Comments on: Update on Electronic Medical Records http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2008/11/update-on-electronic-medical-records/ An overview of New York medical malpractice, products liability and personal injury law, and the news that affects it Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:34:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: throckmorton http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2008/11/update-on-electronic-medical-records/comment-page-1/#comment-56 throckmorton Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:47:38 +0000 http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/?p=36#comment-56 The study in question is very flawed for many reasons. This was actually a survery that was done of physcians who had malpractice histories. The number of respondents was actually too low to reach statistical significance. It also was retrospective with no control of variables. It only looked at paid malpractice claims not actual medical errors and did not seperate out those physician specialties that are more exposed to malpractice suits such as neurosurg, ob/gyn etc. The only conclusion that was made by the study was that "the link between electronic medical records and malpractice suits needs to be looked are more carefully". This is a classic example of suggesting results from a study that are not supported by the study itself. Sort of a bait and switch. The study in question is very flawed for many reasons. This was actually a survery that was done of physcians who had malpractice histories. The number of respondents was actually too low to reach statistical significance. It also was retrospective with no control of variables. It only looked at paid malpractice claims not actual medical errors and did not seperate out those physician specialties that are more exposed to malpractice suits such as neurosurg, ob/gyn etc. The only conclusion that was made by the study was that “the link between electronic medical records and malpractice suits needs to be looked are more carefully”.

This is a classic example of suggesting results from a study that are not supported by the study itself. Sort of a bait and switch.

]]>