Tag: EMR and Patient Care

Nurses at Patient Care Units

Patient care comes in a variety of forms. It has seen an expansion over the years to cater every possible need of every patient. Taking care of the sick is the only reason why patient care exists, although others have their own specialization, but their main concern remains the same, and that is, giving medical care to the sick.

There are also different types of nurses attending these said patient care units. When the development of patient care outlets started, the formation of adding specialized workforce was already in the works. And this paved the way for the inclusion of these type of nurses. These nurses, however, do have different roles to keep, but most often than not, their calling hasn’t changed. The following are types of nurses you would find in a patient care outlet.

Emergency or Trauma Nurses
They treat patients who are in the brink of death, such as in an accident or after suffering from a debilitating disease. They are usually situated on emergency rooms, getting ready to assist life-threatening situations with their patients.

Critical Care Nurses
It may sound like they have the same responsibility with Emergency Nurses, but a Critical Nurse’s sole responsibility is to treat those patients with pulmonary and cardio-vascular ailments.

Holistic Nurses
These type of nurses are into a different kind of patient treatment. They concern themselves with mental disorders as well as maintaining the spiritual health of their patients.

Infusion Nurses
Nurses who are more attuned to injections, particularly with blood transfusions and other diseases that have something to do with vein problems.

Home Health Care Nurses
They are the ones who provide care to their patients like that in a home. They extend help to those patients who have survived a major surgery or after giving birth, while providing assistance like that of a typical nurse.

EMR and Patient Care

The EMR or electronic medical record’s guarantee of participation to health care price benefits got a second look recently, and the results were inadequate at best.  But what I found interesting was the “second look” was from the same company that did the first look: the corporately-funded, non-profit think-tank called the RAND Corporation.

From their second and more recent report:

A team of RAND Corporation researchers estimated in 2005 that fast adopting of health information technology (IT) could save the United States more than $81 billion dollars yearly. Seven years later, the scientific data on the technology’s impact on health care performance and safety are combined, and yearly health care expenses in the United States have grown by $800 billion dollars.

Who would have thought that such a famous company like the RAND Corporation could have made such a little, tiny multi-billion dollar mistake? After all, their 2005 study was financed entirely by several of the major EMR producers who have gained enormous amounts in income on EMR sales since.  Is there any wonder that now the same RAND Corporation sensed that the EMRs deficiency of price benefits is really the end-users’ fault?

In our view, the frustrating performance of health IT to date can be mostly linked to several factors: gradual adopting of health IT techniques, in addition to the choice of techniques that are neither interoperable nor easy to use; and the failing of medical service providers and organizations to re-engineer patient care procedures to obtain the benefits of health IT.

What a superficial evaluation.  There is no talk of the price of these techniques, their maintenance, deficiency of interoperability, inadequate user-interfaces, and in many cases, deficiency of design support.  Even more interesting, there was no consideration that someone might actually figure out a way to efficiently dress the government’s arcane certification requirements for compensation that would permit more patient care spending.  No, those tests would have been too obvious.  Instead, the Rand Corporation informs us that there were no price benefits with the EMRs because doctor- and hospital-customers did not re-engineer their patient care procedures or “adopt” poor first-generation techniques.