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.
The main idea of both the reading and the lecture is about the substitution of electronic medical databases over traditional paper-based documents. With this in mind, the passage believes that the electronic version of medical record-keeping is more beneficial and effective than the traditional one and provides three advantages of it. The lecturer, on the other hand, categorically refutes all the three episodes of evidence mentioned in the passage, citing that all of the benefits of the electronic versions are uncertain.
First, both the text and the talk discuss the idea of cost reduction. In this line of thought, the author mentions that taking advantage of electronic records can decrease the cost and contribute to saving more money. Conversely, the lecturer points out that it is unlikely if the electronic version reduces the cost. He adds that doctors do not throw the paper-based records away and they keep them as an emergency backup. The signatures on the paper-based records of patients are necessary for legal use. Thus, money should be paid for storing paper-based documents.
Second, both the passage and the lecture put forth the idea of eliminating errors. In this vein, the author states that factors leading to making medical errors will be reduced with the use of electronic records. However, the lecturer refutes the idea, believing that such factors will still be apparent even with the use of electronic versions. He further adds that most doctors use both the paper-based method and the electronic version to save the patient medical background. Accordingly, doctors will use pen and paper in order to write the prescription and afterwards the office staff of the doctors will enter the information on the prescription into the electronic version to be used later. Under such a circumstance, it is highly probable that the office staff misinterpret the information in the prescription which in turn can lead to a medical error.
Third, both the reading and the listening material discuss the idea of using electronic information in aiding research. While the author maintains that the use of the electronic versions will facilitate medical research, the lecturer opposes this notion. He asserts that even the electronic version is difficult to access due to the privacy law. Most of the patients want their medical background to be private to themselves and if researchers want to have access to this information, they should follow strict rules and policies in order to ask permission. Moreover, it is not guaranteed that patients allow the researchers to use those data or not and they might even block the use of their medical background for any permission.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 466, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...e mentioned in the passage, citing that all of the benefits of the electronic versions are...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, conversely, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, third, thus, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 30.3222958057 175% => 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: 2269.0 1373.03311258 165% => OK
No of words: 435.0 270.72406181 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21609195402 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.04702891845 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86422759384 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 145.348785872 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459770114943 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 704.7 419.366225166 168% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.1580280792 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.45 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2525287768 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0781135630273 0.0996497079465 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0504554105374 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153489387813 0.162205337803 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187351366474 0.0443174109184 42% => 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: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.