ABSTRACT
Endoscopic electronic medical record systems (EEMRs) are now increasingly utilized in many endoscopy centers. Modern EEMRs not only support endoscopy report generation, but often include features such as practice management tools, image and video clip management, inventory management, e-faxes to referring physicians, and database support to measure quality and patient outcomes. There are many existing software vendors offering EEMRs, and choosing a software vendor can be time consuming and confusing. The goal of this article is inform the readers about current functionalities available in modern EEMR and provide them with a framework necessary to find an EEMR that is best fit for their practice.
KEYWORDS
Medical records systems - computerized - endoscopy reporting - computerized endoscopic medical record (CEMR) - electronic medical record system (EMR)
REFERENCES
-
1
Conway J D, Adler D G, Diehl D L ASGE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE et al.
Endoscopic electronic medical record systems.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2008;
67(4)
590-594
-
2
Nelson D B, Block K P, Bosco J J et al..
Technology status evaluation report: computerized endoscopic medical record systems: November 1999.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2000;
51(6)
793-796
-
3
Enns R A, Barkun A N, Gerdes H.
Electronic endoscopic information systems: what is out there?.
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am.
2004;
14(4)
745-754, x
-
4
Savides T J, Chang K, Cotton P.
Possible features of current electronic endoscopic information systems: what to look for.
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am.
2004;
14(4)
735-743, x
-
5
Adler K G.
How to select an electronic health record system.
Fam Pract Manag.
2005;
12(2)
55-62
-
6
AHIMA e-HIM® Work group .
Practice brief. The RFP process for EHR systems.
J AHIMA.
2007;
78
73-76
-
7
Levin B, Lieberman D A, McFarland B American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group et al.
Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.
Gastroenterology.
2008;
134(5)
1570-1595
-
8
Faigel D O, Pike I M, Baron T H ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy et al.
Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction.
Am J Gastroenterol.
2006;
101(4)
866-872
-
9
Gouveia-Oliveira A, Raposo V D, Salgado N C, Almeida I, Nobre-Leitão C, de Melo F G.
Longitudinal comparative study on the influence of computers on reporting of clinical data.
Endoscopy.
1991;
23(6)
334-337
-
10
Soekhoe J K, Groenen M J, van Ginneken A M et al..
Computerized endoscopic reporting is no more time-consuming than reporting with conventional methods.
Eur J Intern Med.
2007;
18(4)
321-325
-
11
Groenen M J, Ajodhia S, Wynstra J Y et al..
A cost-benefit analysis of endoscopy reporting methods: handwritten, dictated and computerized.
Endoscopy.
2009;
41(7)
603-609
-
12
Atreja A, Achkar J P, Jain A K, Harris C M, Lashner B A.
Using technology to promote gastrointestinal outcomes research: a case for electronic health records.
Am J Gastroenterol.
2008;
103(9)
2171-2178
-
13
Lieberman D A, Faigel D O, Logan J R et al..
Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2009;
69(3 Pt 2)
645-653
-
14
Yousfi M, Gostout C J, Baron T H et al..
Postpolypectomy lower gastrointestinal bleeding: potential role of aspirin.
Am J Gastroenterol.
2004;
99(9)
1785-1789
Brooke GurlandM.D.
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Ave., A30, Cleveland, OH 44195
Email: gurlanb@ccf.org
