Hubbry Logo
Medical recordMedical recordMain
Open search
Medical record
Community hub
Medical record
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Medical record
Medical record
Medical record
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The terms medical record, health record and medical chart are used somewhat interchangeably to describe the systematic documentation of a single patient's medical history and care across time within one particular health care provider's jurisdiction.[1] A medical record includes a variety of types of "notes" entered over time by healthcare professionals, recording observations and administration of drugs and therapies, orders for the administration of drugs and therapies, test results, X-rays, reports, etc. The maintenance of complete and accurate medical records is a requirement of health care providers and is generally enforced as a licensing or certification prerequisite.

The terms are used for the written (paper notes), physical (image films) and digital records that exist for each individual patient and for the body of information found therein.

Medical records have traditionally been compiled and maintained by health care providers, but advances in online data storage have led to the development of personal health records (PHR) that are maintained by patients themselves, often on third-party websites.[2] This concept is supported by US national health administration entities[3] and by AHIMA, the American Health Information Management Association.[4]

A medical record folder being pulled from the records

Because many consider the information in medical records to be sensitive private information covered by expectations of privacy, many ethical and legal issues are implicated in their maintenance, such as third-party access and appropriate storage and disposal.[5] Although the storage equipment for medical records generally is the property of the health care provider, the actual record is considered in most jurisdictions to be the property of the patient, who may obtain copies upon request.[6]

Uses

[edit]

The information contained in the medical record allows health care providers to determine the patient's medical history and provide informed care. The medical record serves as the central repository for planning patient care and documenting communication among patient and health care provider and professionals contributing to the patient's care. An increasing purpose of the medical record is to ensure documentation of compliance with institutional, professional or governmental regulation.

The traditional medical record for inpatient care can include admission notes, on-service notes, progress notes (SOAP notes), preoperative notes, operative notes, postoperative notes, procedure notes, delivery notes, postpartum notes, and discharge notes.

Personal health records combine many of the above features with portability, thus allowing a patient to share medical records across providers and health care systems.[7]

Electronic medical records could also be studied to quantify disease burdens – such as the number of deaths from antimicrobial resistance[8] – or help identify causes of, factors of and contributors to diseases,[9][10] especially when combined with genome-wide association studies.[11][12] For such purposes, electronic medical records could potentially be made available in securely anonymized or pseudonymized[13] forms to ensure patients' privacy is maintained.[14][12][15][16]

Contents

[edit]

A patient's individual medical record identifies the patient and contains information regarding the patient's case history at a particular provider. The health record as well as any electronically stored variant of the traditional paper files contain proper identification of the patient.[17] Further information varies with the individual medical history of the patient.

The contents are generally written with other healthcare professionals in mind. This can result in confusion and hurt feelings when patients read these notes.[18] For example, some abbreviations, such as for shortness of breath, are similar to the abbreviations for profanities, and taking "time out" to follow a surgical safety protocol might be misunderstood as a disciplinary technique for children.[18]

Media applied

[edit]

Traditionally, medical records were written on paper and maintained in folders often divided into sections for each type of note (progress note, order, test results), with new information added to each section chronologically. Active records are usually housed at the clinical site, but older records are often archived offsite.

The advent of electronic medical records has not only changed the format of medical records but has increased accessibility of files. The use of an individual dossier style medical record, where records are kept on each patient by name and illness type originated at the Mayo Clinic out of a desire to simplify patient tracking and to allow for medical research.[citation needed]

Maintenance of medical records requires security measures to prevent from unauthorized access or tampering with the records.[citation needed]

Medical history

[edit]

The medical history is a longitudinal record of what has happened to the patient since birth. It chronicles diseases, major and minor illnesses, as well as growth landmarks. It gives the clinician a feel for what has happened before to the patient. As a result, it may often give clues to current disease state. It includes several subsets detailed below.

Surgical history
The surgical history is a chronicle of surgery performed for the patient. It may have dates of operations, operative reports, and/or the detailed narrative of what the surgeon did.
Obstetric history
The obstetric history lists prior pregnancies and their outcomes. It also includes any complications of these pregnancies.
Medications and medical allergies
The medical record may contain a summary of the patient's current and previous medications as well as any medical allergies.
Family history
The family history lists the health status of immediate family members as well as their causes of death (if known).[19] It may also list diseases common in the family or found only in one sex or the other. It may also include a pedigree chart. It is a valuable asset in predicting some outcomes for the patient.
Social history
The social history is a chronicle of human interactions. It tells of the relationships of the patient, his/her careers and trainings, and religious training. It is helpful for the physician to know what sorts of community support the patient might expect during a major illness. It may explain the behavior of the patient in relation to illness or loss. It may also give clues as to the cause of an illness (e.g. occupational exposure to asbestos).
Habits
Various habits which impact health, such as tobacco use, alcohol intake, exercise, and diet are chronicled, often as part of the social history. This section may also include more intimate details such as sexual habits and sexual orientation.
Immunization history
The history of vaccination is included. Any blood tests proving immunity will also be included in this section.
Growth chart and developmental history
For children and teenagers, charts documenting growth as it compares to other children of the same age is included, so that health-care providers can follow the child's growth over time. Many diseases and social stresses can affect growth, and longitudinal charting can thus provide a clue to underlying illness. Additionally, a child's behavior (such as timing of talking, walking, etc.) as it compares to other children of the same age is documented within the medical record for much the same reasons as growth.

Medical encounters

[edit]

Within the medical record, individual medical encounters are marked by discrete summations of a patient's medical history by a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant and can take several forms. Hospital admission documentation (i.e., when a patient requires hospitalization) or consultation by a specialist often take an exhaustive form, detailing the entirety of prior health and health care. Routine visits by a provider familiar to the patient, however, may take a shorter form such as the problem-oriented medical record (POMR), which includes a problem list of diagnoses or a "SOAP" method of documentation for each visit. Each encounter will generally contain the aspects below:

Chief complaint
This is the main problem (traditionally called a complaint) that has brought the patient to see the doctor or other clinician. Information on the nature and duration of the problem will be explored.
History of the present illness
A detailed exploration of the symptoms the patient is experiencing that have caused the patient to seek medical attention.
Physical examination
The physical examination is the recording of observations of the patient. This includes the vital signs, muscle power and examination of the different organ systems, especially ones that might directly be responsible for the symptoms the patient is experiencing.
Assessment and plan
The assessment is a written summation of what are the most likely causes of the patient's current set of symptoms. The plan documents the expected course of action to address the symptoms (diagnosis, treatment, etc.).

Orders and prescriptions

[edit]

Written orders by medical providers are included in the medical record. These detail the instructions given to other members of the health care team by the primary providers.

Progress notes

[edit]

When a patient is hospitalized, daily updates are entered into the medical record documenting clinical changes, new information, etc. These often take the form of a SOAP note and are entered by all members of the health-care team (doctors, nurses, physical therapists, dietitians, clinical pharmacists, respiratory therapists, etc.). They are kept in chronological order and document the sequence of events leading to the current state of health.

Test results

[edit]

The results of testing, such as blood tests (e.g., complete blood count) radiology examinations (e.g., X-rays), pathology (e.g., biopsy results), or specialized testing (e.g., pulmonary function testing) are included. Often, as in the case of X-rays, a written report of the findings is included in lieu of the actual film.

Other information

[edit]

Many other items are variably kept within the medical record. Digital images of the patient, flowsheets from operations/intensive care units, informed consent forms, EKG tracings, outputs from medical devices (such as pacemakers), chemotherapy protocols, and numerous other important pieces of information form part of the record depending on the patient and his or her set of illnesses/treatments.

Administrative issues

[edit]
A ward clerk in the Menn Hospital, Colorado

Medical records are legal documents that can be used as evidence via a subpoena duces tecum,[20] and are thus subject to the laws of the country/state in which they are produced. As such, there is great variability in rules governing production, ownership, accessibility, and destruction. There is some controversy regarding proof verifying the facts, or absence of facts in the record, apart from the medical record itself.[citation needed]

In 2009, Congress authorized and funded legislation known as the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act[21] to stimulate the conversion of paper medical records into electronic charts. While many hospitals and doctor's offices have since done this successfully, electronic health vendors' proprietary systems are sometimes incompatible.[22]

Demographics

[edit]

Demographics include patient information that is not medical in nature. It is often information to locate the patient, including identifying numbers, addresses, and contact numbers. It may contain information about race and religion as well as workplace and type of occupation. It also contains information regarding the patient's health insurance. It is common to also find emergency contact information located in this section of the medical chart.

Production

[edit]

In the United States, written records must be marked with the date and time and scribed with indelible pens without use of corrective paper. Errors in the record should be struck out with a single line (so that the initial entry remains legible) and initialed by the author.[20] Orders and notes must be signed by the author. Electronic versions require an electronic signature.

Ownership of patient's record

[edit]

Ownership and keeping of patient's records varies from country to country.

US law and customs

[edit]

In the United States, the data contained within the medical record belongs to the patient, whereas the physical form the data takes belongs to the entity responsible for maintaining the record[23] per the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.[24] Patients have the right to ensure that the information contained in their record is accurate, and can petition their health care provider to amend factually incorrect information in their records.[20][25]

There is no consensus regarding medical record ownership in the United States. Factors complicating questions of ownership include the form and source of the information, custody of the information, contract rights, and variation in state law.[26] There is no federal law regarding ownership of medical records. HIPAA gives patients the right to access and amend their own records, but it has no language regarding ownership of the records.[27] Twenty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have no laws that define ownership of medical records. Twenty-one states have laws stating that the providers are the owners of the records. Only one state, New Hampshire, has a law ascribing ownership of medical records to the patient.[28]

Canadian law and customs

[edit]

Under Canadian federal law, the patient owns the information contained in a medical record, but the healthcare provider owns the records themselves.[29] The same is true for both nursing home and dental records. In cases where the provider is an employee of a clinic or hospital, it is the employer that has ownership of the records. By law, all providers must keep medical records for a period of 15 years beyond the last entry.[30]

The precedent for the law is the 1992 Canadian Supreme Court ruling in McInerney v MacDonald. In that ruling, an appeal by a physician, Dr. Elizabeth McInerney, challenging a patient's access to their own medical record was denied. The patient, Margaret MacDonald, won a court order granting her full access to her own medical record.[31] The case was complicated by the fact that the records were in electronic form and contained information supplied by other providers. McInerney maintained that she didn't have the right to release records she herself did not author. The courts ruled otherwise. Legislation followed, codifying into law the principles of the ruling. It is that legislation which deems providers the owner of medical records, but requires that access to the records be granted to the patient themselves.[32]

UK law and customs

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, ownership of the NHS's medical records has in the past generally been described as belonging to the Secretary of State for Health[33] and this is taken by some to mean copyright also belongs to the authorities.[34]

German law and customs

[edit]

In Germany, a relatively new law,[35] which has been established in 2013, strengthens the rights of patients. It states, amongst other things, the statutory duty of medical personnel to document the treatment of the patient in either hard copy or within the electronic patient record (EPR). This documentation must happen in a timely manner and encompass each and every form of treatment the patient receives, as well as other necessary information, such as the patient's case history, diagnoses, findings, treatment results, therapies and their effects, surgical interventions and their effects, as well as informed consents. The information must include virtually everything that is of functional importance for the actual, but also for future treatment. This documentation must also include the medical report and must be archived by the attending physician for at least 10 years. The law clearly states that these records are not only memory aids for the physicians, but also should be kept for the patient and must be presented on request.

