Scribes can be very helpful and save provider time BUT if they are not properly trained or their rights in the EHR are not aligned to their role this is a huge security, privacy and patient care risk. I would like to see a board exam and scribe certification process to ensure that an appropriate level of qualification is obtained. Once we know the level of qualification then the ability to modify the EHR is more easily defined. I have seen the use of NP/PA levels as "scribes" and also just high school graduates as scribes. A lot of difference in the level of education between these two types of scribes!
Furydelabongo - 8 years ago
We do use scribes in code situations and in many surgical or invasive procedures so it's not rare. Admittedly I don't know how to scale the use of scribes to the volume of interventions, observations that occur daily in a provider's life. Yet a well trained cadre of scribes is akin to a well-trained cadre of medical transcriptionists who can create a product of standardized narrative for review and action. My guess is we are at least two generations away from having EMRs universally configured to effectively support provider workflow and thought processes, consider regulatory requirements and corral over-zealous configuration analysts.
Mostly good because the key to accurate and timely source data entry, as commercial IT experienced back in 1970-80s with the advent of online systems. But having the most expensive labor unit do it and - not really trained to do it - is a most inefficient process. To support my argument why not do a survey of the hospital C suite and ask; How often /how much transaction data entry do you Mr. VP do on a daily basis? I bet it's not more then an expense account every two weeks...and maybe not even that.
Scribes can be very helpful and save provider time BUT if they are not properly trained or their rights in the EHR are not aligned to their role this is a huge security, privacy and patient care risk. I would like to see a board exam and scribe certification process to ensure that an appropriate level of qualification is obtained. Once we know the level of qualification then the ability to modify the EHR is more easily defined. I have seen the use of NP/PA levels as "scribes" and also just high school graduates as scribes. A lot of difference in the level of education between these two types of scribes!
We do use scribes in code situations and in many surgical or invasive procedures so it's not rare. Admittedly I don't know how to scale the use of scribes to the volume of interventions, observations that occur daily in a provider's life. Yet a well trained cadre of scribes is akin to a well-trained cadre of medical transcriptionists who can create a product of standardized narrative for review and action. My guess is we are at least two generations away from having EMRs universally configured to effectively support provider workflow and thought processes, consider regulatory requirements and corral over-zealous configuration analysts.
Mostly good because the key to accurate and timely source data entry, as commercial IT experienced back in 1970-80s with the advent of online systems. But having the most expensive labor unit do it and - not really trained to do it - is a most inefficient process. To support my argument why not do a survey of the hospital C suite and ask; How often /how much transaction data entry do you Mr. VP do on a daily basis? I bet it's not more then an expense account every two weeks...and maybe not even that.