It is estimated that fewer than a quarter of all medical practitioners in the United States have the necessary technology to share their patients’ medical information with other medical practitioners and it is believed that the efficient sharing of this information will not be in place for another five years.

          The main beneficiaries of the electronic medical records will be the patients themselves because sometimes, medical and diagnostic errors occur because complete patient information is not available at the time of patient care and doctors are forced to provide care based on a patient’s recollection or in worst cases not information at all. An integrated electronic medical records system could help resolve this problem because doctors will have all the information they need about a patient’s medical history hence reducing the chances of errors occurring.

          Furthermore, the use of electronic medical records protects the patient’s privacy from eavesdropping because these records are password protected hence limiting their access to only the patient and their doctor. It has been found that adequate technology is available to protect the patient’s privacy and this can be found cheaply. However, the making of medical records electronic can have some unforeseen effects in the future because even though it is safer in matters of privacy, any breach in the security of the electronic system can completely compromise the privacy of a patient and their information might be available for all to see especially online. With very few controls over the internet, the patient’s medical history and personal information can no longer be kept private.

                In conclusion, it can be said that the future of electronic medical records is assured because not only is it faster to use but it is also more efficient than the paper medical records. It can be used to reduce the time which a patient spends at a clinic or hospital because all their information will be available for the doctor and there would be no need for this patient to be asked numerous questions about their medical history that they may not be able to answer accurately. This new system will also enable doctors to see more patients in a day than they do currently and it may also allow them to make a diagnosis of their patients remotely because with a medical history at hand, all he will have to do is make a prescription and only if the case is serious will he require to see the patient.

Nurse Staffing and the Quality of Patient Care

For many years, the safe staffing of nurses has been linked to the positive outcomes of patients. It has been noticed that nurse staffing has an effect on the length in which patients stay in hospital as well as the efficiency of their treatment. Adequate nurse staffing in hospitals has the outcome of decreasing the duration of patients’ hospital stay. It has also been found that there is a decrease in the number of medical errors made concerning patients. Furthermore, adequate staffing also has an impact on nurses because they become more motivated in their work, which increases their efficiency. This efficiency helps the patient as it improves the care which they are given, and this leads to the patient’s swift recovery. 

Adequate nurse staffing in hospitals reduces the patients’ mortality rates due to the fact that they have the full attention of the nurses throughout their convalescence. It is, therefore, important for hospitals to ensure that they have adequate nurse staffing so that only the best possible care can be provided for patients. Moreover, with a balanced nurse to patient ratio, the patients’ hospital stay will be reduced, meaning that more attention will be given to the remaining patients.

In conclusion, it can be said that nurse staffing does indeed have an impact on the quality of care that patients receive. If the ratio between nurses and patients is well balanced, then the patients will have the best care and their recovery will be quite swift. However, if there are fewer nurses in relation to the patients they serve, then the latter will have very poor service. If fact, their recovery rate, will be very low while their mortality rate will go up significantly. Nurse staffing should always be given priority when dealing with matters concerning healthcare to ensure that services of good quality are provided for patients.

Implications of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the Healthcare Environment

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the most important policy initiatives of the American government in the contemporary world. The first of its aims to ensure that there is collaboration between government, individuals, and employers in order to achieve near-universal healthcare coverage. The second aim is to ensure that al of those individuals who receive health insurance coverage are able to achieve a high level of fairness, affordability, and quality. Another aim is to ensure that individuals who have coverage are able to receive a high quality of care without wasteful spending through the improvement of efficiency and accountability to patients. This policy also aims at promoting the development of a situation where there is a strengthening of primary care with the objective of easier access to preventative healthcare; essentially encouraging the reduction of healthcare costs. The final objective of this policy is to ensure that there is investment in needed healthcare facilities in so that it can be possible to bring about the expansion of clinical preventative care that is useful in the creation of a stable healthcare system. Patient Protection and Affordable Care is essential in the fixing the healthcare system so that a majority of the population can have access to quality care.

One of the most fundamental aspects of the American healthcare system is that it is one of the most expensive in the world. Unlike in European countries, where there are strong social welfare systems that ensure universal healthcare, in the United States, prior to Affordable Care, it was quite difficult for individuals to access quality healthcare. Furthermore, there was a situation where very few individuals had health insurance; meaning that some treatable health conditions ended up becoming a burden on patients. Therefore, the move by government to ensure that there was the expansion of healthcare insurance as well as an increase in investment in medical facilities to cater for the needs of individuals in need of them. This legislation had considerable support from the Obama administration, which promoted it by proposing that it was not only a matter of government policy, but also a moral issue that could not be ignored. In addition, while there was an attempt by the Democratic majority in Congress to take on a bipartisan approach, this ended up not being the case because the policy faced considerable opposition from conservative elements in the Republican Party such as the Tea Party. Moreover, some lobby groups associated with the healthcare complex were also involved in pushing their agendas in the development of the policy.

Among the considerations that were made during the development of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the establishment of a single-payer Medicare for All Act. However, this option was discarded because of the belief that it would not be able to acquire support within the Senate that was filibuster-proof. The Medicare for All Act would have been one of the most progressive accomplishments of the policy because it would have ensured that all individuals were able to have health insurance. However, this alternative was not considered because it would have met with considerable opposition, especially from the conservative elements in the Republican Party. Furthermore, there was the fear that if such an act was passed by Congress, it would encourage freeloading among those individuals who were not willing to pay their fair share of insurance premiums. Therefore, the most progressive aspects of the Affordable Care Act were discarded because of the potential of considerable opposition to it. Furthermore, the need to ensure that the bipartisan concerns were addressed so that the act could be passed meant that compromises had to be made in order to create a situation where it was possible for majority support to be comfortably obtained.

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act was conducted at the state level. However, it was not implemented according to its original design because of considerable resistance that the legislation received from its opponents. A consequence was that states were given the option of making the decision of whether or not to expand their Medicaid programs. Since the objective of promoting the full adoption of Affordable Care in the whole of the United States was not achieved, it has remained a considerable point of contention on both sides of the political divide. However, a number of states ended up expanding their Medicaid to such an extent that a large number of individuals who previously did not have the means to have quality healthcare currently have access to it. This situation shows that if there had been proper bipartisan support for the policy, it would have led to universal healthcare coverage in the country to such an extent that it would have promoted the health of all Americans while reducing costs. Those states that opted not to expand their Medicaid created a situation where the federal government had to revise its estimates concerning how Affordable Care would work. This meant that it was essential to reduce the expectations concerning the savings that would have been made following implementation in all states.

While the policy started with good intentions for the healthcare system, it ended up not being able to achieve its intended goals because of resistance towards it both at the political and state levels. However, it was able to solve a considerable part of the original problem because it allowed individuals who could not previously afford it to have healthcare coverage. The progress of this policy was interrupted because some states opted not to adopt it because of the belief that it would increase their Medicaid costs. The lack of bipartisan support for this policy, especially considering Republican resistance, meant that its chances of success were limited to those states that adopted it. A consequence was that because some states opted not to adopt Affordable Care, the cost savings ended up being much less than was originally projected. Thus, this policy can be considered to have been neither a success nor a failure because while it was able to achieve its objectives in some states, in others, it had a hard time gaining acceptance.