The reading and the article are both contradicting each other, in terms of whether the electronic system is better than a traditional paper writing system to keep medical records. More specifically, the writer discusses various benefits of using electronic systems to keep medical records in the medical field. However, the lecture in the listening passage refutes the mentioned hypothesis and provides some evidence to negate them.
According to the article, the first dispute focuses on that using an electronic system that would help to reduce the cost of faxing, copying, and transferring data since it can be accessed from anywhere, and it does not demand space for storing data. Nonetheless, the speaker rebuts the argument presented in the article. Furthermore, she declares that doctors who utilize electronic systems would continue to use the traditional paper systems in case of an emergency loss of database from electronic devices. Hence, it will add up a cost and would not be an effective solution.
Moreover, another topic highlights that having unique forms and fonts in the electronic system would further mitigate the possibility of human errors. Nevertheless, the narrator undermines this by asserting that even though adapting the electronic system, doctors like to use papers while writing prescriptions and notes. Moreover, the medical staff is responsible for making errors since they need to transfer all patient’s details in the computer system, and thereby, they might continue making mistakes due to the poor handwriting of doctors. Consequently, it will not eliminate the original issue anyway.
Finally, the text explains that adapting the latest electronic system enables researchers to have access to patient's information from anywhere in the world which make it easy to carry research project for them. On the contrary, the penman again opposes the theory and describes that it is not easy to access patient’s private information since all these pieces of information are maintained under strict privacy regulations in most parts of the United States. Thus, researchers must have to follow various complicated procedures to obtain such pieces of information, and in fact, most patients do not want to be a part of this research and block their private information.
The reading and the article are both contradicting each other, in terms of whether the
electronic
system
is better than a traditional paper writing
system
to
keep
medical
records. More
specifically
, the writer discusses various benefits of using
electronic
systems
to
keep
medical
records in the
medical
field.
However
, the lecture in the listening passage refutes the mentioned hypothesis and provides
some
evidence to negate them.
According to the article, the
first
dispute focuses on that using an
electronic
system
that would
help
to
reduce
the cost of faxing, copying, and transferring data since it can
be accessed
from anywhere, and it does not demand space for storing data. Nonetheless, the speaker rebuts the argument presented in the article.
Furthermore
, she declares that doctors who utilize
electronic
systems
would continue to
use
the traditional paper
systems
in case of an emergency loss of database from
electronic
devices.
Hence
, it will
add
up a cost and would not be an effective solution.
Moreover
, another topic highlights that having unique forms and fonts in the
electronic
system
would
further
mitigate the possibility of human errors.
Nevertheless
, the narrator undermines this by asserting that
even though
adapting the
electronic
system
, doctors like to
use
papers while writing prescriptions and notes.
Moreover
, the
medical
staff is responsible for making errors since they need to transfer all patient’s
details
in the computer
system
, and thereby, they might continue making mistakes due to the poor handwriting of doctors.
Consequently
, it will not eliminate the original issue anyway.
Finally
, the text
explains
that adapting the latest
electronic
system
enables researchers to have access to patient's
information
from anywhere in the world which
make
it easy to carry research project for them.
On the contrary
, the penman again opposes the theory and
describes
that it is not easy to access patient’s private
information
since all these pieces of
information
are maintained
under strict privacy regulations in most parts of the United States.
Thus
, researchers
must
have to
follow various complicated procedures to obtain such pieces of
information
, and in fact, most patients do not want to be a part of this research and block their private
information
.