In addition, an electronic health insurance card was issued in January 2014 which is applicable in Germany (Elektronische Gesundheitskarte or eGK), but also in the other member states of the European Union (European Health Insurance Card). It contains data such as: the name of the health insurance company, the validity period of the card, and personal information about the patient (name, date of birth, sex, address, health insurance number) as well information about the patient's insurance status and additional charges. Furthermore, it can contain medical data if agreed to by the patient. This data can include information concerning emergency care, prescriptions, an electronic medical record, and electronic physician's letters. However, due to the limited storage space (32kB), some information is deposited on servers.

Accessibility

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, the most basic rules governing access to a medical record dictate that only the patient and the health-care providers directly involved in delivering care have the right to view the record. The patient, however, may grant consent for any person or entity to evaluate the record. The full rules regarding access and security for medical records are set forth under the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The rules become more complicated in special situations. A 2018 study found discrepancies in how major hospitals handle record requests, with forms displaying limited information relative to phone conversations.[36]

Capacity
When a patient does not have capacity (is not legally able) to make decisions regarding his or her own care, a legal guardian is designated (either through next of kin or by action of a court of law if no kin exists). Legal guardians have the ability to access the medical record in order to make medical decisions on the patient's behalf. Those without capacity include the comatose, minors (unless emancipated), and patients with incapacitating psychiatric illness or intoxication.
Medical emergency
In the event of a medical emergency involving a non-communicative patient, consent to access medical records is assumed unless written documentation has been previously drafted (such as an advance directive)
Research, auditing, and evaluation
Individuals involved in medical research, financial or management audits, or program evaluation have access to the medical record. They are not allowed access to any identifying information, however.
Risk of death or harm
Information within the record can be shared with authorities without permission when failure to do so would result in death or harm, either to the patient or to others. Information cannot be used, however, to initiate or substantiate a charge unless the previous criteria are met (i.e., information from illicit drug testing cannot be used to bring charges of possession against a patient). This rule was established in the United States Supreme Court case Jaffe v. Redmond [1].

Canada

[edit]

In the 1992 Canadian Supreme Court ruling in McInerney v. MacDonald gave patients the right to copy and examine all information in their medical records, while the records themselves remained the property of the healthcare provider.[31] The 2004 Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) contains regulatory guidelines to protect the confidentiality of patient information for healthcare organizations acting as stewards of their medical records.[37] Despite legal precedent for access nationwide, there is still some variance in laws depending on the province. There is also some confusion among providers as to the scope of the patient information they have to give access to, but the language in the supreme court ruling gives patient access rights to their entire record.[38]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, the Data Protection Acts and later the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gave patients or their representatives the right to a copy of their record, except where information breaches confidentiality (e.g., information from another family member or where a patient has asked for information not to be disclosed to third parties) or would be harmful to the patient's wellbeing (e.g., some psychiatric assessments). Also, the legislation gives patients the right to check for any errors in their record and insist that amendments be made if required.

Destruction

[edit]

In general, entities in possession of medical records are required to maintain those records for a given period. In the United Kingdom, medical records are required for the lifetime of a patient and legally for as long as that complaint action can be brought. Generally in the UK, any recorded information should be kept legally for 7 years, but for medical records additional time must be allowed for any child to reach the age of responsibility (20 years). Medical records are required many years after a patient's death to investigate illnesses within a community (e.g., industrial or environmental disease or even deaths at the hands of doctors committing murders, as in the Harold Shipman case).[39]

Abuses

[edit]
Extract from a book
The standard of care in the case of intersex condition was to lie to the patient.

The outsourcing of medical record transcription and storage has the potential to violate patient–physician confidentiality by possibly allowing unaccountable persons access to patient data. With the increase of clinical notes being shared as a result of the 21st Century Cures Act, the increase in sensitive terms used in the records of all patients, including minors, are increasingly shared amongst care teams making privacy more complicated.[40] Intersex people have historically had their medical records intentionally falsified/concealed, to hide birth sex, and intersex medical procedures. Christiane Völling became the first intersex person in Europe to successfully sue for medical malpractice.[41]

Falsification of a medical record by a medical professional is a felony in most United States jurisdictions. Governments have often refused to disclose medical records of military personnel who have been used as experimental subjects.

Data breaches

[edit]

Given the series of medical data breaches and the lack of public trust, some countries have enacted laws requiring safeguards to be put in place to protect the security and confidentiality of medical information as it is shared electronically and to give patients some important rights to monitor their medical records and receive notification for loss and unauthorized acquisition of health information. The United States and the EU have imposed mandatory medical data breach notifications.[42]

Patients' medical information can be shared by a number of people both within the health care industry and beyond. The Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA) is a United States federal law pertaining to medical privacy that went into effect in 2003. This law established standards for patient privacy in all 50 states, including the right of patients to access to their own records. HIPAA provides some protection, but does not resolve the issues involving medical records privacy.[43]

Medical and health care providers experienced 767 security breaches resulting in the compromised confidential health information of 23,625,933 patients during the period of 2006–2012.[44]

Privacy

[edit]

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA) addresses the issue of privacy by providing medical information handling guidelines.[45] Not only is it bound by the Code of Ethics of its profession (in the case of doctors and nurses), but also by the legislation on data protection and criminal law. Professional secrecy applies to practitioners, psychologists, nursing, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nursing assistants, chiropodists, and administrative personnel, as well as auxiliary hospital staff. The maintenance of the confidentiality and privacy of patients implies first of all in the medical history, which must be adequately guarded, remaining accessible only to the authorized personnel. However, the precepts of privacy must be observed in all fields of hospital life: privacy at the time of the conduct of the anamnesis and physical exploration, the privacy at the time of the information to the relatives, the conversations between healthcare providers in the corridors, maintenance of adequate patient data collection in hospital nursing controls (planks, slates), telephone conversations, open intercoms etc.

Regional medical records

[edit]

Many governments has started to combine copies of organisations' medical records into a regional shared care record (SCR) or a national single patient record (SPR).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Medical record

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A medical record is a systematic, chronological of a 's status, including , diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes of care provided by healthcare professionals. These records enable continuity of care, inform clinical decision-making, support communication among providers, and serve legal, billing, research, and functions. Essential components typically encompass demographics and identification, biographical details, family and social history, findings, and diagnostic test results, lists and allergies, progress notes, forms, and discharge summaries. Originating as paper-based files, medical records began evolving toward electronic systems in the 1960s with early adopters like the , accelerating in the through incentives under the U.S. for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act to promote , reduce errors, and enhance data accessibility. Legally, in jurisdictions like the , records must adhere to retention periods, confidentiality standards under laws such as HIPAA—which grants to access and amend their —and requirements for , , and completeness to mitigate liability in malpractice claims. While electronic health records have improved efficiency and in empirical studies, persistent challenges include implementation costs, frustrations leading to clinician burnout, vulnerabilities to cyberattacks, and incomplete fulfillment of promises despite regulatory pushes.

History

Origins and Early Practices

The earliest known medical records emerged in , where papyrus documents such as the , dating to approximately 1550 BCE, compiled extensive lists of symptoms, diagnoses, and herbal remedies, serving as repositories for empirical observations of diseases and treatments. These texts, alongside the from around 1600–1700 BCE, which detailed surgical examinations and case-based wound management, facilitated the transmission of practical medical knowledge across generations without reliance on centralized authority, enabling practitioners to replicate effective interventions based on recorded outcomes. In , the , assembled between the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, advanced this tradition through systematic case histories, prognostic notes, and treatment protocols that emphasized observation over supernatural explanations, laying groundwork for evidence-based documentation that linked specific symptoms to therapeutic responses. During the medieval period in , medical record-keeping evolved organically within religious institutions, where monasteries and early hospitals maintained rudimentary logs primarily tracking admissions, discharges, and basic vital statuses rather than detailed clinical narratives. These practices, often managed by monastic orders, prioritized administrative efficiency to support charitable care amid limited resources, reflecting a pragmatic response to communal needs rather than comprehensive longitudinal tracking; such records preserved for recurring ailments, contributing to incremental refinements in and without imposed uniformity. By the , industrialization in and drove a shift toward standardized medical forms, as surging urban populations and hospital patient volumes—exemplified by New York Hospital's introduction of admission and discharge books in 1793—necessitated more structured to manage caseloads and support emerging research. Mid-century templates, adopted in institutions like Berlin's Hospital (established 1724 but formalized in records by the 1800s), enabled consistent data capture for educational purposes and outcome analysis, causally enhancing practitioner coordination by minimizing interpretive variances in handoffs and fostering accumulation that accelerated diagnostic accuracy. This evolution, rooted in practical demands rather than regulatory mandates, underscored record-keeping's role in bridging isolated observations into cumulative medical insight.

Standardization in the Modern Era

In the early , hospitals began adopting uniform charting systems to address inconsistencies in record-keeping that contributed to diagnostic and treatment errors amid expanding medical complexity. At the , Dr. implemented a numeric registration and unified medical record system in 1907, centralizing patient data across departments to enable systematic organization of symptoms, histories, and treatments, which reduced fragmentation and improved clinical decision-making. This model prioritized logical sequencing of data, facilitating causal linkages between observations and interventions without reliance on narrative summaries prone to oversight. The formalized these efforts in 1919 through its Hospital Standardization Program, mandating "minimum standards" that required complete, accessible medical records including patient interviews, physical exams, diagnostic tests, and treatment plans to verify hospital quality. By 1950, over 80% of U.S. hospitals complied, correlating with measurable declines in procedural errors as structured formats enforced comprehensive documentation over ad hoc notes. Post-World War II, Dr. Lawrence Weed advanced standardization with the problem-oriented medical record (POMR) system, introduced in his 1968 New England Journal of Medicine article, which restructured records around explicit patient problems, plans, progress notes, and flow sheets to guide diagnostic reasoning and track outcomes empirically. Studies implementing POMR demonstrated improved physician adherence to evidence-based protocols, with one showing up to 20% better resolution of chronic issues through data-driven problem lists that minimized subjective interpretations. Paper-based standardized records proved essential for large-scale epidemiological analysis, as seen in the 1954 Salk polio vaccine field trials involving over 1.8 million U.S. schoolchildren, where uniform tracking of vaccinations, exposures, and paralytic cases enabled causal efficacy assessments, confirming 60-90% protection rates and informing global rollout. This utility highlighted records' role in aggregating verifiable data for population-level , outweighing isolated concerns over manual entry delays in high-volume scenarios.

Transition to Electronic Systems

The transition from paper-based to electronic medical records began in the late , driven primarily by technological advancements in computing and that promised operational efficiencies amid rising healthcare costs. In 1972, the Regenstrief Institute developed the first electronic medical record (EMR) system, which integrated patient data into a computerized format, enabling structured storage and retrieval that minimized manual handling. This prototype facilitated real-time access to clinical information, addressing limitations of paper records such as illegibility and scattering across files, with early implementations demonstrating reductions in transcription errors through automated and validation protocols. By the 1990s, pilot programs expanded these capabilities, with systems like the U.S. Department of ' VistA (Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture), which originated in the late 1970s and achieved widespread deployment across VA facilities by the mid-1990s, including significant rollouts around 1997. Empirical data from these initiatives highlighted efficiency gains, such as 20-30% faster compared to paper systems, attributed to searchable and networked access that reduced search times from minutes to seconds. Adoption was propelled by practical imperatives like curbing medication errors—evidenced by a 1998 study on computerized physician order entry (a core EMR feature) showing a 55% reduction in serious mistakes—and overall cost pressures from inefficient paper workflows, rather than expansive regulatory or privacy frameworks. These early electronic systems emphasized causal benefits in and streamlining, with studies confirming lower incidences of adverse events through features like decision-support alerts and standardized coding, though initial uptake remained limited by hardware costs and resistance to interface changes. Technological enablers, including declining computer prices and software, underpinned the shift, fostering incremental improvements in over the decade.

Key Regulatory Milestones

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, authorized over $25 billion in federal incentives to accelerate (EHR) adoption among eligible providers and hospitals, mandating "meaningful use" criteria tied to quality reporting and standards. These measures demonstrably boosted EHR penetration from under 10% to over 80% in hospitals by , correlating with empirical gains in specific process-of-care metrics, such as reduced documentation errors and improved preventive screening rates, though direct causal links to broad clinical outcomes remain mixed due to confounding factors like concurrent care improvements. However, the act's certification and subsidy structures entrenched market dominance by a handful of vendors, including Epic and Cerner, fostering proprietary systems resistant to seamless data exchange and elevating implementation costs that critics attribute to regulatory rigidity suppressing smaller innovators and open standards. In the , the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect on May 25, 2018, classified as a "special category" requiring explicit or legal bases for processing, emphasizing minimization, , and accountability to safeguard amid expansions. While yielding verifiable benefits in heightened awareness of risks—evidenced by increased breach reporting and fines totaling billions of euros—the regulation's stringent and transfer rules have imposed compliance burdens estimated at 2-4% of annual IT budgets for affected organizations, causally delaying cross-provider initiatives and federated research platforms by necessitating bespoke legal assessments over technical solutions. More recently, U.S. efforts under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) evolved with a 2024 final rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, effective June 25, 2024, prohibiting covered entities from disclosing () related to lawful reproductive care for purposes of criminal, civil, or administrative probes following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson overturning of , aiming to mitigate state-level data weaponization risks. This update, building on HIPAA's 1996 origins and 2003 privacy standards, sought to balance privacy with evidentiary needs but was vacated nationwide by a Texas federal court on June 18, 2025, citing overreach beyond statutory authority and vagueness in distinguishing "lawful" care across jurisdictions. Such episodic amendments highlight how layered, jurisdiction-specific rules fragment data flows, empirically hindering in multi-site studies—e.g., via restricted aggregation for epidemiological analysis—while compliance layers divert resources from innovation toward perpetual rule navigation, though proponents credit them with averting targeted abuses in sensitive domains.

Definitions and Types

Fundamental Definition

A medical record constitutes a systematic, chronological repository of factual capturing a patient's status, clinical observations, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes arising from empirical interactions between healthcare providers and the patient. This documentation tracks discrete events and transactions, including procedures performed and responses observed, to reflect the objective progression of care rather than unsubstantiated interpretations. Fundamentally, the record enables the causal reconstruction of clinical by linking verifiable antecedents—such as symptoms, test results, and prior interventions—to subsequent actions, thereby supporting continuity of care and without reliance on or . Unlike mere anecdotal notes, it demands precision in recording pertinent facts to facilitate evidence-based of treatment efficacy and progress. Clinically, the emphasis lies on health-specific grounded in provider-patient encounters, whereas legal definitions broaden to encompass any recorded communications or related to physical or mental conditions, including administrative elements like billing, as seen in statutes defining records as all mediums capturing such details. This distinction underscores that while legal scopes protect broader under frameworks like HIPAA, the core clinical integrity prioritizes empirical verifiability over expansive inclusions that may dilute direct health relevance.

Paper-Based Records

Paper-based medical records primarily consist of physical documents organized in charts or folders, encompassing handwritten clinical notes, printed forms, results, and analog media such as radiographic films. These formats enable tangible, immediate and direct without technological intermediaries, providing a straightforward means for in-person review by clinicians. However, the reliance on introduces inherent limitations, as illegible script has been linked to significant errors; for instance, up to 25% of errors may stem from misinterpretation of poor . Such issues persist across studies, with one finding unreadable or difficult-to-read in 49.2% of and orders in a setting. Retention of paper records imposes substantial logistical burdens, requiring compliance with regulatory minima such as the six-year period mandated by HIPAA for certain documents from creation or last effective date. In practice, this necessitates extensive physical storage solutions, including on-site filing cabinets or off-site facilities, which pre-digitization era healthcare providers reported as costly and space-intensive; manual file management and paper procurement contributed to operational inefficiencies estimated in billions annually across the sector. suffers as record volume grows with patient populations, leading to overcrowded storage and challenges in maintaining without dedicated clerical staff. In scenarios, systems exhibit delays in record retrieval due to manual searching and transport, with documentation often unavailable within critical timeframes like of arrival in over 60% of cases for specific elements such as code status. While avoids cybersecurity vulnerabilities inherent to digital formats, it remains susceptible to physical breaches including , loss, or destruction from fire and floods, underscoring tradeoffs in absent electronic replication capabilities. These mechanics highlight records' constraints in high-volume, time-sensitive environments, where empirical data reveal error-prone handling and resource demands that limit efficient care delivery.

Electronic Medical Records (EMR)

Electronic medical records (EMRs) represent digitized charts confined to a single healthcare provider or institution, functioning as provider-centric repositories for generated within that setting. Unlike broader systems, EMRs prioritize internal optimization, capturing demographics, histories, diagnoses, treatments, and orders in structured formats that support templated and automated alerts. This design facilitates rapid and entry for clinicians at one site, reducing reliance on physical files and minimizing errors from illegible . Prominent EMR vendors, such as —founded in 1979 and launching its EpicCare Windows-based platform in 1992—have dominated U.S. markets since the by offering customizable modules for and use, including order sets and note templates tailored to institutional protocols. These systems enable efficient intra-organizational , with features like coded entries that streamline prescribing and billing within the provider's ecosystem. By the , Epic held over 30% of the hospital EMR market share, underscoring its role in standardizing single-site digital charting. Empirical evidence highlights EMRs' efficiency gains in documentation and duplication reduction, primarily within isolated implementations. A 2024 cross-sectional study in found EMR adoption reduced nurses' documentation time by up to 30%, freeing resources for direct patient care while improving medication error detection through automated checks. Similarly, a 2025 analysis reported average savings of 75 minutes per in clinical documentation tasks, attributed to pre-populated fields and reduced manual transcription. These benefits stem from eliminating redundant in siloed environments, such as preventing duplicate internal orders, though gains are contingent on user training and system maturity. Despite these advantages, EMRs historically exhibited limitations in data portability due to proprietary formats and , restricting transferability across providers before widespread adoption of standards. Pre-2000s systems often stored data in institution-specific databases without standardized export mechanisms, leading to fragmented records upon patient transitions. The Health Level Seven (HL7) standards, initiated in 1987 for messaging protocols, began addressing this by enabling basic data exchange, yet early EMR compliance was inconsistent, perpetuating silos until mandates like the 2009 HITECH Act incentivized structured formats. Even with HL7 integration, full portability remained challenged by non-uniform implementations, confining EMR utility to internal operations.

Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Personal Health Records (PHR)

Electronic records (EHRs) represent a patient's longitudinal compiled from multiple care providers and settings, designed for to enable secure data sharing across organizations. Unlike provider-specific electronic medical records, EHRs incorporate standards promoted by legislation such as the for Economic and Clinical (HITECH) Act of 2009, which incentivized adoption to facilitate continuity of care. This structure supports comprehensive access to demographics, clinical notes, medications, lab results, and allergies, reducing fragmentation in patient data. Evidence indicates that EHR-enabled continuity improves chronic disease management through timely access to historical data, enabling earlier detection and tailored interventions. For instance, systematic storage and retrieval in EHRs have been associated with enhanced accuracy in tracking disease progression and treatment adherence, contributing to better outcomes in conditions like and . via EHRs has demonstrated reductions in unplanned hospital readmissions, with meta-analyses showing associations between shared EHR data and lower readmission rates, potentially by 10-20% in targeted interventions, though evidence strength varies. Personal health records (PHRs), in contrast, are patient-maintained electronic repositories that individuals control, often integrating from wearables, apps, or manual entry rather than relying on provider input. Examples include consumer platforms like Apple Health or , which allow users to aggregate fitness metrics, self-reported symptoms, and imported clinical summaries to promote and . However, PHR adoption remains limited, with U.S. surveys reporting usage rates below 10% among adults overall, though tethered PHRs linked to provider portals see higher engagement around 20-30% in some populations. Barriers include challenges and concerns, despite potential for empowering patients in lifestyle management. EHRs prioritize scalability and multi-provider coordination, fostering causal improvements in care outcomes through interoperable sharing, whereas PHRs emphasize individual and control but face hurdles in verification and integration with clinical systems. in EHR networks has empirically linked to decreased duplication of tests and adverse events, underscoring tradeoffs where enhanced in PHRs may limit broader analytical benefits observed in population-level EHR analyses. Ongoing challenges involve balancing these models to maximize patient-centered data utility without compromising security.

