Featured Post

Is the new professionalism and ACP's new ethics really just about following guidelines?

The Charter ( Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium.A Physician's Charter) did not deal with just the important relationship of ...

Thursday, April 05, 2018

More on the "lying"or at best really stupid electronic medical record

My medical record at a well known medical center -which shall remain nameless-has labelled me as having atrial fibrillation and it seems to be written in indelible electronic ink refractory to my attempts to erase it.

It came about because of two computers conspiring  together. The first was the computer inside of my pace maker.Its algorithm to detect atrial fibrillation detected signals which were interpreted at "AT/AF", meaning atrial tachycardia/ atrial fibrillation. It was a false positive c via all , tricked by a Pacemaker phenomenon called far field sensing. This occur when the sensing lead in one cardiac chamber senses activity in the other chamber and miscounts it. Ultimately the Medtronic tech recognized it and adjusted the atrial lead sensitivity so that the double counting would not occur. Problem fixed but..

The second computer, my electronic medical record (EMR) latched on to the "diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and will not let go. I have written my "patient portal" with a full explanation indicating that my EP cardiologist concurred.

Recently, I met with my new primary care internist who is attached to the same computer system and we discussed my blood pressure, my pacemaker and no mention was made of AF.He never said the words atrial fibrillation.I gave him two of my old EKGs which did not show atrial fibrillation . Yet when he gave me a copy of my patient visit summary my current health issues were said to be 1.pacemaker 2.atrial fibrillation.

Did the computer write the second diagnosis on its own. Did the doc see it, did he even read what was printed out? I cannot believe he even saw it. I cannot believe a board certified internist of over 25 years experience would not have asked why was I not taking an anticoagulant as my CHADS2-VASc score of 3 would warrant anticoagulation according to all guidelines.In the days of the paper medical record can one imagine an internist handing a patient a report that said he had atrial fibrillation when he was aware of no evidence that he in fact had AF?

Of perhaps less significance, my printout also listed a physician who I had never seen, never heard of before and apparently is a pediatrician not even affiliated with the hospital.

The computer systems with which physicians try to make "meaningful use" were  designed to assist coding and quality reporting,have little to do with  improving patient care and often have the opposite effect and not infrequently are harmful and at least sometimes seem invulnerable to correction by the patient.




No comments: