Why We Must Keep Track of Errors in Electronic Medical Records

Digital medical records can easily go awry, but nobody is tracking the errors

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The first visit to a new doctor usually starts with yet another recitation of medical history. You recount your peanut allergy and Grandma's hypertension but forget to mention the medication you were on two years ago. Electronic health records are designed to circumvent such problems by providing an easily shareable record of all that information in one place.

The potential for greater convenience and accuracy is so clear that federal law requires doctors and hospitals to start using electronic records by 2015. More than half of all U.S. doctors already do so, up from only 17 percent five years ago. Almost four in five hospitals have made the transition to electronic records. The federal government has spent more than $15 billion to help promote the move.

For all their promise, however, electronic medical records have their own flaws. In dozens of known cases, caregivers have entered information into the wrong chart or listed important details—such as drug dosages—incorrectly. Data sometimes disappear. In one case, a patient's allergy to penicillin was improperly entered into an electronic record. The patient later received ampicillin and nearly died of shock.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Yet we have no idea how often these errors happen or how to make them stop because no centralized body is keeping track of the mistakes. We need to get a better idea of what is going wrong so that doctors and hospitals can try to fix the problems.

To that end, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should create a national safety board to collect data on e-record errors. It would receive anonymized information about medical mistakes and close calls and use this information to issue guidelines for the medical industry.

The board would operate much like the National Transportation Safety Board, the independent federal agency charged with leading hundreds of investigations a year into aviation accidents, highway crashes and pipeline leaks, among other incidents. When something goes wrong in the U.S. transportation system, board investigators identify the root causes and recommend concrete actions to ensure that the problem does not happen again. Their investigations have led to safety measures such as midair-collision-avoidance technology, a national drinking age of 21 and shoulder belts in the backseats of cars.

How would a national e-record-monitoring agency work? A few smaller-scale examples can serve as guides. Pennsylvania created a mandatory reporting system for all medical errors in June 2004. This system has uncovered thousands of e-record problems—from misreported laboratory tests to incorrect prescriptions. Almost 90 percent of these reports are close calls instead of adverse events, but still the data help to pinpoint what is causing the problem. In addition, some states in Australia also voluntarily report e-record errors, and the U.K. has been looking into a new system for its National Health Service.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which cares for 8.76 million individuals, also tracks electronic errors on a voluntary basis. Its system provides only a partial snapshot of some trouble areas, but the agency takes its reported errors, analyzes them and, when necessary, sends out safety alerts to all users of its system.

Such systems cull data and funnel information to a centralized entity that can interpret it. And so it could be with a national e-record reporting system. Local institutions would have personnel fill out a standardized form when an error occurs, then file that report to a local and national reporting network.

The health department already faces a January deadline, set by Congress, to issue guidance on how to regulate health information technology. The department should take this opportunity to introduce a national database for electronic-record errors. Learning from these mistakes should ultimately save lives. Proper tracking can only help.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 309 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Data Glitches Are Hazardous to Your Health” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 309 No. 5 (), p. 10
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1113-10

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe