“Some of the things the system does are very good, but unfortunately, I don’t think the software is where it needs to be yet for medical applications. We’ve just added speech recognition, which has helped a lot. But I think that a lot of the software programs need to be upgraded or changed to make them more physician-friendly. It does help a lot with archiving, retrieving information, and billing.” David L. Bankoff, MD; South Bend, Ind.

“I have an EMR system, but it’s an ‘EMR-Lite.’ We’re looking at transitioning to a full EMR system, hopefully in the next couple of years. For me so far, it’s painless. We use it primarily for billing, collecting, and organizing charts.As for PACS, when I opened my own practice recently, I switched to a digital X-ray system and I have a PACS storage unit. Financially, it was more advantageous for me to go with a digital system than to go with the old technology.” M. Alan Hinton, MD; Lake Charles, La.

“The system we have is a hospital-based system that’s been put into a clinic. It is extremely difficult to use, extremely time-consuming, and in my mind it compromises patient care on some level by forcing you to simplify your exam. What they’re trying to do is get us to quantify information, when we should be concerned with the quality of the information. The system has templates to help you expedite things, but in using a template you lose some of the substance.” William G. Raasch, MD; Milwaukee

“We just switched to an EMR about a year-and-a-half ago. It’s a major learning curve. It’s been difficult to make the transition—for the staff as well as the doctors. But I think overall it’s beneficial. Retrieving medical records is instantaneous. That’s nice. Some of my partners use templates, and I use speech recognition software, so it’s cut our practice’s transcription costs, which is a good thing.”David P. Hart, MD; Cedar Rapids, Iowa