Contents and Components

Patient Demographics and Identifiers

Patient demographics and constitute the core administrative elements in medical records, designed to establish a unique linkage for an individual across healthcare encounters, thereby preventing misidentification and enabling seamless . These fields prioritize verifiable personal attributes to minimize ambiguity, serving as the basis for matching algorithms in both and electronic systems. Accurate demographics are essential for administrative functions like billing and scheduling, while also supporting protocols that obscure direct —such as names and exact addresses—for research or analysis without compromising . Standard demographic fields typically encompass full legal name, date of birth, biological sex, residential address, contact telephone number, emergency contact details, and provider information. Additional elements may include preferred and, in some systems, race or for epidemiological tracking, as outlined in federal meaningful use criteria for electronic health records. These attributes are collected at initial registration and updated periodically to reflect life events like address changes, with inconsistencies often arising from manual entry variations such as phonetic spelling of names or abbreviated addresses. For , guidelines recommend suppressing or aggregating these fields—e.g., truncating dates to year or generalizing locations to state level—to render records non-identifiable while preserving analytical utility. Empirical data reveal substantial challenges in demographic accuracy, with duplicate records affecting 10-30% of healthcare systems, primarily due to errors in fields like name, date of birth, and during registration. Inpatient and emergency settings are particularly prone, where 92% of duplicates in one study traced to registration inaccuracies, leading to fragmented care and potential risks from overlaid records. Duplicate medical records are associated with a fivefold increase in inpatient mortality and a threefold rise in intensive care needs, as evidenced by recent empirical studies. Surveys indicate that only 22% of organizations achieve duplicate rates below 1%, underscoring the causal link between sloppy data capture and systemic inefficiencies, independent of electronic adoption. To address these persistent issues, proposals for standardized unique patient identifiers have evolved, aiming to replace reliance on variable demographics with a single, algorithm-resistant code. , the Portability and Accountability Act directed the development of such a national identifier to enhance , but a 1998 congressional rider prohibited federal funding over privacy fears of government tracking. This impasse persists as of 2025, with debates centering on efficiency benefits—such as reduced duplicates and improved —against amplified risks, though evidence from countries with unique IDs shows lower error rates without widespread abuse.

Clinical History and Encounters

The clinical history section of a medical record documents a patient's longitudinal health narrative, encompassing past medical conditions, surgical interventions, medications, allergies, family , and social factors such as use, alcohol consumption, and occupational exposures. This component prioritizes verifiable details to inform causal pathways in and treatment response, including genetic predispositions from family history (e.g., hereditary conditions like or cancer) and adverse reactions such as drug allergies, which must be explicitly noted to prevent iatrogenic harm. Allergies, for instance, are recorded with specificity regarding the , reaction type (e.g., or rash), and date of onset to enable risk stratification across encounters. Patient encounters, captured as progress notes, detail episodic interactions with healthcare providers and follow the framework: Subjective (patient-reported symptoms, history of present illness, and chief complaints); Objective (clinician-observed data like and physical exam findings, excluding raw diagnostic images); Assessment (synthesis of subjective and objective elements into differential diagnoses); and (therapeutic interventions, follow-up, and referrals). This structured format ensures chronological traceability of clinical reasoning, with entries timestamped and authored for accountability, facilitating continuity of care by revealing patterns in symptom progression or treatment efficacy over time (e.g., serial notes tracking chronic disease flares). Structured fields in electronic formats enhance the empirical utility of this data by enabling rapid querying and , which studies link to improved clinical ; for example, electronic health records (EHRs) have demonstrated reductions in time and error rates compared to systems, though direct impacts on diagnostic delays require context-specific implementation to mitigate barriers. Such supports causal realism in care by linking historical antecedents to current presentations, reducing reliance on incomplete recollections and aiding in of outcomes.

Diagnostic and Treatment Data

Diagnostic and treatment data within medical records include laboratory test results such as complete blood counts and chemistry panels, imaging findings from modalities like X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs, and outcomes from other diagnostic procedures including biopsies and electrocardiograms. Treatment data encompass prescribed medications with specific dosages, routes of administration, and durations; details of surgical or interventional procedures; and recorded clinical responses or outcomes, such as symptom resolution or adverse events. These elements form an empirical linking specific interventions to outcomes, enabling providers to assess treatment causality through sequential of pre- and post-intervention , such as vital sign changes following administration. Standardization via terminologies like codes for diagnoses, procedures, and observations promotes across systems and minimizes interpretive variability; implementation has been associated with enhanced accuracy and reduced errors in clinical settings. In antibiotic stewardship, electronic records track prescribing patterns against local resistance profiles derived from serial lab , allowing identification of overuse correlations with emerging resistance and adjustment of empiric therapies to preserve . For example, real-time EHR monitoring of durations has supported de-escalation protocols, correlating reduced exposure with lower incidence in cohorts.

Administrative and Supporting Information

Administrative and supporting information in medical records encompasses non-clinical elements essential for operational and financial facilitation, including billing codes, consent documentation, and referral details. Billing codes, such as those from the , standardize diagnoses for reimbursement purposes and are integrated into patient records to support claims processing by insurers. forms record patient authorizations for treatments or , while referral notes document specialist handoffs, ensuring continuity without delving into clinical specifics. Automation of these elements, particularly claims processing, yields measurable efficiencies by reducing manual errors and expediting approvals. For instance, automated systems can increase first-pass claim acceptance rates by up to 25%, thereby lowering administrative overhead and reallocating resources. Such advancements mitigate some inefficiencies inherent in manual handling, though broader administrative burdens—now comprising over 40% of expenses—persist due to regulatory complexity and insurer requirements. Supporting components include advance directives, which outline patient preferences for end-of-life care and are stored to guide decisions when incapacity arises. Despite their utility in averting unwanted interventions, only about one-third of U.S. adults have completed such directives, contributing to inefficiencies like prolonged aggressive treatments that inflate costs and diverge from patient wishes. This underuse underscores a gap where administrative documentation could enhance alignment with patient autonomy, yet bureaucratic expansion often prioritizes compliance over practical integration.

Purposes and Uses

Clinical Decision-Making and Care Coordination

Medical records underpin clinical by aggregating patient-specific data—such as historical diagnoses, medication reconciliations, results, and physiological trends—enabling physicians to identify causal patterns in disease etiology and therapeutic responses. This longitudinal view supports hypothesis-testing in diagnostics, where discrepancies between symptoms and record-documented prior conditions can prompt refined differential diagnoses or adjusted interventions. For instance, access to documented treatment failures or successes allows clinicians to prioritize therapies with demonstrated for the individual, reducing reliance on generalized protocols. Empirical studies link electronic medical records to measurable reductions in adverse events through real-time clinical decision support. In one implementation, medication errors per 1000 patient-days declined from 17.9 to 15.4 (a 14% reduction, p < 0.030) after adopting advanced EHR systems, attributed to automated checks against histories. Similarly, computerized physician order entry within records has been associated with significant weekly decreases in erroneous orders (p < 0.001), minimizing risks like dosing inaccuracies or contraindications. These gains stem from interrupting error-prone manual processes, though actual harm reductions vary due to implementation factors. In care coordination, shared medical bridge information gaps among providers, fostering collaborative adjustments to treatment plans based on collective insights into trajectories. For patients with multiple specialists, enable verification of concurrent therapies to avert interactions, with qualitative showing enhanced team-based decisions and outcome improvements via accessible data. One analysis of EHR impacts noted increased and , as providers could reference unified to align interventions causally linked to observed progress or setbacks, rather than isolated encounters. However, coordination benefits depend on , with fragmented systems potentially undermining these effects. alerts exemplify targeted support, warning against contraindicated drugs, though override rates often exceed 90% due to perceived irrelevance, limiting prevention of reactions in practice despite intent.

Administrative and Billing Functions

Medical records underpin billing processes by providing the detailed documentation required to assign standardized codes for diagnoses and procedures, enabling accurate claims submission and reimbursement from payers such as Medicare and private insurers. Coders review clinical notes, encounter details, and treatment specifics to apply codes for conditions and codes for services performed, which directly influence payment amounts based on established fee schedules. This coding translates qualitative care data into quantifiable financial claims, with incomplete or inaccurate leading to claim denials estimated at 10-20% in outpatient settings prior to widespread electronic adoption. Audits of medical records serve as a primary mechanism for detecting billing irregularities, including and abuse, by cross-referencing coded claims against documented evidence of services rendered. Government entities like the (CMS) and the Office of Inspector General conduct these reviews, identifying improper payments that constitute 3-10% of total healthcare expenditures annually, with recoveries exceeding $4 billion in 2023 alone from overpayments tied to unsubstantiated coding. Electronic records enhance audit efficiency through searchable and , reducing manual review time and enabling proactive detection via algorithms that flag anomalies like inconsistent procedure frequencies. While incentives for upcoding—assigning higher-severity codes to inflate reimbursements—persist in diagnosis-based models, particularly plans where risk scores can exceed benchmarks by 6-16%, empirical audits demonstrate that verifiable record documentation maintains overall revenue accuracy when supported by compliance protocols. Upcoding contributes to growth in high-intensity discharges, for up to two-thirds in select states, yet regulatory and penalties deter systemic , with data showing most discrepancies arise from documentation errors rather than intentional . Beyond billing, aggregated data from records supports by informing tracking and operational ; for instance, procedure volumes derived from coded encounters guide of supplies like pharmaceuticals and devices, minimizing stockouts and overstock. Electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate this through integrated , yielding operating cost reductions in urban hospitals via optimized , though evidence on direct administrative waste cuts remains mixed, with some analyses finding no net decrease in billing labor despite . Excessive administrative burdens often stem from regulatory complexity—such as requirements—rather than record-keeping itself, with digital systems countering policy-induced inefficiencies by streamlining code generation and claim validation.

