patient, electronic information, paper form, reducing costs, aiding research, preventing errors
In the lecture, the professor casts doubt on the reading passage’s idea that storing patients’ medical records in electronic databases have several advantages over traditional paper-based record keeping. The professor asserts that the benefits are actually uncertain.
To begin with, according to the reading passage, electronic medical records will reduce the costs of storing and transferring. The professor argues that the cost savings are unlikely as the reading suggests. He says that the doctors just keep the paper records as an emergency backup and most doctors who adopt electronic record keeping still have to pay storage costs associated with paper-based record keeping.
On top of that, the reading passage claims that the use of electronic medical records will help reduce the chances of medical errors. On the contrary, the professor rebuts that the electronic records cannot eliminate the possibility of errors. She says that doctors still use pen and paper while examining patients. It is usually the office staff of a doctor who will enter the information at a later time from the handwritten documents into electronic systems. So poor handwriting can still lead to errors.
Lastly, the professor rebuts the reading’s point that electronic medical records will be beneficial to medical research through obtaining a great amount of data from patient records by stating that medical research would not necessarily benefit from electronic record keeping. The professor points out that access to all medical information is subject to strict privacy laws in the United States. Researchers who want to collect data from electronic medical records have to follow strict and complicated procedures and obtain many permissions including patient permissions along the way. Often such permissions are not granted.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, lastly, so, still, while, on the contrary, to begin with, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58781362007 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83635088995 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530465949821 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.4281240665 49.2860985944 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.357142857 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9285714286 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21428571429 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147219937927 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0510112130613 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432685342496 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0976021159248 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0113343228848 0.0443174109184 26% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 12.2367328918 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.