In the United States, medical information about patients traditionally has been recorded and stored on paper forms. However, there are efforts to persuade doctors to adopt electronic medical record systems in which information about patients is stored in electronic databases rather than on paper. It is argued that storing patients' medical records in electronic databases has several advantages over traditional paper-based record keeping.
Reducing Costs
First, the use of electronic records can help reduce costs by saving money on storing and transferring medical records. While paper records require a significant amount of storage space, electronic medical records take up virtually no space. Moreover, by having patients' records computerized in databases, doctors can easily access the records from almost anywhere and can easily duplicate and transfer them when necessary. This costs much less than copying, faxing, or transporting paper records from one location to another.
Preventing Errors
Second, electronic medical records are crucial to reducing the chances of medical errors. Illegible handwriting, improper transcription of data, and nonstandard organization of paper records have caused errors that in some cases have had serious consequences for the patients' health. In contrast, electronic records are associated with standardization of forms and legible computer fonts and thus minimize the possibility of human error.
Aiding Research
Third, electronic medical records can greatly aid medical research by making it possible to gather large amounts of data from patient records. It is often impractical, impossible, or prohibitively expensive to manually go through thousands of patients’ paper records housed in doctors' offices. However, with the existence of electronic medical records, it would be simple to draw out the needed information from the medical databases because the databases are already formatted for data collection. Once in the electronic system, the records could be accessed from any research location.
The lecturer refutes all three claims presented in the reading passage, which is about the benefits of using electronic databases over paper-based record keeping to store the medical information in the United States. Traditionally, all medical information related to the patient was recorded on paper forms. But this trend declined and much chose computers for the storage of patient details. However, the professor challenges the claims of the reading and proves that the paper system is best. She provides a counter-argument for each assertion.
First of all, the reading posits that using efficient computers will reduce the cost of storage and transfer of information rather than paper records. The professor countered this by contending that those who use computerized storage are still using paper records as they are legally valid because of the signatures of doctors. Therefore, they should pay storage bills for keeping the paper records.
Secondly, the passage figures out that electronic database collection will prevent the illegible handwriting of the doctor since the computer had standardized fonts. The professor, however, argues that doctors still use notes, prescriptions by hand, later these are transferred by the staff into the computer. At this time also errors can occur which have serious implications in patient's health.
Finally, the professor is against the argument of medical research. She proposed that the patient information in the United States are strictly regulated by the government due to privacy considerations. Furthermore, the patient's permission is a crucial element in using these data for research purposes. But this is not guaranteed. So even if they collect information through an electronic system, they have to take a lot of permissions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 221, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...rivacy considerations. Furthermore, the patients permission is a crucial element in usin...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1524.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56204379562 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.946293199 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587591240876 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.3979273833 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.25 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.125 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5625 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293230704292 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0859496921791 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0902996720126 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169132157818 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106678983632 0.0443174109184 241% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.67 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.