Research, Surveillance, and Public Health

Medical records, particularly in electronic formats, enable aggregate of de-identified for epidemiological and clinical trials, facilitating causal inferences about disease patterns and interventions without compromising individual . De-identification processes remove personal identifiers to comply with standards like HIPAA's Safe Harbor method, allowing researchers to query large datasets for trends in disease incidence and treatment outcomes. For instance, electronic records (EHRs) have been used to study population-level , with analyses drawing from millions of patient encounters to estimate protection rates against variants. Such applications accelerated insights during the , where EHR aggregates informed real-time and supported rapid validation of efficacy protocols across registries. In , medical records provide timely signals for outbreak detection and chronic disease monitoring, surpassing traditional reporting lags. EHR-based systems offer detailed, near-real-time on symptoms, diagnoses, and prescriptions, enabling jurisdictions to track infectious diseases like through syndromic networks. Similarly, claims from medical records have detected spatiotemporal clusters of opioid prescriptions, identifying high-risk areas via Medicare datasets to inform targeted interventions before overdose spikes. These aggregate uses enhance causal realism in policy by linking prescription volumes to downstream harms, as seen in opioid where claims revealed regional hot spots correlating with increased mortality rates. The empirical benefits include faster policy targeting, with studies indicating EHR improves chronic monitoring sustainability and actionability compared to survey-based methods alone. Aggregate de-identified data supports alerts and resource allocation, such as prioritizing distribution based on EHR-derived profiles during pandemics. Quantified gains include reduced detection times for emerging threats, enabling interventions that mitigate spread by weeks or months, as demonstrated in national EHR networks for infectious tracking. Ethically, models for balance individual rights with societal utility, presuming for de-identified aggregates unless revoked, which facilitates broader participation and empirical progress over restrictive opt-in mandates that yield incomplete datasets. This approach prioritizes for public goods like outbreak containment, where mandates or defaults have proven effective in crises, though proponents of stricter argue for minimizing re-identification risks despite low empirical incidence in properly anonymized sets. Medical records serve as primary evidentiary documents in legal proceedings, particularly litigation, where they provide chronological of clinical decisions, timestamps of interventions, and causal linkages between treatments and outcomes. In trials, physicians prevail in 80% to 90% of cases with weak evidence of when records demonstrate adherence to standards of care, underscoring their role in establishing factual timelines over narratives. deficiencies contribute to 20% of claims and more than double the likelihood of settlement or payout, as incomplete or ambiguous entries undermine defenses against alleged errors. Audit logs in electronic systems record all modifications, views, and deletions, enabling forensic analysis to detect post-event alterations that could indicate tampering, thereby preserving record integrity as unbiased causal evidence. In forensic contexts, medical records integrate with findings and scene investigations to determine cause and , offering pre-mortem clinical history that elucidates natural, accidental, , or suicidal etiologies. For instance, records of comorbidities or prior treatments can validate or refute suspected foul play by correlating physiological baselines with terminal events, as seen in medicolegal death probes where electronic records expedite validation of injury mechanisms. In wrongful death suits, these documents supply objective on treatment trajectories and deviations, strengthening causation arguments without reliance on retrospective . Empirical integration of records has streamlined investigations, reducing ambiguities in manner-of-death classifications through verifiable historical . For insurance applications, records underpin by revealing actuarial risks from historical conditions, with insurers typically reviewing 5 to 10 years of data to assess undisclosed ailments and set premiums accordingly. In claims , they verify treatment necessity and prevent fraudulent submissions by cross-referencing billed services against documented encounters, such as diagnostic tests or procedures. Access requires applicant , limiting scope to relevant histories while enabling precise risk stratification; for example, records of chronic illnesses directly influence eligibility and rates. Enhanced documentation via electronic formats has empirically lowered dispute rates by providing immutable trails, though alteration risks persist absent robust audit mechanisms.

Technological Formats and Advancements

Traditional Media and Storage

Prior to widespread digitization, medical records were predominantly maintained on paper charts, supplemented by radiographic films for diagnostic images and microfiche or microfilm for compact archival storage. Microfilm, invented in the early 19th century, offered a durable alternative to paper, resisting environmental degradation better and enabling storage of thousands of pages on small film reels or sheets. These analog formats required physical handling via readers for access, limiting retrieval speed compared to modern systems. Storage logistics entailed organized filing in secure cabinets or rooms within healthcare facilities, often with off-site repositories for inactive records to manage space constraints. Paper-based systems demanded rigorous protocols to mitigate risks such as misfiling, physical damage from fire or water, and inadvertent destruction, which compromised record integrity and accessibility. Radiographic films, prone to fading or scratching, further exacerbated durability challenges in humid or light-exposed environments. In the United States, retention requirements for traditional medical records varied by state and provider type, with hospitals typically mandated to preserve them for at least 5 years under Medicare Conditions of Participation, though many states extended this to 10 years or longer for comprehensive patient histories. Microfiche archives supported extended preservation, often exceeding a century under ideal conditions, but practical longevity depended on climate-controlled storage to prevent film degradation. The shift from these media was propelled by escalating physical storage demands and costs, as accumulating paper and film volumes necessitated expansive facilities and ongoing maintenance, rendering analog methods inefficient for high-volume healthcare operations. Empirical assessments highlighted annual expenses tied to space allocation and record management, underscoring the economic imperatives for alternatives without invoking non-practical rationales.

Core Electronic Systems and Standards

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) form the foundational digital for managing data, encompassing longitudinal records of clinical encounters, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes across providers. These systems integrate structured data formats to support querying, updating, and sharing, with standards playing a causal role in dismantling data silos by standardizing exchange protocols that enable real-time access without proprietary barriers. The (FHIR) standard, developed by (HL7) with its first draft standard for trial use (DSTU) in 2011 and key advancements in DSTU2 from 2014, utilizes RESTful APIs and /XML encoding to facilitate modular exchange of resources like observations, medications, and encounters. This approach reduces by allowing apps and systems to query specific elements directly, fostering plug-and-play integration over rigid messaging. Empirical implementations demonstrate FHIR's role in enhancing care coordination, with studies linking standardized exchange to data-driven team-based care and reduced fragmentation in patient management. Supporting standards include HL7 version 2.x for event-driven messaging of administrative and clinical data, (CDA) for structured documents, and (DICOM) for handling medical imaging storage, query, and transmission. ensures pixel-level fidelity and metadata consistency in workflows, complementing FHIR for comprehensive record without overlap in non-imaging domains. EHR deployment occurs via on-premise models, granting providers direct hardware control and customization but demanding substantial capital for and , or cloud-based architectures, which leverage vendor-managed infrastructure for rapid updates and elasticity while distributing security responsibilities under business associate agreements. HIPAA compliance mandates —such as AES-256 for data at rest and TLS 1.2+ for transit—in both models to safeguard , with cloud solutions often incorporating automated compliance auditing to meet these requirements. U.S. federal mandates, including the ONC's Health Data, Technology, and final rule published in December 2024 and effective in 2025, require certified health IT to implement Core Data for (USCDI) via FHIR Release 4 or 5 APIs, enabling secure patient-initiated and provider-to-provider data access to further erode and support longitudinal record continuity.

Integration of AI and Emerging Tech

Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as automated scribes, have been integrated into electronic medical record (EMR) systems to streamline documentation by transcribing clinician-patient conversations in real-time and generating draft notes for review. Pilot implementations from 2023 to 2025 demonstrate empirical reductions in physician administrative burden, with one study at Mass General Brigham reporting a 21.2% absolute decrease in burnout prevalence after 84 days of use among 84 physicians. Similarly, a quality improvement analysis involving ambient AI scribes across multiple sites found associations with lowered cognitive load and time spent on after-hours documentation, potentially alleviating burnout by 20-30% in high-volume practices based on aggregated pilot data. These tools leverage natural language processing to populate structured EMR fields, enhancing efficiency without replacing clinical judgment, though long-term validation remains ongoing beyond initial trials. Blockchain technology has emerged as a method to enhance the tamper-resistance of medical records through decentralized ledgers that log immutable audit trails for data access and modifications. Trials conducted between 2023 and 2025, including frameworks tested in healthcare consortia, indicate improved trust in record sharing by enabling verifiable without central vulnerabilities, as seen in systems where patient consent triggers smart contracts for controlled dissemination. For instance, implementations have shown potential to reduce discrepancies in shared records across providers by providing cryptographic hashing, with from simulation-based studies confirming near-zero alteration rates post-entry compared to traditional databases. While promising for in federated networks, adoption has been limited to pilots due to challenges, underscoring that benefits accrue primarily from enhanced auditability rather than wholesale replacement of existing EMR infrastructures. Integration of telemedicine platforms with EMRs has accelerated since 2020, incorporating to support remote consultations and expand access in underserved regions. Post-pandemic reveal telemedicine adoption in rural U.S. areas roughly doubling access from 2019 levels, with EMR-linked systems facilitating seamless of virtual visit notes and into patient records. A 2024-2025 of networks highlights how API-driven integrations reduced documentation delays by enabling bidirectional flow, correlating with 30-50% increases in follow-up compliance in remote populations. These advancements rely on standards like FHIR for compatibility, yielding measurable gains in care continuity, though empirical outcomes emphasize causal links to geographic barriers rather than universal superiority over in-person methods.

Principles of Ownership

In jurisdictions such as the United States, medical records are conventionally regarded as the property of the healthcare provider or institution that creates and maintains them, positioning providers as custodians responsible for their accuracy, security, and use in patient care. This model stems from the practical realities of record generation, where providers compile data from clinical observations, diagnostic tests, and treatments, incurring costs for documentation and storage. However, patients retain proprietary interest in the informational content, derived directly from their personal health history, symptoms, and biological markers, which forms the substantive core of the record. The debate over principles contrasts this custodial framework with patient-centric models that advocate for individuals as primary owners, emphasizing and control over data originating from their own bodies and experiences. Proponents of patient argue that records function as extensions of , much like diaries or financial ledgers compiled from one's own inputs, thereby aligning with causal origins where the 's contributions predominate over provider annotations. This perspective critiques institutional defaults for potentially prioritizing provider or third-party interests, such as aggregation or billing, over individual agency, as evidenced in ethical analyses highlighting tensions between data utility and . Empirical reviews of access practices further underscore how ambiguous models contribute to conflicts, with studies noting persistent barriers in record that clearer patient-proprietary frameworks could mitigate by reinforcing informational . From a first-principles standpoint, assigning to patients promotes truth-seeking by incentivizing accurate contribution and verification, as individuals bear direct stakes in the fidelity of reflecting their health realities, rather than deferring entirely to institutional custodianship which may introduce biases from administrative or commercial incentives. This approach fosters causal realism in healthcare, where serve as verifiable artifacts of patient-provider interactions, reducible to the patient's embodied as the foundational input, thereby minimizing disputes over control and enhancing overall without conflating physical custody with informational .

Patient Rights to Access and Control

In the United States, the Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule grants individuals the right to inspect and obtain copies of their (PHI) held by covered entities, such as healthcare providers and plans, with responses required within 30 days of a request, extendable to 60 days under extenuating circumstances. This access extends to electronic formats when records are maintained digitally, facilitating review without undue delay. Additionally, may request amendments to PHI in designated record sets if they believe it is inaccurate or incomplete, with covered entities obligated to act within 60 days, though approval is not guaranteed and denials must include appeal rights. These provisions aim to empower informed self-management, though implementation barriers like fees or format restrictions have historically impeded full realization. Subsequent legislation has reinforced and expanded these rights. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, through its Meaningful Use program (later Promoting Interoperability), incentivized electronic health record adoption by tying federal payments to capabilities enabling patients to view, download, and transmit their records electronically. The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 further prohibits "information blocking," defined as practices that interfere with access, exchange, or use of electronic health information, mandating seamless portability across providers to prevent data silos during care transitions. Effective April 2021 via Office of the National Coordinator rules, this ensures patients can retrieve records without unreasonable delays or denials, supporting switches between providers absent data loss. Barriers to such portability, including proprietary system incompatibilities, empirically correlate with fragmented care and elevated risks of errors, as patients cannot fully transport histories. Empirical studies link access to records via portals with tangible improvements, particularly in adherence behaviors. For instance, mobile portal access has been associated with significantly higher adherence to oral medications and reduced glycemic levels among users. Broader reviews indicate that sharing enhances medication compliance and clinical outcomes across diverse populations, with engaged patients demonstrating sustained behavioral changes. Restrictions on access causally contribute to disempowerment, as evidenced by lower and adherence in systems with opaque or delayed record provision, underscoring that timely control fosters and better self-directed care. Access rights are not absolute; HIPAA permits denials if disclosure could endanger the life or physical of the individual or others, for notes, or for information compiled in reasonable anticipation of litigation. Providers may also redact portions deemed harmful to treatment, though such limits must be narrowly justified and empirically weighed against benefits of transparency, with scant evidence of widespread harm from broad access offsetting rare risks. These exceptions prioritize causal safeguards while aligning with data showing access generally bolsters rather than undermines .

