How your EHR can help you avoid medical errors

According to recent studies, estimates of deaths and harm from preventable medical errors vary depending on methodology and setting; published counts and cost estimates range widely, and experts warn against relying on a single definitive number.

Guidance now emphasizes measuring adverse events and preventable harm with standardized methods rather than depending on one headline figure.

The case for EHR uptake

EHR adoption (when systems are mature, interoperable, configured for local workflows, and governed) is associated with reductions in specific types of patient-safety events (especially medication errors and ordering/communication mistakes).

Recent systematic reviews and a 2024–2025 meta-analysis of EHR-based interventions report consistent reductions in medication errors and improvements in process measures, while also noting heterogeneity between studies and settings.

This means you can expect benefits, but the size of the benefit depends on implementation, configuration, interoperability, and ongoing governance.

EHRs are tools, not cures. As experts have testified and systematic reviews show, EHRs reduce some risks while introducing others (usability, alert burden, data fragmentation). Real patient-safety gain requires deliberate focus: configuration, clinician training, continuous measurement, and integration with non-technical safety programmes.

GET EHR RESEARCH & KNOWLEDGE RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

Covering the key issues faced by businesses selecting and implementing EHR.

How EHRs reduce medical errors

How does EHR reduce medical errors? In practical terms:

• Standardised, legible documentation reduces transcription and interpretation mistakes.
• Clinical decision support (CDS) warns about drug allergies, dosing errors, and interactions at the point of prescribing; recent reviews show the largest, most consistent safety gains come from medication-focused CDS.
• Medication reconciliation and e-prescribing reduce manual transcription and lost orders.
• Access to longitudinal records and interoperability help clinicians spot trends, avoid duplicate testing, and see prior results; systematic reviews link better interoperability with improved safety signals, although outcome measures vary.
• Audit trails and structured data make it easier to measure where errors occur and fix underlying process problems.

Important: These mechanisms are effective only when the EHR is configured for the local workflow and clinicians receive ongoing training and governance.

Common root causes (and what to fix)

Most medical record errors can be traced to incomplete or outdated problem lists, poor medication reconciliation, duplicate or fragmented patient records, free-text entries in critical fields, and failures in data exchange.

Recent studies emphasise that duplication and copy-forward proliferation (document clutter) are major contributors to diagnostic delay and medication mistakes. Addressing these areas reduces both immediate clinical risk and long-term liability.

The impact of duplicate medical records in healthcare

Duplicating a patient’s history increases the chance of missed allergies, inappropriate repeat testing, and diagnostic delay. A well-managed master patient index (MPI) and front-desk verification substantially reduce duplicates and demonstrably cut downstream testing and reconciliation workload.

Actionable steps your practice can take now

1. Train users on high-risk workflows. Make training mandatory for prescribing, medication reconciliation, results review, and handoffs; test competence with direct observation.
2. Configure and tune CDS. Start with high-priority alerts (allergy, severe drug–drug interactions, extreme dosing), monitor overrides and alert fatigue, and refine thresholds using local data. 
3. Protect medication safety. Implement e-prescribing, unit-dose alerts for high-risk drugs, and a mandatory medication-reconciliation step at every admission and discharge.
4. Fix duplicate records aggressively. Use probabilistic automated matching plus manual review at registration; log and audit merges; measure duplicate rate as a key metric.
5. Use data to find problems. Run routine reports on missing problem lists, unreconciled meds, late lab reviews, duplicate records, and frequent CDS overrides — then run short PDSA cycles to fix the top 2–3 issues.
6. Govern the system. Create a safety committee that includes clinicians, IT, quality, and front-office staff to review incidents and change requests; tie governance decisions to measurable outcomes.

Measurement + governance + iterative training deliver the safety benefits of EHRs, not the technology alone.

Errors in patients' medical records - best correction practices

Errors in patients' medical records are best corrected by a documented, auditable process:

1. Immediately correct the clinical record with an addendum that shows date/time/clinician.
2. perform administrative reconciliation for identity/demographic errors (merge duplicates when appropriate).
3. Notify affected clinicians and, where required, the patient.

Follow legal and regulatory rules for amendments. Recent guidance and reviews support transparent, auditable fixes as a foundation for trust and later root-cause analysis.

Preventing an EHR from contributing to an incorrect diagnosis

What can be done to prevent an EHR from making an incorrect diagnosis? Focused steps supported by implementation studies and reviews:

• Keep problem lists and medication lists current and review them at each meaningful encounter.
• Surface critical data (recent vitals, meds, allergies, prior imaging) on the EHR summary screen to reduce information-search errors.
• Use diagnostic decision support and access to prior test results, but avoid over-automation. Pair CDS with clinician review and explainability.
• Use structured templates for history/physical to reduce missing key items and to prompt red-flag checks.
• Audit diagnostic errors and near-misses; close feedback loops and use findings to refine templates and CDS.

These controls reduce the chance that missing or fragmented data will cause a wrong diagnosis.

Evidence caveats and final takeaway

Contemporary evidence shows a generally positive association between advanced, well-implemented EHRs and reductions in certain types of medical errors (especially medication errors and process errors).

However, results vary by setting, the maturity of the EHR, interoperability, configuration, and the strength of local governance and training programs. In short: EHRs can reduce risk, but only when implemented as part of a broader, measured patient-safety program.