Talk:Electronic medical record

Over 9000 Strikes Again

Some nerd at 207.74.79.75 thought he was funny and changed a statistic from 600,000 to "over 9000". I reverted it back. The original reference has been moved by the LA Times, however Electronic Health Records has the correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.170.130 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

130.215.170.130 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The charts

appear to be a hive of nonnotable websites trying to promote themselves. Does anybody agree with me that the charts should be removed? ThemFromSpace 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Link Microchip implant (human)

Could we add a link to Microchip implant (human)? Stars4change (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And say that's the future of every person's medical history, which gets lost from changing doctors often. No one knows what shots they had from birth but the chip implant will make it easy to know that info for a lifetime. It can also eliminate paper and save forests. Stars4change (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger attempts 2009?

Please don't just redirect, but start a discussion if you think this article should be merged with EHR. Thanks Mootros (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, but when I read what was left, I didn't see anything, with the possible exception of the protocol list, that wasn't already there. I've commented at WT:WikiProject Medicine to try to get more input on the topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think they are two distinct topics. But lets see what input we get.Mootros (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with merging. I'm in the medical field though not IT, and I don't consider them different. So I doubt the average reader will; they will only be confused and scattered to and fro. If the articles' information is really redundant, then that's more reason to merge. - Draeco (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have said this before but point it out again (and I am an IT professional rather than health). An EHR is the idea of a record containing health information. That includes but is not limited to medical information. EMR implies only information relevant to medicine which is more restrictive. But still, the difference basically a minor point of language. I'd support the merging of the two articles because, for the lay person (and increasingly the expert) they are one and the same. Donama (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. (130.37.60.174 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Joris)

I agree too. pojoman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.142.232.7 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

KnowESys Hi I am new to editing Wikipedia but I do know that these are two different topics and have added a paragraph to the page that explains the difference. I have a pdf on the topic but don't know how to attach it to my reference. Help would be appreciated. —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

I agree too. Electronic health record is a much more complete and useful article.Dikteren (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

--KnowESys (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Many people in the US healthcare industry, our government, and the press use the terms electronic medical record (EMR) and electronic health record (EHR) interchangeably. However, these terms describe completely different concepts, both of which are crucial to the success of local, regional, and national goals to improve patient safety, improve the quality and efficiency of patient care, and reduce healthcare delivery costs. EHRs are reliant on EMRs being in place, and EMRs will never reach their full potential without interoperable EHRs in place. It s important to understand the differences, and to reduce confusion in the market.

So, basically, everybody except KnowESys thinks the articles should be merged?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the addition of links to this page

There are several IPs placing large numbers of search result and other links to several talk pages without any discussion or explanation other than confusing edit summaries. Could you please first discuss why these links are being added and what's meant by the edit summaries that say the edits are "required" and "legislative." Are you referring to a Wikipedia policy or some external entity that's requiring these additions or inclusion of information to the articles based on info from these links? What do these links accomplish and how are editors supposed to use them in the current and future editing of these articles? Talk pages are for discussion and clarification among editors, not as extensions of articles or an index or bibliography, so if there's a requirement to be included as part of these subjects, then the links need to be part of the actual article, not the talk page. If you need help, there are plenty of experienced editors who can help. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 20:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If this person is here to interfere my writing, it's impossible for me to do things properly

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mootros

How can ond do things without traceability....???

I'm sure that although there are so many login names by which my editions were reverted almost every time ever since I start writing here, the reliable IP address is able to figure out who is who. In this sense, the site is somehow corrupted too. Therefore, I can tell every one who is interested in my writing that I'll never ever edit the page systematically but do it in my interest unless the site also have a edit guidance directory for one to tracking and follow up

See the versions of the article before what User:Mootros was doing

--222.64.22.132 (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer my specific questions. Please respond to them before raising other issues. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 10:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See my discussion at Talk:Title 21 CFR Part 11 --222.67.200.69 (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no discussion or explanation on the page you mention, just more gibberish and dozens of links added by similar IPs. There are dozens and dozens of talk pages with similar edits and no explanation why or any corresponding addition of content (expansion templates don't count) using the links as references. Why are you adding these links? Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no legitimate discussion about the dozens of links added to numerous articles, I am removing them. Flowanda | Talk 10:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully support that. I think it's time to follow WP:EL to the letter with future links added. Mainly, we need to keep them to an absolute minimum. Donama (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)