Provider Obligations and Liabilities

Healthcare providers are legally obligated to maintain accurate, complete, and timely to document care, support clinical decisions, and defend against potential claims of . In the United States, retention periods vary by state but generally require providers to keep adult for 7 to 10 years from the last or discharge, with guidelines from organizations like the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) recommending a minimum of 10 years to align with statutes of limitations for actions. Failure to adhere to these retention rules, such as premature destruction, exposes providers to lawsuits, as courts often view inadequate recordkeeping as of substandard care that hinders verification of treatment adherence to professional standards. Providers must also secure explicit patient consent before sharing records with other entities, except in mandated cases like reporting, to prevent unauthorized disclosures that could breach and trigger liability under laws like HIPAA. Proper consent-based sharing enables coordinated care across providers, which empirically reduces adverse from communication gaps; for instance, collaborative models have demonstrated lower rates of errors in care transitions, thereby mitigating malpractice exposure by providing verifiable documentation of shared responsibilities. Compliance audits, including those mandated by HIPAA's , require providers to verify the factual integrity of records through regular reviews of documentation accuracy, access logs, and update protocols, ensuring deviations from evidence-based entries are corrected to uphold causal chains of care . Non-compliance detected in can result in civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation, while accurate records causally shield providers in litigation by substantiating that care met prevailing standards, as incomplete or erroneous entries often serve as pivotal evidence in findings.

Privacy and Security Frameworks

Major Privacy Regulations

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, enacted in 1996 and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), establishes national standards for protecting individually identifiable health information, known as (PHI), held by covered entities such as healthcare providers and insurers. It permits disclosures for treatment, payment, and operations without authorization but requires safeguards against unauthorized access, with through civil penalties ranging from $141 to $2,134,831 per violation based on levels, escalating for willful neglect. Proposed updates in 2024-2025, including amendments to the Rule finalized in December 2024 and Privacy Rule revisions addressing reproductive health data post-Dobbs, aim to enhance protections amid emerging technologies like AI, though a June 2025 court ruling vacated parts of the latter, complicating implementation. Empirical data from HHS () enforcement shows over 2,000 breaches reported from 2010-2017 exposing 180 million records, with fines totaling millions annually, fostering corrective actions but not demonstrably reducing overall breach incidence, as numbers have risen with digital adoption. In contrast, the European Union's (GDPR), effective May 25, 2018, treats as a "special category" requiring explicit consent or other strict legal bases for processing, applying extraterritorially to any entity handling residents' and imposing fines up to 4% of global annual turnover. Unlike HIPAA's sector-specific focus on , GDPR's broader scope demands minimization, purpose limitation, and rights like erasure, with health research often hindered by granular consent mandates that fragment datasets and deter secondary analyses. A 2020 study of Dutch health research post-GDPR confirmed explicit consent requirements under harmonized regulations significantly impeded study conduct, reducing participation and linkage efficiency compared to pre-GDPR flexibility. Enforcement has yielded high-profile fines, such as against tech firms mishandling , yet compliance burdens—estimated in administrative overhead and legal consultations—disproportionately affect smaller researchers, slowing innovation in EU-linked trials. Both frameworks prevent misuse through accountability but impose causal trade-offs: HIPAA's de-identified data allowances enable aggregate with lower barriers than GDPR's consent hurdles, yet both engender fragmentation, as evidenced by U.S. studies noting HIPAA's interpretive ambiguities creating undue impediments without commensurate gains. Pro-privacy advocates emphasize deterrence of breaches via fines, citing OCR's resolution in all investigated noncompliance cases, while utility proponents highlight empirical lags, such as GDPR's consent regime correlating with stalled observational studies and reduced . Evidence supports tiered access models—escalating protections by risk level (e.g., anonymized tiers for broad versus authenticated for sensitive uses)—as a balanced alternative, mitigating disclosure risks while preserving analytical utility, as outlined in frameworks proposing seven graduated access tiers for use. Such approaches address biases in data, where academic sources often underplay regulatory overreach due to institutional alignment, favoring causal realism in prioritizing verifiable outcomes over nominal compliance metrics.

Security Protocols and Best Practices

Security protocols for medical records emphasize layered defenses to mitigate unauthorized access and data exfiltration risks, including robust encryption of data at rest and in transit using standards such as AES-256, which renders intercepted information unreadable without decryption keys. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) serves as a critical barrier, requiring verification beyond passwords, with implementations shown to reduce the risk of material data breaches by approximately 50% through enhanced identity verification. Regular security audits, including vulnerability assessments and access log reviews, enable proactive identification of weaknesses, ensuring systems align with operational safeguards. Human-centric measures complement technical controls, particularly ongoing training programs targeting , which accounts for over 90% of cyberattacks on healthcare entities and initiates four in ten breach attempts. These programs simulate attacks to build recognition of social engineering tactics, thereby diminishing successful exploits that exploit as a primary vector. The principle of least privilege restricts user access to only essential functions and data, significantly curbing insider threats, which affected 83% of organizations with at least one incident in 2024 and include unauthorized internal disclosures comprising a substantial portion of breaches following external hacks. Role-based access controls enforce this by dynamically assigning permissions tied to job roles, minimizing lateral movement potential in the event of compromise.

Data Breaches and Mitigation

Healthcare data breaches involving medical records have escalated in frequency and scale from 2023 to 2025, with hacking and comprising the majority of incidents. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (OCR) recorded 725 breaches affecting over 133 million individuals. By 2024, reports indicated 1,160 incidents impacting data across organizations. Through 2025, 508 large breaches (affecting 500+ individuals) were reported to OCR. A prominent example is the February 2024 attack on , a subsidiary, perpetrated by the ALPHV/BlackCat group, which compromised data on approximately 100 million individuals and disrupted claims processing nationwide, leading to widespread delays in reimbursements and care. The incident incurred over $1 billion in for UnitedHealth by mid-2024, including response and recovery expenses. The average financial cost of a healthcare reached $9.77 million in 2023 data analyzed in IBM's report, the highest across industries and encompassing detection, notification, and lost business. These costs reflect systemic vulnerabilities in interconnected systems, where a single breach can cascade through supply chains, as seen in Change Healthcare's role in processing one-third of U.S. patient records. attacks, which encrypt medical records and demand payment for decryption, drove much of this risk; healthcare faced the highest victimization rate in , with incidents surging 30% into 2025 amid targeting of vendors and providers. However, trends show some mitigation efficacy: ransom demands and payments declined sharply in 2025, partly due to improved refusal rates enabled by robust backups. Effective mitigation emphasizes rapid incident response and structural defenses over reactive measures. Organizations with predefined incident response plans, including preservation and system isolation, contained breaches 28% faster on average. has facilitated recovery by covering extortion and restoration costs, though policies increasingly require pre-breach security validations like . Empirical recovery often relies on offline backups, allowing data restoration without payment; healthcare entities using segmented networks—isolating critical medical record systems from general IT—reported fewer successful propagations, contributing to a nine-year low in breach containment time at 241 days globally in 2025. These approaches underscore causal factors like in reducing breach propagation, rather than solely relying on detection tools.

Challenges and Criticisms

Interoperability and Technical Barriers

Interoperability challenges in medical records arise primarily from the fragmented landscape of electronic health record (EHR) systems, where disparate vendors employ proprietary formats that resist seamless data exchange. Standards such as Health Level Seven (HL7) and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) aim to address this by providing structured protocols for data sharing, yet gaps in adoption and implementation persist, causally perpetuating inefficiencies like redundant testing and delayed diagnostics. For example, while approximately 66% of healthcare organizations report adopting HL7 FHIR as of 2025, real-world deployments frequently lack semantic consistency, resulting in mismatched data interpretations across systems and forcing providers to rely on error-prone manual mappings. Legacy EHR systems compound these issues through technological lock-in, as many providers—particularly smaller hospitals and clinics—continue operating on outdated platforms incompatible with modern standards like FHIR. This vendor-specific rigidity empirically delays care handoffs; for instance, legacy setups hinder timely access to during transitions, leading to extended wait times, procedural postponements, and increased lengths of stay, with some analyses linking such to higher risks of adverse outcomes from incomplete information. These barriers stem not merely from technical shortcomings but from the causal failure of standards to enforce uniform normalization, allowing interests to prioritize siloed over cross-system and thereby inflating operational friction. Efforts to mitigate these include regulatory mandates, such as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rules prohibiting information blocking, which compel certified EHRs to support FHIR-based APIs for patient data access. However, evidence indicates that market-driven solutions, including integrations and FHIR-enabled applications from private developers, outpace such interventions by enabling rapid, incentive-aligned adaptations without universal compliance hurdles.

Economic Costs and Implementation Hurdles

Implementation of electronic health records (EHR) systems entails substantial upfront costs for medical providers, typically ranging from $15,000 to $70,000 per provider for software licensing, hardware, and initial setup, with multi-physician practices facing aggregates around $162,000 including redesign. Additional expenses arise from , customization, and ongoing maintenance, which can add $1,500 monthly per physician. These investments yield returns through operational efficiencies, such as reduced administrative burdens and improved billing accuracy, with studies reporting payback periods of 2.5 to 5 years depending on practice size and utilization. Small practices encounter disproportionate implementation hurdles, including extended training periods that cause operational downtime—often weeks to months—and resource strains not offset by available to larger entities. Adoption lags in these settings stem from financial barriers and physician resistance to disrupted workflows, exacerbating inequities in technology uptake across provider types. Government incentives via the 2009 HITECH Act, which allocated billions for EHR adoption, accelerated penetration but drew criticism for market distortions, including favoritism toward certified systems that entrenched dominance by a few vendors like Epic and Cerner, fostering oligopolistic conditions with limited and . Analyses question the necessity of such subsidies, arguing they supplanted potential organic market-driven progress while imposing compliance burdens without proportional benefits for all providers.

Usability Issues and Clinical Risks

Electronic health records (EHRs) often feature clunky interfaces that demand excessive clinician time, contributing to burnout. Primary care physicians, who bear the heaviest EHR workload, spend approximately 6.5 hours on EHR tasks for every eight hours of scheduled time, including 64 minutes daily entering orders. This after-hours documentation burden—averaging up to two hours daily in recent analyses—exacerbates fatigue, with half of physicians reporting excessive home-based EHR use linked to higher burnout odds. Poor , such as inefficient navigation and cluttered displays, amplifies , diverting focus from care and prompting calls for redesigned, clinician-centered systems to streamline workflows. Alert fatigue represents a pervasive clinical from EHR design flaws, where excessive notifications overwhelm users, leading to overrides of critical warnings. Clinicians dismiss the majority of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) alerts, including those signaling severe harm potential, fostering desensitization and medication errors. This phenomenon contributes to diagnostic oversights and burnout, as non-essential alerts create unnecessary interruptions; evidence from quality improvement efforts shows targeted alert reduction can mitigate these hazards without compromising safeguards. Copy-and-paste functionalities, intended for efficiency, introduce inaccuracies by propagating outdated or irrelevant data across records. In analyzed cases, failure to review pasted content accounted for 15.3% of errors, with copy-paste directly implicated in 7.4% of mistakes, often resulting in perpetuated falsehoods that mislead subsequent care decisions. Such practices heighten risks of diagnostic s, as redundant or erroneous details obscure evolving conditions, underscoring the need for built-in validation tools and auditing to enforce accurate, context-specific entries. Despite overall reductions in certain error types from EHR adoption, these pitfalls necessitate iterative, evidence-based redesigns prioritizing precision over unchecked templating.

Empirical Evidence

Documented Benefits

Electronic health records (EHRs) have demonstrated reductions in errors through improved prescribing accuracy and decision support features. A of studies on electronic systems found significant decreases in overall error rates, including prescribing and administration errors, across various clinical settings. Similarly, implementation of EHRs in outpatient clinics led to measurable declines in incidents, attributed to automated alerts and standardized documentation. These reductions stem from real-time access to patient histories and checks, minimizing human oversight in high-volume environments. EHRs facilitate care coordination by enabling seamless among providers, which correlates with lower readmission rates. Clinical decision support systems integrated into EHRs have been shown to reduce readmissions for conditions like and by providing evidence-based prompts during transitions of care. This benefit arises from comprehensive patient data aggregation, allowing multidisciplinary teams to align on follow-up plans and medication reconciliation, thereby addressing gaps in traditional paper-based systems. Recent advancements in AI-assisted documentation, such as ambient scribes embedded in EHR workflows, have cut documentation time by 20% to 30%, reallocating hours toward direct interaction. In one large-scale deployment involving over 2.5 million uses, these tools saved an estimated 15,000 hours annually while improving note quality and reducing burnout. Such efficiencies enhance overall clinical without compromising record accuracy. Aggregate EHR data has accelerated public health responses, as evidenced during the where linked datasets enabled rapid and outcome analysis across populations. These platforms supported near real-time tracking of patterns and intervention effects, informing targeted and adjustments. By facilitating from large-scale empirical data, such aggregation contributed to faster epidemiological modeling and reduced propagation delays in global responses.

