On the one hand, it is reassuring to know that the checks are in place to ensure no critical mistakes are made, but on the other hand, crucial time may have been lost both in terms of treatment of the patient and hospital efficiency. Is this therefore another case for promoting the introduction of unique patient identifiers, an issue hotly debated by government and health authorities in recent years?
In the US for example, those advocating for unique patient IDs, or at least a national patient ID matching strategy, say such an approach would better facilitate health information exchange (HIE) and improve patient safety. But reports say the Government administration officially remains opposed to a national patient ID, while some in the health IT industry believe the vision of a nationwide network of interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) is unrealistic without a standard means of locating and authenticating records. They say the stumbling block is trying to apply a 1990s policy framework to a 21st Century technology problem, promoting the idea that although data analytics could be a game-changer for healthcare, establishing a framework first is key to harnessing the power of data.
We know that in a hospital environment, seconds may mean the difference between life and death. Doctors and patient care workers cannot afford to waste time fumbling with multiple pieces of identity. Is there, in that case, a real need for a standardized identification system that integrates all data? The jury is still out on this one and it will likely remain so for some time. Nevertheless, if a form of ID in relation to all medical details is already on record, if it helps save a life – and some money in the process – then perhaps the promoters have a case.
