Sir, – In an ideal world, I’d share the enthusiasm for electronic patient records expressed by Dr Douglas Hamilton (Letters, September 2nd). The advantages for clarity, communication, collaboration and coordination across services would be many. Reduplication of tests would be avoidable and research could thrive.
In a world of technological transience, though, significant problems are very foreseeable. It is hard to think of any electronic record system or application that doesn’t undergo constant, and often major, transformations. Often they are simply discontinued. For instance, Google introduced a patient record in 2008, and removed it in 2012. It was reintroduced in 2018 and then again dissolved in 2021. This is, of course, one of the world’s biggest companies. Other technology operators may simply go out of business entirely, and their products be left unsupported or inaccessible. Consulting medical records frequently requires looking at letters and written notes from decades ago. Most weeks, as a hospital doctor, I will skim through letters and clinical notes written in the 1980s and 1990s, and records of operations done then. Any enthusiasm to replace these with electronic equivalents will need to be tempered by recognition of how short term the thinking of the vendors may be.
Being certain that someone in the 2060s will be able to rapidly search the record is asking a lot of suppliers.
Just such a guarantee is provided by the use of stationery without consideration – even if the writing is often illegible. – Yours, etc,
Modernism in Irish Women’s Writing review: Great insights into work of female writers
Ireland’s best-kept secret: our climate is heaven
LIV defectors Jon Rahm and Tyrrell Hatton should be cut adrift from the Ryder Cup
Darren’s abuse by the priest ended when he was 11. His story remains one of the worst I’ve heard
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.