Identified Risks and Limitations

Electronic health records (EHRs) have been associated with clinician burnout due to excessive burdens and deficiencies that disrupt clinical workflows. A 2025 scoping identified key issues, including inefficient interfaces and redundant , which contribute to prolonged times and fragmented workflows, exacerbating among healthcare providers. Similarly, over 70% of physicians at academic hospitals reported burnout linked to EHR use, with poor and workflow interruptions cited as primary drivers. These administrative demands have reduced face-to-face interaction, further intensifying burnout rates that remained elevated despite some decline in overall physician burnout symptoms by early 2025. EHR systems also facilitate medical inaccuracies and errors through design flaws and incomplete data capture. In a of diagnosis-related claims, EHRs contributed to diagnostic errors in 61% of cases, with approximately 92% of those involving settings where data subsets from claims highlighted frequent inaccuracies in and alerts. EHRs fail to detect up to 33% of administration errors, including harmful interactions, due to limitations in alert functionality and . reviews of EHR notes reveal errors in about 1 in 5 cases, with 40% of those perceived as serious, often stemming from transcription mistakes or omitted details. Data breaches represent a persistent , with EHR vulnerabilities enabling unauthorized access to sensitive information. Between 2020 and 2025, healthcare breaches, many involving EHR systems, exposed millions of records annually, including 133 million in 2023 alone from 725 reported incidents. Hacking and IT failures in integrated EHR environments have shown a consistent upward trend, disproportionately affecting providers and amplifying risks of and care disruptions. EHR data exhibit biases that limit reliable causal inferences, particularly through underrepresentation of certain populations. Missing data in EHRs often occurs non-randomly, leading to poor generalizability and skewed outcomes in reliant on these records, such as undercapturing experiences of minority groups. Racial and ethnic biases manifest in documentation, with negative descriptors disproportionately applied to patients, perpetuating inequities in clinical decision-making and trial eligibility. Such systemic gaps hinder equitable analysis, as EHR reliance can amplify selection biases without adjustments for social determinants.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/medical-record
  2. https://amihm.org/purposes-of-patient-records/
  3. https://training.seer.cancer.gov/abstracting/record/
  4. https://www.nethealth.com/blog/history-of-electronic-health-records-ehrs/
  5. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/access/index.html
  6. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/mln4840534-medical-record-maintenance-and-access-requirements.pdf
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4607324/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7043175/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9599146/
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23559510_Patient_Records_at_Mayo_Clinic_Lessons_Learned_From_the_First_100_Patients_in_Dr_Henry_S_Plummer%27s_Dossier_Model
  11. https://history.mayoclinic.org/diversified-genius/
  12. https://www.facs.org/about-acs/archives/past-highlights/minimumhighlight/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5424594/
  14. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2819%2930352-3/fulltext
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114166/
  16. https://www.elationhealth.com/resources/blogs/the-development-of-electronic-health-records
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5171496/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10593670/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4909978/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8738966/
  21. https://www.hipaajournal.com/what-is-the-hitech-act/
  22. https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2017-08-08-study-hitech-act-drove-large-gains-hospital-ehr-adoption
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9564815/
  24. https://prospect.org/health/2024-10-01-epic-dystopia/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5009900/
  26. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13662716.2023.2271858
  27. https://www.ejbi.org/scholarly-articles/gdpr-compliance-challenges-for-interoperable-health-information-exchanges-hies-and-trustworthy-research-environments-tre.pdf
  28. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/reproductive-health/final-rule-fact-sheet/index.html
  29. https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/hipaa-reproductive-health-rule-vacated-nationally
  30. https://iapp.org/news/a/the-state-of-us-reproductive-privacy-in-2025-trends-and-operational-considerations
  31. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/stats/03-200.html
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8649704/
  33. https://www.nutritioncarepro.com/principles-of-medical-health-record-documentation
  34. https://portal.ct.gov/dph/public-health-hearing-office/regulations/public-health-code-medical-records-regulations
  35. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02291.htm
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3010959/
  37. https://flbog.sip.ufl.edu/risk-rx-article/for-doctors-scrawl-handwritings-on-the-wall/
  38. https://nmji.in/whats-wrong-with-doctors-handwriting/
  39. https://www.hipaajournal.com/hipaa-retention-requirements/
  40. https://www.chartlogic.com/blog/hidden-costs-of-paper-based-records-why-ehr-adoption-is-no-longer-optional/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8203022/
  42. https://www.recordnations.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-paper-medical-records/
  43. https://www.elevancehealth.com/our-approach-to-health/digitally-enabled-healthcare/know-the-difference-between-ehr-and-emr
  44. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Electronic_Health_Record_Systems_Definitions_Evidence_and_Practical_Recommendations_for_Latin_America_and_the_Caribbean.pdf
  45. https://isthmus.com/news/cover-story/epic-systems-an-epic-timeline/
  46. https://healthtechresourcesinc.com/epic-market-dominance-affects-healthcare-system
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380070695_The_effect_of_electronic_medical_records_on_medication_errors_workload_and_medical_information_availability_among_qualified_nurses_in_Israel-_a_cross_sectional_study
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12327706/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10007006/
  50. https://www.techmagic.co/blog/hl7-emr-integration
  51. https://www.cms.gov/priorities/key-initiatives/e-health/records
  52. https://digital.ahrq.gov/electronic-medical-record-systems
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8157615/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7761950/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12272288/
  56. https://www.chcf.org/resource/health-data-exchange-drives-efficiency-cuts-costs/
  57. https://www.paubox.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-phr-and-ehr
  58. https://www.mindbowser.com/ehr-vs-phr/
  59. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14604582231152190
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7438696/
  61. https://orionhealth.com/us/blog/emr-vs-ehr-vs-phr-whats-the-difference-and-why-does-it-matter/
  62. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2024/23_0413.htm
  63. https://flatirons.com/blog/ehr-vs-phr-whats-the-difference/
  64. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/de-identification/index.html
  65. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/09/standardized-demographic-data-improve-patient-matching-in-electronic-health-records
  66. https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/ehrincentiveprograms/downloads/7_record_demographics.pdf
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10986191/
  68. https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bmjqs-2025-019112
  69. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/post/physicians-need-to-identify-duplicate-overlayed-patient-records
  70. https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/why-duplicate-and-mismatched-patient-records-are-a-bigger-problem-than-you-think
  71. https://ahima.org/media/m1pldevh/ahima-pim-whitepaper.pdf
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2815491/
  73. https://hipaajournal.com/time-to-stop-blocking-a-national-patient-identifier-system/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7718096/
  75. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/25/national-patient-ids-privacy-526096
  76. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534249/
  77. https://www.acc.org/tools-and-practice-support/practice-solutions/coding-and-reimbursement/documentation/evaluation-and-management/past-family-social-history
  78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482263/
  79. https://www.simplepractice.com/resource/how-to-write-soap-notes/
  80. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-are-soap-notes
  81. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251359791
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10938158/
  83. https://www.uslegalsupport.com/blog/what-is-included-in-medical-records/
  84. https://americanretrieval.com/blog/components-of-the-medical-record/
  85. https://www.medicaltranscriptionservicecompany.com/blog/15-main-components-of-a-complete-medical-record/
  86. https://www.snomed.org/value-of-snomedct
  87. https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13244-025-01935-5
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9303046/
  89. https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/hcp/data-research/stewardship-report.html
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9612809/
  91. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd-10-cm/index.html
  92. https://www.healthcare-brew.com/stories/2022/10/26/what-are-icd-10-codes
  93. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-5122-14-13
  94. https://www.enter.health/post/automated-medical-claims-benefits-error-reduction
  95. https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2024-09-10-skyrocketing-hospital-administrative-costs-burdensome-commercial-insurer-policies-are-impacting
  96. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/02/540669492/many-avoid-end-of-life-care-planning-study-finds
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6946425/
  98. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11525084/
  100. https://medica-musc.researchcommons.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1398&context=theses
  101. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-023-00877-w
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8902175/
  103. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/216364
  104. https://www.aapc.com/resources/what-is-medical-coding
  105. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-for-service-providers/hospital-aquired-conditions-hac/coding
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9134459/
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0933365724003038
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11831774/
  109. https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-024-02512-4
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7384673/
  111. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00596
  112. https://www.nihcr.org/wp-content/uploads/crespin-et-al-2024-upcoding-linked-to-up-to-two-thirds-of-growth-in-highest-intensity-hospital-discharges-in-5-states_compressed.pdf
  113. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/erp/healthcare-inventory-management.shtml
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9329141/
  115. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/electronic-health-records-dont-reduce-administrative-costs/
  116. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2775721
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4371418/
  118. https://www.ajpmfocus.org/article/S2773-0654%2822%2900013-X/fulltext
  119. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/protocol-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-estimation-using-health-data-registries
  120. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2024/23_0417.htm
  121. https://publichealth.jmir.org/2019/2/e12110/
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8554508/
  123. https://journals.lww.com/jphmp/fulltext/2023/03000/leveraging_electronic_health_record_data_for.7.aspx
  124. https://www.shaip.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-data-de-identification/
  125. https://health-chain.io/opt-in-vs-opt-out-navigating-the-nuances-of-cms-mandates-in-member-data-sharing/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547207/
  127. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001173
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2628515/
  129. https://www.rmf.harvard.edu/News-and-Blog/Press-Releases-Home/Press-Releases/2024/November/2024-Candello-report-For-the-Record
  130. https://www.dcba.org/mpage/v34-Saira-Pasha
  131. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/white-paper-electronic-medical-records-medicolegal-death-investigation
  132. https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicscauses.html
  133. https://www.finchmccranie.com/blog/how-lawyers-use-medical-forensic-evidence-in-wrongful-death-cases/
  134. https://www.wisedocs.ai/blogs/how-do-underwriters-use-medical-records-in-underwriting
  135. https://www.blueberrylife.com/article/how-life-insurance-companies-check-medical-background
  136. https://www.helpadvisor.com/insurance/insurance-companies-and-medical-records
  137. https://e-imagedata.com/blog/2019/01/22/new-post-know-your-microforms/
  138. https://bmiimaging.com/blog/microfilm/history-of-microfilm/
  139. https://bmiimaging.com/blog/microfilm/advantages-disadvantages-microfilm/
  140. https://quizlet.com/ca/207936082/discuss-methods-for-storing-and-retaining-health-records-and-health-information-flash-cards/
  141. https://www.recordrs.com/blog/transitioning-from-paper-to-electronic-medical-records/
  142. https://referralmd.com/the-horrific-waste-dangers-of-paper-medical-records-infographic/
  143. https://www.obgproject.com/2022/12/05/long-maintain-medical-records/
  144. https://www.paubox.com/blog/understanding-medical-record-retention-requirements-by-state
  145. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2803%2900057-3/fulltext
  146. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594855/
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8367140/
  148. https://www.capminds.com/blog/hl7-fhir-vs-traditional-data-standards-why-interoperability-matters/
  149. https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-023-02115-5
  150. https://radsource.us/dicom-vs-hl7/
  151. https://www.postdicom.com/en/blog/hl7-vs-dicom
  152. https://www.sprypt.com/blog/comparing-data-protection-in-cloud-vs-on-premise-healthcare-systems
  153. https://cloudian.com/guides/hipaa-compliant-cloud-storage/hipaa-compliant-cloud-storage/
  154. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/16/2024-29163/health-data-technology-and-interoperability-trusted-exchange-framework-and-common-agreement-tefca
  155. https://www.cms.gov/cms-interoperability-and-prior-authorization-final-rule-cms-0057-f
  156. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/08/physicians-embrace-ai-note-taking-technology/
  157. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2839542
  158. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391394796_Blockchain-Based_Healthcare_Records_Management_Framework_Enhancing_Security_Privacy_and_Interoperability
  159. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/hbe2/4734288
  160. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/telehealth-health-it
  161. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12982-024-00271-1
  162. https://www.mbc.ca.gov/FAQs/?cat=Consumer&topic=Complaint:%20Medical%20Records
  163. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/02/medical-records-ownership-and-the-information-blocking-rules
  164. https://www.recordrs.com/blog/who-does-the-patients-chart-legally-belong-to/
  165. https://blackburnlawyers.ca/blog/ownership-of-patient-files/
  166. https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/2/lsab023/6380070
  167. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8178732/
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7463395/
  169. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-020-0459-6
  170. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
  171. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/healthit/eaccess.pdf
  172. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-164/subpart-E/section-164.526
  173. https://www.hipaajournal.com/hipaa-rights/
  174. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/patient-access-playbook-information-blocking
  175. https://www.opennotes.org/onc-federal-rule/
  176. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33600778/
  177. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2761257
  178. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538157.2021.1879810
  179. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10937883/
  180. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/information-blocking-and-hipaas-right-access-compliance-burdens-healthcare-providers
  181. https://prognocis.com/how-long-do-providers-keep-medical-records/
  182. https://quizlet.com/explanations/questions/ahimas-record-retention-guidelines-recommend-that-the-health-records-of-adults-be-maintained-for-what-length-of-time-ba168204-f6947d37-0799-4a56-a52d-81658b600eb9
  183. https://www.pamedsoc.org/home/news-resources/news-and-resources/articles/medical-record-disposition-FAQs
  184. https://www.hkinjurylaw.com/legal-consequences-for-improper-documentation-in-medical-records/
  185. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2779965/
  186. https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/advice-publications/handbooks/collaborative-care-a-medical-liability-perspective
  187. https://www.coverys.com/getmedia/dcaf6294-495a-4d69-a677-42b73d5a38f4/care-transitions-malpractice-claims.pdf
  188. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/audit/protocol/index.html
  189. https://www.hipaajournal.com/common-hipaa-violations/
  190. https://www.hipaajournal.com/what-are-the-penalties-for-hipaa-violations-7096/
  191. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/hipaa-security-rule-nprm/index.html
  192. https://www.hipaajournal.com/new-hipaa-regulations/
  193. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7349636/
  194. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/data/enforcement-highlights/index.html
  195. https://www.onetrust.com/blog/hipaa-vs-gdpr-compliance/
  196. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7391042/
  197. https://www.dataguidance.com/opinion/international-gdpr-v-hipaa-comparing-and-contrasting
  198. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9575/
  199. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5346164/
  200. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11377024/
  201. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11339564/
  202. https://www.lepide.com/blog/healthcare-data-security-best-practices/
  203. https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/data-protection/data-security-in-healthcare/
  204. https://www.eftsure.com/statistics/two-factor-authentication-statistics/
  205. https://www.strongdm.com/blog/healthcare-data-security
  206. https://www.enter.health/post/data-encryption-healthcare-rcm
  207. https://www.varonis.com/blog/healthcare-cybersecurity-statistics
  208. https://www.hipaajournal.com/healthcare-data-breaches-due-to-phishing/
  209. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/83-percent-organizations-reported-insider-threats-2024
  210. https://www.metomic.io/resource-centre/healthcare-and-insider-threats
  211. https://itforscrubs.com/blog/minimizing-insider-risk-in-healthcare-it/
  212. https://www.censinet.com/perspectives/how-pam-prevents-healthcare-data-breaches
  213. https://www.hipaajournal.com/healthcare-data-breach-statistics/
  214. https://bluesight.com/news/major-healthcare-data-security-trends-in-2025/
  215. https://www.hipaajournal.com/august-2025-healthcare-data-breach-report/
  216. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/change-healthcare-cybersecurity-incident-frequently-asked-questions/index.html
  217. https://www.blackfog.com/change-healthcare-landmark-cybersecurity-breach/
  218. https://www.ibm.com/think/news/change-healthcare-cyberattack-exceeds-1-billion-costs
  219. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/healthcare-data-breach-costs-2024-ibm-ponemon-institute/722958/
  220. https://www.hipaajournal.com/change-healthcare-responding-to-cyberattack/
  221. https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/ransomware-statistics
  222. https://industrialcyber.co/reports/healthcare-ransomware-attacks-surge-30-in-2025-as-cybercriminals-shift-focus-to-vendors-and-service-partners/
  223. https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2025/10/08/the-state-of-ransomware-in-healthcare-2025/
  224. https://www.securitymetrics.com/blog/how-manage-healthcare-data-breach
  225. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/data-breach-response-guide-business
  226. https://www.cobalt.io/blog/healthcare-data-breach-statistics
  227. https://mentormate.com/blog/data-interoperability-in-healthcare-six-challenges-to-tackle/
  228. https://talencio.com/breaking-barriers-health-data-interoperability-integration-in-2025/
  229. https://www.paubox.com/blog/how-legacy-systems-disrupt-patient-care
  230. https://integrio.net/blog/legacy-systems-in-healthcare-main-steps-and-challenges
  231. https://www.healthcatalyst.com/learn/insights/healthcare-interoperability-barriers-solutions
  232. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/hhs-steps-efforts-stop-health-information-blocking
  233. https://codesuite.org/blogs/healthcare-interoperability-in-2025-standards-challenges-and-solutions/
  234. https://www.itransition.com/healthcare/ehr/costs
  235. https://www.ehrinpractice.com/ehr-cost-and-budget-guide.html
  236. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/cost-biggest-barrier-electronic-medical-records-implementation
  237. https://riveraxe.com/cost-of-electronic-medical-records/
  238. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8904550/
  239. https://readylogic.co/challenges-in-implementing-electronic-health-records/
  240. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3766548/
  241. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3191451
  242. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6682280/
  243. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/ehr-incentives-success-or-failure
  244. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/researchers-mine-ehr-metadata-clues-cut-doctor-burdens
  245. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10134123/
  246. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2822959
  247. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/alert-fatigue
  248. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/issue/impact-national-qi-programme-reducing-electronic-health-record-notifications-clinicians
  249. https://www.ecri.org/Resources/HIT/CP_Toolkit/CopyPaste_Literature_final.pdf
  250. https://www.statnews.com/2023/06/20/medical-records-errors-copy-paste/
  251. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8797538/
  252. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/28/1/167/5961439
  253. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167923622000872
  254. https://evidence.care/how-to-reduce-costs-in-hospitals-with-an-ehr/
  255. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12460601/
  256. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/ai-scribes-save-15000-hours-and-restore-human-side-medicine
  257. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10318939/
  258. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-025-09808-9
  259. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.08.24313270v1.full-text
  260. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12206486/
  261. https://www.healthcareittoday.com/2025/07/30/shaping-the-future-of-ehr-modernization-at-university-hospitals/
  262. https://www.milbank.org/publications/the-health-of-us-primary-care-2025-scorecard-report-the-cost-of-neglect/iv-technology-the-lack-of-investment-in-ehrs-has-led-to-burdensome-systems-that-drain-clinicians-time-thereby-reducing-patient-access-to-care/
  263. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/04/doctor-burnout-rates-what-they-mean.html
  264. https://www.ahrq.gov/news/newsletters/e-newsletter/863.html
  265. https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/electronic-health-records-fail-to-detect-up-to-33-of-medication-errors/
  266. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766834
  267. https://www.mdpi.com/2624-800X/5/3/70
  268. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/30/9/1561/7207843
  269. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2810368
  270. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01423
  271. https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/2/e001666
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.