Doctors’ union warns Queen Elizabeth Hospital patients ‘at risk’ from EPAS electronic health record system
PATIENTS are at “high risk” from clinicians missing vital medical information after the introduction of the controversial electronic health record system at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, doctors warn.
- EPAS: asset or liability?
- Doctors label EPAS a dud
- Cost blowout on electronic hospital records
- New RAH floors not strong enough to hold paper records
CRITICALLY ill patients are being placed in “dangerous environments” and there is a “high risk” clinicians are missing vital medical information following introduction of the controversial electronic health record system at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, doctors warn.
In a letter to SA Health interim chief executive Vickie Kaminski, obtained by The Advertiser, the SA Salaried Medical Officers Association warned workloads had risen since the Enterprise Patient Administration System was rolled out in June and registrars were taking double the time to do ward rounds.
However, Mrs Kaminski said the rollout had “significantly improved patient safety” with a marked reduction in medication errors thanks to the automatic safety net built into the EPAS.
SASMOA is demanding an urgent meeting to discuss their concerns, which also include claims members who complain are branded “technophobic”.
SA Health has agreed to a meeting in the next fortnight.
The QEH is the largest hospital to use the new system – which was designed to switch hospitals from paper to electronic records. EPAS is earmarked for the new RAH but the system is years behind schedule and the cost has doubled to $422 million, with predictions of more rises.
Use at Noarlunga, the Repatriation General and Port Augusta hospitals have all prompted staff complaints.
The letter from SASMOA industrial officer Michele Evans states members working in the intensive care unit raised concerns that “are not only dangerous and significant for this group but have the potential to result in a major adverse event for patients”.
The letter raises seven major worries about the system, stating there is a “high risk” of clinicians missing important information. “Every single inefficiency and delay poses an unacceptable risk to patients . . . patients are, and continue to be, at risk,” the letter states.
But SA Health officials said early problems had been ironed out and the system was being continually upgraded based on feedback. Mrs Kaminski said the rollout at the QEH had been successful.
“There have been significant improvements to patient safety at the QEH since EPAS was implemented, with a 27 per cent reduction in medication incidents,” she said.
“We are pleased with how things have gone.”