The doctor is in and logged on

Other critics of electronic medical records have expressed concern about the security of computerized health information, and what happens to healthcare should a system crash. These too are legitimate concerns, but they're no different than the ones in other industries in which data stability is critical, such as finance. We can't imagine a world in which we couldn't bank online, over our mobile phones or by using an ATM. Why should medicine be any different?

Electronic is better

Like most doctors, I'd like more time in my day to finish my notes or return the e-mails I receive each day. Electronic records don't save me or my staff any time -- medical assistants and others have to type in weights, measures and other data. Typing is nowhere near as fast as jotting chicken scratch.

On the other hand, I can time shift -- if I want to be home by 5:15 p.m. to play with my daughter before she goes to bed, I can log in remotely and finish my work later.

Ultimately, getting away from a pen and paper is better for my patients. So though electronic medical records are far from perfect, you'd have to tear my cold, dead hand from the mouse to make me go back to relying solely on pen and paper.

--

Parikh, a Walnut Creek, Calif., physician, writes the Vital Signs medical column for Salon.com. www.rahulkparikh.com