Comparison of the quality of documentation between electronic and paper medical records in orthopaedic trauma patients.

Objective The medical record is critical for documentation and communication between healthcare professionals. This study compared the completeness of orthopaedic documentation between the electronic medical record (EMR) and paper medical record (PMR). Methods A review was undertaken of 400 medical records (200 EMR, 200 PMR) of patients with operatively managed traumatic lower limb injury. The operative report, discharge summary and first and second out-patient reviews were evaluated using criteria designed by a senior orthopaedic surgeon and senior physiotherapist. The criteria included information deemed critical to the post-operative care of the patient in the first 6 weeks post-surgery. Results In all cases, an operative report was completed by a senior surgeon. Notable findings included inferior documentation of patient weight-bearing status on the operative report in the EMR than PMR group (P  = 0.018). There was a significant improvement in the completion of discharge summaries in the EMR compared with PMR cohort (100% vs 82.5% respectively; P  < 0.001). In the PMR group, 70.0% of discharge summaries were completed and adequately documented, compared with 91.5% of those in the EMR group (P  < 0.001). At out-patient review, there was an improvement in documentation of weight-bearing instructions in the EMR compared with PMR group (81.1% vs 76.2% respectively; P  = 0.032). Conclusion The EMR is associated with an improvement in the standard of orthopaedic medical record documentation, but deficiencies remain in key components of the medical record. What is known about the topic? Medical records are an essential tool in modern medical practice and have significant implications for patient care and management, communication and medicolegal issues. Despite the importance of comprehensive documentation, numerous examples of poor documentation continue to be demonstrated. Recently, significant changes to the medical record in Australia have been implemented with the conversion of some hospitals to an EMR and the implementation of the My Health Record. What does this paper add? Standards of patient care should be monitored continuously and deficiencies identified in order to implement measures for improvement and to close the quality loop. This study has highlighted that although there has been improvement in medical record keeping with the implementation of an EMR, the standard of orthopaedic medical record keeping continues to be below what is expected, and several key areas of documentation require improvement. What are the implications for practitioners? The implications of these findings for practitioners are to highlight current deficiencies in documentation and promote change in current practice to improve the quality of medical record documentation among medical staff. Although the EMR has improved documentation, there remain areas for further improvement, and hospital administrators will find these observations useful in implementing ongoing change.