In response to Joseph Conn’s “Computers reduce odds of in-hospital deaths: study":
While there is likely some link to computerized medical records—i.e. no paper—in reducing inpatient death risk, you would likely have to control for other factors such as the type of facility and financial status of the institution. Many facilities with fully operational electronic health records tend to also have less tenuous financials, more-focused selection of patients, higher volumes of the measured procedures and other factors shown to drive better outcomes. EHRs are important for fully integrated, quality care over time but we should be careful to not over anticipate the results of what will be a very expensive transition to electronic records.
Deborah Hammond, M.D.
Ridgewood, N.J.
The article implies that computerizing records will reduce mortality and costs, but while the article does show some correlation, it does not show causation. In just may be that mortality goes down because hospitals that can afford to computerize their records can also afford to pay to have the best doctors and have the newest operating-room equipment. Show causation next time, please.
Kurt Williamsen
Appleton, Wis.
Did they use paper or computers to do the study?
Neil Hecht, D.P.M.
Sherman Oaks, Calif.
What do you think? To submit a letter to YOUR VIEWS, click here. Please include your name, title, company and hometown. Health IT Strategist reserves the right to edit all submissions.
Also, please share your thoughts by taking our latest HITS reader poll.
REPRINTS
BOOKMARK & SHARE
