Electronic health records (EHR) have been blamed for a range of ills from note bloat and physician burnout to medical errors and patient harm. Although these criticisms may be overstated, an insidious aspect of EHR has largely escaped scrutiny: corruption of clinical decision making. Clinical decision support tools help physicians decide, among other things, when and how to prescribe medications. When properly implemented, clinical decision support promotes quality patient care. If these tools are corrupted by commercial influence, however, they can promote improper and excessive prescribing. The direct access to physicians and the assumption that these tools are unbiased and evidence based make them a potentially powerful marketing device. Moreover, clinical decision support has largely been spared the scrutiny applied to advertisements, pharmaceutical detailing, and other overt forms of drug company marketing.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Taitsman JK, VanLandingham A, Grimm CA. Commercial Influences on Electronic Health Records and Adverse Effects on Clinical Decision Making. JAMA Intern Med. Published online May 11, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1318
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: