The Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters in any care delivery setting. Included in this information are patient demographics, progress notes, problems, medications, vital signs, past medical history, immunizations, laboratory data and radiology reports. The EHR automates and streamlines the clinician’s workflow. The EHR has the ability to generate a complete record of a clinical patient encounter – as well as supporting other care-related activities directly or indirectly via interface – including evidence-based decision support, quality management, and outcomes reporting.
An electronic medical record (EMR) is a computerized medical record created in an organization that delivers care, such as a hospital and doctor’s surgery. Electronic medical records tend to be a part of a local stand-alone health information system that allows storage, retrieval and modification of records.
So, there you have ’em — the two major terms that compete for attention in our business. The top definition comes from HIMSS and the second, from Wikipedia.
In the circles where I travel, “EMR” and “EHR” are used interchangeably, but not everyone agrees they should be. In my mind, for example, the two terms shouldn’t exist — only EMR does the trick.
Why? To my knowledge, the term “medical record” has a widely-accepted definition, but the term “health record” has no formal place in medical care. And there’s no reason to toss an imprecisely-defined term into the mix when we’re struggling to define so much about digital healthcare. (For what it’s worth, Wikipedia defines the EHR as an “evolving concept.”)
Good Lord, toss in the even more poorly defined term “PHR” and you’ve officially created a conceptual traffic loop which could create traffic crashes for years to come.
But I know not everyone cares about terminology the way a slightly-obsessed editor does. What do you folks think? Do you care which acronym the industry uses? Does it matter?