Electronic siloing: An unintended consequence of the electronic health record

Author and Disclosure Information



For all the purported benefits of the electronic health record (EHR), an unintended adverse effect is “electronic siloing.”

I define electronic siloing as the isolating effect of the EHR on clinical workflow that drives caregivers to work in silos, ie, alone at their workstations, thereby discouraging spontaneous interaction. To the extent that increasing evidence supports the importance of interaction among clinical colleagues and of teamwork to optimize clinical outcomes, electronic siloing threatens optimal practice and quality.

See related editorial

Mindfulness that the EHR can foster siloing will help mitigate the risk, as can novel solutions such as using “viewbox watering holes”1 and embedding secure social messaging functions within the EHR, thereby allowing clinicians to reach out to colleagues with clinical challenges in the moment.


The EHR represents a major change in health care, with reported benefits that include standardized ordering, reduced medical errors, embedded protocols for guideline-based care, data access to analyze clinical practice patterns and outcomes, and enhanced communication among colleagues who are geographically separated (eg, virtual consults2). On the basis of these benefits and the federal Medicare and Medicaid financial incentives associated with “meaningful use,” the EHR is being increasingly adopted.3–5

Yet for all these benefits and the promise that technology can enhance interaction among health care providers, unintended risks of the EHR paradoxically threaten optimal clinical care.6 Recognized risks include the threat to care should the EHR fail,6 the time and inefficiency costs of typing and multiple log-ons, and the perpetuation of errors in the medical record caused by the cutting and pasting of clinical notes.

Indeed, a substantial body of literature on sociotechnical interactions—how technology affects human patterns of practice—informs analyses of the impact of changing from a paper medical chart to an EHR.6,8–12 For example, in a review of the impact of computerized physician order entry on inpatient clinical workflow, Niazkhani et al11 noted that computerized ordering can change communication channels and collaboration mechanisms. More specifically, they point out that these systems can “replace interpersonal contacts that may result in fewer opportunities for team-wide negotiations.”11

Similarly, Ash et al8 cited the unintended consequences of patient care information systems, especially increased overreliance on the system to communicate, which can undermine direct communication between healthcare providers.

Finally, Dykstra10 described the “reciprocal impact” of computerized physician order entry systems on communication between physicians and nurses. One observer stated, “[You] start doing physician order entry and direct entry of notes and you move that away from the ward into a room and now you eliminate the sense of team, and the kind of human communication that really was essential… You create physician separation.”10 Taken together, these observations suggest that the EHR and computerized order entry in particular can disrupt interaction between physicians and other health care providers, such as nurses and pharmacists.


A growing body of evidence indicates that teamwork and collaboration among health care providers—which involve frequent, critical face-to-face interaction—has clinical benefit. Demonstrated benefits of teamwork in health care11 include lower surgical and intensive care unit mortality rates, fewer errors in emergency room management, better neonatal resuscitation, and enhanced diagnostic accuracy in interpreting images and biopsies.12,13

As a specific example of the benefits of face-to-face conversation for interpreting chest images, O’Donovan et al14 showed that the diagnostic accuracy of a pulmonologist and thoracic radiologist in assessing rounded atelectasis was better when they reviewed chest CT scans together than when they interpreted the images solo.

Similarly, Flaherty et al15 showed that the level of agreement among pulmonologists, chest radiologists, and lung pathologists progressively increased as interaction and conversation increased when assessing the etiology of patients’ interstitial lung diseases.

As yet another demonstrable benefit of teamwork that should command interest in the current reimbursement-attentive era, analyses by Press Ganey16 and by Gallup have shown that the single best correlate of high patient satisfaction scores regarding hospitalization (including Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems ratings) is patients’ perception that their caregivers functioned as a team serving their needs.

The current perspective extends this observation about the unintended adverse effects of the EHR by suggesting that the EHR can inadvertently lessen spontaneous interaction between physicians as they care for outpatients. I have proposed the term electronic siloing to reflect the isolating impact of the EHR on clinical workflow that drives caregivers to work alone at their workstations, thereby discouraging spontaneous interaction between colleagues (eg, between primary care physicians and subspecialists, and between subspecialists in different disciplines). Because spontaneous face-to-face encounters and conversations among clinicians can encourage clinical insights that benefit patient care, electronic siloing can undermine optimal care. My thesis here is that the EHR predisposes to electronic siloing and that the solution is to first recognize and then to design care to prevent this effect.

Next Article: