Paper charting vs Electronic charting

Paper charting vs Electronic charting


  • What are the main differences between paper charting and electronic medical records (EMRs)?
  • The effects of digital charting
  • Why the use of EMRs is not yet ubiquitous
  • Solutions to common EMR problems
  • Paper vs. Electronic: The Ultimate Chart Debate
  • Diving into electronic charting

On par with most of the world’s most modern and technologically advanced industries, the healthcare industry constantly yearns for more efficient, accurate, and often digital tools. Day after day, various medical institutions implement many of these essential technological advancements into their practices, the majority of which include the structural integrity provided by electronic medical records (EMRs) and electronic health records (EHRs). Thus, at first thought, the debate between paper charting and electronic charting may appear to favor the latter approach.

In reality, there are several nuances in considering such a topic, one of which is that, to this day, many healthcare professionals choose paper charting over EMRs and EHRs. As a result, it is important to unpack this comparison between contrasting charting approaches further to unveil the most precise answer.

What are the main differences between paper charting and electronic medical records (EMRs)?

To thoroughly unpack the best charting method, it is essential first to understand what each technique (paper charting vs. electronic medical records) entails.

In its simplest form, the paper charting approach to medical record organization is the sum of all paper files, documents, consents, images, and details about a patient’s overall health data, including items such as one’s history, allergies, etc. This extensive information is often stored in a filing cabinet or a storage facility.

On the opposite end, EMRs (electronic medical records) and EHRs (electronic health records) are digital solutions and are equivalent to recording and storing a patient’s medical information. Unique to the inside of an electronic medical record (EMR), one will keep and find patient information distinctly relevant to specific health plans and diagnoses, parallel to a traditional patient chart. This charting method is exceptionally concise and time-efficient compared to its paper counterpart.

What are paper-based records?

Paper-based records, often referred to as traditional record-keeping, are a way of storing and managing health information in a physical format. This conventional method of record-keeping involves handwritten notes or printouts that are filed, typically in a folder or cabinet. These documents may consist of various types of data, including a patient’s medical history, details of examinations or treatments, lab results, diagnostics, prescriptions, and more.

Paper-based records require manual handling and physical storage space, which can be a considerable challenge in terms of organisation and accessibility. There are several barriers associated with the usage of paper-based records, such as the risk of damage or loss, misplacement, issues with readability due to poor handwriting, and difficulty sharing the information when needed.

Despite the prevalence of electronic health record systems today, paper-based records continue to be used, particularly in smaller healthcare settings or in developing regions where digital infrastructure may not be readily available or affordable. Of course, while they may lack the convenience of digital records, paper records are not dependent on technology, which can be an advantage in situations where electronic systems may be susceptible to technical failures or cyber attacks.

The benefits of digital charting

Now that a basic understanding of the differences between paper and electronic records and charting has been established, one might wonder if there are any other specific benefits to choosing the electronic approach other than simply reducing the need for filing cabinets. And in fact, there are several promising benefits outside of a reduction in storage.

One such benefit is an actual improvement in overall patient care. Not only can electronic medical records aid in diagnosing illnesses due to the organizational ease with which access to a patient’s comprehensive health history and data is provided, but they can also help minimize false positives and clerical errors due to their controlled formatting and rapid update-ability, which in turn allows healthcare professionals to accurately account for a patient’s most recent and relevant health data. Now, indeed, this increased likelihood of successfully treating a patient is worth the filing cabinet industry seeing any potential losses.

Outside of the undeniable importance of patient care, the significance of workflow is often undermined when discussing the effects of electronic charting. A proper EMR system allows a medical practice to streamline and optimize its workflow, resulting in fewer administrative headaches and, subsequently, better treatment of those headaches among actual patients.

Expert opinions

Dr. Nicole Morris, who is the Senior Director of Nursing Education at NYC Health and Hospitals, emphasizes the importance of clear, concise, complete, and timely charting in nursing. She advocates for electronic charting as a means to improve the accuracy and efficiency of patient care documentation. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) facilitate this by offering tools such as drop-down menus and flow charts that aid in clinical judgment and patient assessment. This technology also helps alert nurses to potential patient deteriorations, enhancing the overall quality of care​ (​.

Accuracy and Reliability in Patient Charting: Why It Matters to You

Accuracy and reliability in patient charting aren’t just industry buzzwords; they’re the pillars that support effective patient care and safety. As a physician, you know that even minor errors in a patient’s chart can lead to serious complications. The battle between paper charting and electronic charting systems is ongoing, but electronic charting has the edge when it comes to minimizing mistakes.

In paper charting, manual entries leave room for illegible handwriting and misinterpretation. It’s a classic issue you’ve likely encountered: trying to decipher a colleague’s notes can feel like breaking a secret code, except the stakes involve health outcomes, not just words. A study published in the Journal of the American Health Information Management Association reports that adopting EHRs can reduce errors by up to 85% compared to paper records.

