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 reading passage explores the issue of the adoption of electronic medical record systems, and several reasons are offered in support of this argument. Although the statement in the article seems plausible in the beginning, the lecturer casts doubt on it for the following reasons.
First of all, even though the reading passage suggests that applying electronic databases can help reduce costs, the lecturer argues that the doctors will still keep the paper records as their backup. Because of this, they will still have to pay the storage costs. Therefore, the lecturer's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Secondly, the statement held by the writer claims that electronic systems can prevent errors caused by poor writing. Conversely, the speaker rejects the idea by bringing up a logical reason that in fact, doctors still use paper to take notes when seeing a patient. After that, the data is entered by assistants, which can still cause errors.
Last but not least, the lecturer acutely identifies the weakness in the reading passage that the electronic record of patients can aid researches by providing large amounts of data. The lecturer convincingly points out that those records are actually hard to access, due to the strict and complicated privacy laws. Also, the records can be blocked easily by the patients if they do not approve other uses.
In conclusion, based on the evidence presented from above, it can be clearly seen that the stances on both sides are paradoxical. Though the contents in the reading passage seem convincing, the lecturer disproves them by solid evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...o pay the storage costs. Therefore, the lecturers argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, conversely, first, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1369.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24521072797 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55857238052 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613026819923 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.6733705571 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.307692308 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0769230769 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.23076923077 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151856500522 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0496770980073 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485397027048 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0785338082985 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0456857078215 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.53 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.