How Automation in Electronic Medical Records Can Lead to Errors in Dermatology
Main Article Content
Keywords
requisition form, electronic health record, electronic medical record, dermatopathology, pathology
Abstract
The integration of electronic health records has revolutionized healthcare by facilitating communication among providers, but it has also introduced significant challenges. In dermatology, a particular issue arises with the use of electronic medical record (EMR) systems that employ auto-populated fields on digital pathology requisition forms (RFs) for skin biopsies. These systems allow for the rapid selection of pre-set descriptions and differential diagnoses, which, while timesaving, frequently lead to diagnostic inaccuracies and potentially detrimental impacts on patient care.
Dermatopathologists often receive biopsy specimens with RFs that list multiple provisional diagnoses based on generic, EMR-generated descriptions, which may not accurately represent the patient’s condition. This practice hampers the ability of dermatopathologists to perform effective clinicopathologic correlation, crucial for accurate diagnosis. We highlight that the convenience of EMR systems can discourage clinicians from recording detailed, accurate clinical observations. Consequently, this lack of detailed documentation prevents dermatopathologists from making informed diagnoses by correlating histologic features with clinical appearances. The current practice of using EMRs without consideration for their clinical relevance not only wastes healthcare resources but also poses a significant medico-legal risk. Therefore, refining EMR practices and integrating more comprehensive clinical data will ensure greater accuracy in dermatological diagnoses.
References
2. Budd J. Burnout Related to Electronic Health Record Use in Primary Care. J Prim Care Community Health. Jan-Dec 2023;14:21501319231166921. doi:10.1177/21501319231166921
3. Waller JM, Zedek DC. How informative are dermatopathology requisition forms completed by dermatologists? A review of the clinical information provided for 100 consecutive melanocytic lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. Feb 2010;62(2):257-61. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2009.06.049
4. Romano RC, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Comfere NI. Measures of Completeness and Accuracy of Clinical Information in Skin Biopsy Requisition Forms: An Analysis of 249 Cases. Am J Clin Pathol. Dec 2016;146(6):727-735. doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqw186
5. Comfere NI, Sokumbi O, Montori VM, et al. Provider-to-provider communication in dermatology and implications of missing clinical information in skin biopsy requisition forms: a systematic review. Int J Dermatol. May 2014;53(5):549-57. doi:10.1111/ijd.12330
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honor or reputation.
Authors retain copyright in their work and license the publisher to publish the content. The publisher is the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, with production and publishing support provided by OJS, Open Journal Systems,see https://pkp.sfu.
Prior to January 2022, authors transferred copyright to the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine. However, all articles are freely available to anyone in the world. There are no subscription fees, page charges, or article processing charges.