Overview
Respond to the following four people : Jorge, Mariya, Chase, and Maxine.
All need to have 100 word response each. Can do in word document. All 4 responses must be separate.
JORGE- Electronic health records are important in healthcare, but they still bring challenges. One issue is that EHRs do not always match how clinicians work. Some systems require too many clicks, have confusing layouts, or create alert fatigue. This adds extra work and takes time away from patients. This is shown in our class material, especially in Chapter 8, Slide 12, where the usability problems and workflow interruptions are discussed.
Another challenge is keeping documentation accurate and complete. When dropdowns or required fields do not match clinical needs, people may copy and paste notes or leave out details. Chapter 9, Slide 8 explains that poor-quality documentation leads to weaker clinical decision support because the system can only function as well as the data entered into it.
There are improvements happening. Newer systems are focusing on cleaner screens, fewer unnecessary alerts, and more intuitive layouts. Tools like voice recognition and automated data capture are also starting to help clinicians document faster with fewer errors. These updates support smoother workflows and give clinicians more time to focus on patient care.
Another promising change is the move toward more personalized alerts and better integration with mobile devices. When alerts are more specific and based on the patient’s actual situation, clinicians are more likely to pay attention to them. Better mobile access also helps teams communicate faster and update information in real time, which can improve both accuracy and safety. Thank you -Jorge
MARYIA- For this week’s discussion, I have chosen to address handheld devices, and which features of these devices make them inappropriate for certain applications in medical information technology.
The medical technology industry is constantly evolving. In just a couple decades, patients have become increasingly involved in their healthcare. The industry is attempting to keep in stride with the demand to bring together patients and their care teams for streamlining effective medical care by developing many tools and devices for provider or patient use which make communication, documentation, billing and follow-up care faster and easier. However, with such convenience there are also certain drawbacks.
A major concern with handheld devices is maintaining the privacy and security of patient data. Personal equipment such as laptops, tablets, and smart phones, and watches often lack appropriate protection against viruses and hacking. Additionally, some wearables like smart watches are not considered covered entities under HIPAA and therefore aren't required to ensure protection of personal information (How Digital Health Tech Can Help You—and How to Keep Your Data Safe, 2025). Personal information can be stolen, sold, and misused if the device isn’t protected, or if the user does not know how to safely use the internet.
Another potential concern is the usability and the accuracy of the data collected by some handheld devices. The smart device technology is continuously updated with new features, and for these features to function properly, the updates need to happen regularly. Some population groups, like seniors or those that aren’t well versed in technology, may forget or not know how to maintain their device. The device that isn't updated runs the risk of interpreting and transmitting the gathered data incorrectly, creating false alarms or the opposite, giving the patient or the caregiver an impression that the patient is stable, and running the risk of a worsening disease not being detected in a timely manner. Additionally, the constantly changing interfaces of the portable and smart devices can make it difficult to keep up with learning how to use them correctly, resulting in incomplete or erroneous readings, and failure to keep scheduled appointments or communicate with the medical team (Pauldine, 2024).
CHASE: The switch from ICD-9 to ICD-10 was necessary because ICD-9 had become outdated and too limited to reflect modern medical knowledge. With only about 13,000 diagnosis codes, ICD-9 lacked the detail needed for accurate documentation and could not support new diseases or technologies. ICD-10 expanded the system to over 68,000 more specific and flexible codes, improving accuracy in claims, public health reporting, and data analysis (CMS, 2014). The benefits of ICD-10 included better clinical specificity, improved tracking of disease trends, and higher-quality data for quality reporting and reimbursement (CDC, 2015). These changes supported more precise care and enhanced research capabilities. However, the transition had drawbacks. It required significant training, system upgrades, and financial investment, which were especially challenging for smaller practices. Early on, coding took longer and productivity temporarily declined (O’Malley et al., 2015). Overall, despite initial challenges, the transition has been successful in strengthening documentation, improving data quality, and supporting more accurate reimbursement.
MAXINE: The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 represented one of the most significant shifts in medical coding in U.S. healthcare history. This change was necessary because ICD-9 had become outdated, limited in structure, and insufficient for the growing complexity of modern medicine. ICD-9 contained approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes and lacked the specificity required to accurately capture evolving medical knowledge, new technologies, and detailed clinical conditions. Its three- to five-digit structure simply could not accommodate the level of precision needed for contemporary healthcare documentation (CMS, 2015).
ICD-10, by contrast, expanded to more than 68,000 diagnosis codes and introduced alphanumeric characters that allowed for far greater detail. This increased specificity brought several benefits. First, ICD-10 improved clinical accuracy by documenting laterality, severity, and specific encounter types. Second, it enhanced data quality for population health management, epidemiological tracking, and research. Third, it strengthened reimbursement accuracy by linking payment more closely to patient complexity and provider performance. From a public health perspective, ICD-10 enabled better tracking of emerging diseases and supported international comparison of health statistics.
However, the transition also had drawbacks. Implementation required substantial financial investment in software upgrades, coder retraining, system testing, and workflow adjustments. Many providers experienced reduced productivity during the early months of adoption, and smaller practices in particular struggled with costs. Additionally, the steep learning curve initially led to coding errors and claim delays.
Despite these challenges, ICD-10 has largely been successful in achieving its goals. It has expanded the capacity for detailed clinical documentation, improved public health monitoring, enhanced billing accuracy, and created a more flexible system for future updates. While not without obstacles, the transition ultimately strengthened the foundation of the U.S. health information infrastructure.