Electronic charting systems offer real-time prompts and alerts that can help you avoid the common pitfalls of manual data entry. Imagine you’re prescribing medication – electronic systems can flag potential allergies or harmful drug interactions before you finalize the prescription. This proactive approach to patient safety is something paper charts simply cannot offer.

Have you ever faced discrepancies in patient information due to multiple updates on paper charts? This is rare with electronic charting. The ability to track changes chronologically ensures that the latest, most accurate information is always at your fingertips. This is crucial, especially when making decisions based on patient history. You don’t have time to thumb through pages of data when you need answers, and electronic records make sure that you don’t have to.

Why the use of EMRs is not yet widespread

And yet, this still leaves the question of why an individual would choose a paper record over its seemingly superior digital match. As with most things, EMRs and EHRs are not immune to the reality of the occasional drawback. Some common factors that might deter potential EMR users from paper charting include the various number of existing EMR systems that run on outdated principles, limiting formats, and complicated frameworks, which are often challenging to work with. The explosive expansion of the medical technology industry has created a saturated market that tends to overwhelm the potential consumer looking to switch from paper to electronic. Indeed, with the essential nature of the medical industry and everything it encompasses, one might expect a way to bypass such fruitless drawbacks to exist now.

Solutions to common EMR drawbacks

Expectedly and luckily, many modern EMRs, such as Ambula, allow you to avoid the drawbacks of past EMRs. For example, Ambula’s EMR system allows one to completely customize their workflow to build an effortless charting and patient experience. Such unique EMR advancements grant healthcare workers the autonomy to create unique processes, flows, and charts for each aspect of a practice, including the specialty, patient visits, patient procedures, and more. Ambula’s distinct EMR customization benefits holistically streamline health care charting work for all structure members needed to run any medical practice, from physicians to nurses to billing and practice administrators. To learn more about Ambula’s unique EMR workflow optimization benefits, check out the “About Us” tab above or contact one of our team members directly through our blue chat box on the lower right.

Differences between privacy laws with EMR vs. paper medical records

It is important to note that both EMR and paper medical records protect patient privacy. However, the management of the two types of documents differs significantly.

Physical safeguards, such as locked cabinets, restricted access, and proper disposal of records, are used to maintain patient privacy in paper medical records. Healthcare providers must adhere to strict guidelines to ensure the confidentiality of patient information.

On the other hand, EMRs use technical and administrative safeguards to protect patient privacy. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) sets the standard for the confidentiality and security of health information in the United States. HIPAA mandates that healthcare providers protect patient privacy by implementing various safeguards, including access controls, audit trails, encryption, and password protection. Healthcare providers must also conduct regular risk assessments to identify potential privacy risks and take appropriate measures to mitigate them.

One significant difference between privacy laws concerning EMRs and paper medical records is the level of control patients have over their information. Patients can access their medical records and request copies of their paper records, but this process may be time-consuming and involve fees. In contrast, EMRs allow patients to easily access and share their medical records through a secure patient portal. Patients can also update their medical information, which is impossible with paper records.

How much time do hospitals spend transcribing paper to EMR?

Several factors, such as the size of the hospital, the number of patients, the complexity of the records, and the efficiency of the transcription process, can affect the amount of time hospitals spend transcribing paper records to electronic medical records (EMRs).

Many hospitals have implemented automated systems that use optical character recognition (OCR) technology to scan paper records and convert the text into digital data that can be imported directly into the EMR system. This has significantly reduced the time and effort required for transcription. The amount of time needed for this process can vary depending on the volume of records to be transcribed and the quality of the paper records.

Furthermore, some hospitals may outsource their transcription needs to third-party service providers, reducing the time and resources required for the transcription process.

Overall, advances in technology and outsourcing options have made transcribing paper records to EMRs much more efficient than in the past. However, the time required can still vary widely depending on the specific circumstances of each hospital.

How much paper is being saved by using EMR?

Using electronic medical records (EMR) has been touted to reduce paper usage in healthcare settings. Still, it’s difficult to definitively answer how much paper is being saved, as it depends on various factors.

One of these factors is the level of EMR adoption within a healthcare organization. If the organization has fully transitioned to EMR, it may significantly reduce the paper used for documentation, orders, and other purposes. However, if the organization still uses a combination of paper and electronic records, the amount of paper saved may be more modest.

Another factor is the type of healthcare setting. For example, in hospitals and clinics with a large volume of patients, EMR can significantly reduce the amount of paper used for charting, ordering, and other tasks. However, the reduction in paper use may be less pronounced in smaller settings such as physician offices.

It’s important to note that while using EMR may reduce paper usage, it may not eliminate it. For example, the paper may still be used for patient consent forms, discharge instructions, and other patient education materials.

The adoption of EMR has led to a significant reduction in paper usage in healthcare settings, even though it’s challenging to provide an exact figure on how much paper is being saved.

Improve patient engagement with Ambula

Create a rememberable patient experience and more patients through your practice.

Converting paper medical documents to the EMR

Converting paper medical documents to EMR is a complex process that requires careful planning and execution. The process can be time-consuming and expensive. The conversion process involves:

  • Scanning and digitizing paper records.
  • Extracting relevant information.
  • Transferring it to the EMR system.

Here are some factors to consider when converting paper medical documents to EMR:

  1. The volume of records: The number of paper records to be converted plays a significant role in the conversion process. The larger the volume of documents, the longer the process will take. It’s essential to have a plan in place to manage the conversion process effectively.
  2. Quality of records: The quality of the paper records will also impact the conversion process. Poorly organized documents with illegible handwriting or missing critical information will take longer to digitize and may require manual data entry.
  3. Type of data: The type of data being converted is also a factor to consider. Textual data, such as clinical notes and lab results, can be easily digitized, while visual data, such as X-rays and images, require more advanced equipment and techniques.
  4. HIPAA compliance: During the conversion process, it’s crucial to maintain patient confidentiality and comply with HIPAA regulations. The process must ensure no personal information is lost or disclosed during the conversion.
  5. Cost: The cost of converting paper medical documents to EMR can vary depending on the volume of records and the level of complexity. It’s essential to evaluate the cost-benefit of the conversion process, including the potential savings from reduced storage and management costs for paper records.

Paper vs. Digital: The Ultimate Chart Debate

To firmly secure the ultimate victor in the “paper vs. electronic medical records” debate, the remaining nuances and quirks of the situation are clearly outlined below:

  • In terms of time, Electronic charting saves invaluable amounts of time when it comes to running a practice. From efficient patient visits to life-saving data at the tip of one’s fingers during emergencies, the time saved can be greatly reinvested into one’s practice. At the same time, the timely task of paper charting can distract patients and one’s capacity to be present and learn.
  • The illegible side: The individuality that comes with handwriting is truly something beautiful. And yet, within a medical practice, it can become a nuisance when it comes to reading another’s handwriting, thus holding the potential for medical errors. But with digital records, one can type legibly and without particular limitations, eliminating the possibility of transcription errors.
  • When it comes to security, Undoubtedly, one can expect that at some point in time, an essential piece of paper will eventually be misplaced or even stolen. Such an assured mistake can be detrimental and costly to one’s practice. On the other hand, digital records have risks, including cyberattacks and data breaches. Just as one would have essential documents in a safe, it is vital to use secure, cloud-based, or on-premise solutions equipped with backups.
  • Finances: Purchasing, installing, and accessing digital systems can be a costly addition to one’s practice. That being said, the cost of human ones, time inefficiencies, and a lack of overall organization that comes with paper charting may outweigh the investment of an EMR system.
  • Accessibility: Paper records are tough to access and share. Often, surgical centers and other medical practices resort to scanning, faxing, or emailing photos of documents. Digital forms, however, are much easier to access and share. And yet, not all EMRs allow for this effortless transfer of records. One should check if a specific EMR allows easy document sharing.

In conclusion, the modern advancements known as electronic medical records (EMRs) are undoubtedly victorious when pinned up against their outdated paper counterpart. Paper charts not only leave a medical practice unstructured and in the dark about one’s business but also unaware of some of the most critical principles necessary one’s running a successful business, including patient engagement, interoperability, reporting, and more. EMRs can structurally enhance one’s practice and patient experience. It is human nature to make errors; one is at the heart of EMRs, such as Ambula, to prevent and catch them.

To learn more about Ambula’s advanced, autonomy-focused EMR system, called the Ambula Healthcare Ambula’s (818) 308-4108.

FAQs About This Article

  • Legibility: Handwriting can be difficult to decipher, leading to potential errors and misinterpretations.
  • Organization: Paper charts can become cluttered and disorganized over time, making it difficult to find specific information quickly.
  • Sharing and collaboration: Sharing information between healthcare providers can be time-consuming and require physically transporting paper charts.
  • Security and data integrity: Paper charts are more susceptible to loss, damage, and unauthorized access compared to electronic records.

The specific training needs will depend on the chosen EHR system and individual user roles. Most vendors offer training programs to help healthcare professionals learn the system and workflows.

While EHRs facilitate information sharing, certain restrictions may apply based on patient consent, privacy regulations, and interoperability challenges between different systems.

Maintaining patient privacy, ensuring data accuracy, and addressing potential biases within electronic systems are key ethical considerations for healthcare providers using electronic charting.

What are the key components of physician practice management emr system

Keep up to date with the latest in healthcare and technology!

Subscribe to Ambula’s weekly newsletter – don’t get left behind!