PITO responds

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 53, No. 10, December 2011, Page 522 Letters
By: Jeremy Smith,

Dr Shepherd rightly observes that the physicians’ statements in the September article were testimonials to the benefits they have experienced with EMR. As the CMAJ articles acknowledged, physicians’ individual experiences with how they use their EMR vary significantly, even between users of the same EMR product, so it is important that we recognize and learn from the experience of those who are reaping the rewards of their efforts.

There are many physicians who are happy to demonstrate the impact their EMR has had on patient care using objective data directly from their EMR—such as measuring how control of certain clinical indicators has improved with closer monitoring made possible by the EMR. 

However, measurement of the broad impact of EMR on patient outcomes is challenging because it is difficult to distinguish the degree to which those improvements have occurred as a result of the EMR rather than concurrent changes in the health system. This challenge is compounded because most physicians have been on their EMR for less than 2 years and therefore have not yet captured enough data for analysis. 

PITO and a number of BC physicians are participating in a national study of the impact of EMR and we anticipate publishing those results in 2012. 
As for the EMRs themselves, those that are widely used in BC existed prior to government-funding programs. In fact, five of the eight EMRs that represent 92% of the BC market were founded and/or developed by physicians;  the other three were developed with active physician involvement. 

The EMR certification process here in BC extended that philosophy by establishing a group of practising physicians and medical office assistants to independently assess the software for clinical usability.  
—Jeremy Smith
PITO Program Director

Jeremy Smith,. PITO responds. BCMJ, Vol. 53, No. 10, December, 2011, Page(s) 522 - Letters.


Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.


For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply