When speaking about EHR system there are huge differences from an implementation and usage standpoint depending on if one is discussing record inside the healthcare provider or the movement or transport of the information from point A to point B.
Since most EHR statements have to do with one or the other, not both, for purposes of clarity, is there merit to labeling statements about EHR that mostly relate to the healthcare provider as IntraEHR, and those dealing the the transport of the record as InterEHR?
Advertisement
Seems reasonable, those involved in making it happen will likely specialize in one or the other. Also, what are the records (or stubs to full records) classified as once they are transported and housed in the scary central repository? Think of the phenomenal system of audit logging the conveyance of this data will require. By shares of Segate and Western Digital now…
Comment by Scott Nicol — September 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm |
Help me out: I thought “EMR” meant “IntraEHR” and “EHR” meant “InterEHR”
It’d be good to not introduce new confusion and terms?
Comment by Steve S — September 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm |
Not trying to add to the confusion. I am in no position to dictate anything other than to myself. If it doesn’t appear useful, I won’t use it–maybe we should take that same approach with Meaningful Use.
Comment by Paul Roemer — September 12, 2009 @ 8:17 pm |
Normally the intraEHR is referred to as an EMR. The interEHR is usually referred to as an EHR, but most people seem to use the terms interchangeably.
Comment by Leonard Kish — September 12, 2009 @ 7:19 pm |
I agree Leonard. Just looking for a way to make it clear for me.
Comment by Paul Roemer — September 12, 2009 @ 8:15 pm |