2012 December 7
I feel that electronic medical records are way better for the health field than paper medical records. But, it’s your opinion. What is better, electronic or paper medical records? What do you prefer? What is safer? What is more efficient? What is easier to do? What is easier to store? What is more cost effective? What is more convenient? What is more economical? What is easier to read and understand?
I think that electronics medical records are easier to store, because they don’t take up a lot of storage space. They keep all your records in handy dandy little computer versus in big filing cabinets. You also do not have to take a huge room and fill it with papers. I also think that paper medical records are not good for the economy due to the waste of paper, and on the other hand, they are more likely to be a fire hazard and if there were a fire, they would all burn to little ashes. Then, there would be no form of any medical records. Another thing is if the computer system crashes, then you would lose all of your medical records. One downfall to electronic medical records is that they are very costly, and paper is a cheaper source for records. Unless you were to have them saved to another device also, then you would have them to keep as a backup.
The security of electronic medical records is about the same security as paper medical records, but electronic medical records have more of a blocking system. Only certain people have access to electronic medical records versus if it is paper, it is more vulnerable to be seen if the wrong person comes across it. Only certain people can have access to change or enter information in. It is also easier to not make mistakes in electronic medical records as they have a system that spell and grammar checks things you enter. There is also a system that you can go by and no information will be...