Now that I have just advocated for EMR content customization, let’s return to content design. This is my favorite part of EMR implementation. I wrote earlier on educating the clinician members of your design team about databases. Next they need to understand the different data types available for capturing information and the implications of data type decisions. 

The most important distinction is between free text and dictionary-based data types. Everyone is already familiar with the notion of typing ongoing text. Similarly, most people have encountered check boxes on forms, e.g. medical histories attached to clipboards in doctor waiting rooms. Clinicians are comfortable with creating narratives as part of clinical histories and other documentation. Indeed I have seen several behavioral health EHR’s that consist entirely of textboxes for entering the organizations’ usual narrative content. Such EMR’s are essentially electronic paper, but what a waste! Among the advantages of an EMR are efficiency, standardization and aggregated reporting.  None of these is achieved using narrative textboxes.

But deeper issues lie beneath the type or click choice. Clinicians think of the clinical history as the patient’s story. I heartily agree with this. Effective treatment is grounded in understanding the story of the person’s problems and suffering. At the same time, the story includes numerous individual pieces of information, for example, past substance abuse, the presence of a firearm in the house, sexual abuse by a family member rather than a stranger and a parent who committed suicide. Such salient features of client stories, alone or in combination, can serve to trigger alerts about individual risk. They can help supervisors and administrators identify and monitor the care of clients with a defined set of problems. Aggregated, they can guide managers to unmet service needs.

Likewise, a case summary can be a text formulation and/or lists and measurement scales. The former presses the clinician to integrate an explanatory narrative that justifies an approach to treatment. The latter asks the clinician to abstract specific problems and strengths, to assign a diagnosis and to quantify patient attributes in various domains. The narrative facilitates reflection and understanding. The lists and scales sharpen focus and enable accountability. Aggregated lists and scales can help address important questions including about outcomes, efficacy and best use of resources.

Likewise with progress notes and so on. Now what of the original question – to type or to click? The answer is to do both in artful, disciplined combinations. In my next blog, I’ll give some examples of such combinations, which I hope will be artful and disciplined or at least useful.