Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ digital
    • Subscribe to CMAJ print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ digital
    • Subscribe to CMAJ print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Letters

One EHR should not rule them all

Steven C. Wong and Charles Osborne
CMAJ July 29, 2019 191 (30) E844; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.72273
Steven C. Wong
Assistant professor; physician informatician, General Internal Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
MD MHI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles Osborne
Project manager ICAT Redevelopment, West Park Healthcare, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
MHI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

There is much hope in being able to leverage technology to improve health care, and understandably much frustration when it does not deliver as quickly as hoped. However, as with any cycle, it is important to avoid the lows as well as the highs. We should not lose sight of the goal and not forget to understand the underlying issues.

In an editorial published in CMAJ, Dr. Nav Persaud’s assertion that interoperability is an “unsolvable problem” that could be solved with a single company health record is not borne out with fact in the Canadian system.1 Health information exchange systems like those in Ontario (ClinicalConnect, ConnectingGTA) are proof that records can, and are, being accepted and transferred between different sites. The Ontario Laboratories Information System stores and transmits information to a multitude of inpatient and outpatient electronic health records. The challenge is not to provide a single technological platform, but to break down the barriers to interoperability that are created when business models are threatened and privacy laws are outdated.

Our local experience in the implementation of a commercial enterprise-wide electronic health record (EHR) has taught us that customization of a local instance of software leads to forks in that software that make interoperability with other instances difficult and does not solve the interoperability problem. This is not unique to our hospital; given the countless differences in everything from nomenclature to business logic between medical organizations, there is simply no benefit in trying to employ “one-size-fits-all” solutions. In health care, forcing all practitioners to conform to a single product serves only to guarantee the inefficiency of this product.

The idea that open-source software could be the solution also ignores the real challenge of maintaining and developing a highly complex piece of software for all stakeholders in the health care system. Major university health systems in the United States have moved away from customizable software to commercial instances because of these challenges.2 The current landscape of providers stuck with a poor EHR would be magnified when all development is given to a monopoly.

Even if all health care providers did use the same EHR product, their data would not suddenly become interoperable. In fact, interoperability of health care data has existed for decades with Health Level Seven International (HL7). This is why health information exchange is effective — each provider is able to use technology in the way that is most beneficial to their practice, and is responsible only for outputting the requested data in a standardized fashion. This approach is accepted in other professions: for example, shareholder documents (balance sheet, income statement) follow a standard format, but internally each company is able to track its expenses in a way that best suits its specific business.

The problem is not each individual EHR platform; the problem is the lack of incentive for alignment and a paucity of regulation to enable interoperability. Standards already exist for semantic transfer of information. What we need is not another large public failure of implementation of information technology,3 but a bold push toward regulated interoperability requirements and modernization of privacy laws.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Persaud N
    . A national electronic health record for primary care. CMAJ 2019;191:E28–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. McCluskey PD
    . Partners’ $1.2b patient data system seen as key to future. Boston Globe 2018 June 1. Available: www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/05/31/partners-launches-billion-electronic-health-records-system/oo4nJJW2rQyfWUWQlvydkK/story.html (accessed 2019 Feb. 11).
  3. ↵
    The electronic health records system in the UK. Centre for Public Impact; 2017. Available: www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/electronic-health-records-system-uk/ (accessed 2019 Feb. 11).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (30)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 30
29 Jul 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
One EHR should not rule them all
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
One EHR should not rule them all
Steven C. Wong, Charles Osborne
CMAJ Jul 2019, 191 (30) E844; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72273

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
One EHR should not rule them all
Steven C. Wong, Charles Osborne
CMAJ Jul 2019, 191 (30) E844; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72273
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • A national electronic health record for primary care
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The authors respond to letters on using prescribed psychostimulants to treat stimulant use disorder
  • Vigilance needed with methamphetamine-associated psychosis
  • Critical examination of incorporating prescription psychostimulants into the continuum of care for people with stimulant use disorder in Canada
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire