Why It Matters
Clear naming conventions affect patient trust, communication, and procurement decisions in a rapidly evolving healthcare market.
Key Takeaways
- •EHR term coined during Bush 43 era.
- •Original term was CPR, later EMR.
- •Vendor naming influences product pricing.
- •Patients prefer “doctor” for physicians over other titles.
- •Title confusion spans multiple healthcare doctoral degrees.
Pulse Analysis
The lexicon of digital health records has shifted repeatedly since the early 2000s. While the Bush‑era administration popularized the term “electronic health record” (EHR) to simplify vendor messaging, earlier iterations were known as computerized patient records (CPR) and later as electronic medical records (EMR). The rebranding was less about functional upgrades and more about creating a marketable label that could justify higher price points. Today, the distinction between EHR and EMR is largely semantic, yet it continues to shape procurement decisions across hospitals and clinics.
Beyond terminology, the proliferation of doctoral titles in health care fuels patient confusion. Physicians—MDs and DOs—have traditionally been addressed as “doctor,” a convention that reinforces clinical authority and trust. In contrast, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, and administrators also hold doctoral degrees, but most patients still default to “doctor” only for physicians. This mismatch can affect communication, consent processes, and perceived expertise, especially in multidisciplinary teams where non‑physician providers play pivotal roles. Clear, consistent naming conventions could improve patient satisfaction and reduce ambiguity in care coordination.
Industry stakeholders are beginning to address the naming dilemma through policy and education. Professional societies advocate for standardized credential descriptors—such as “Dr. [Name], PharmD” or “Dr. [Name], PT‑D”—to signal expertise without diluting the physician title. Health systems are also updating electronic health record interfaces to display provider type alongside name, helping patients identify the appropriate point of contact. As value‑based care models emphasize team‑based outcomes, aligning titles with roles can streamline workflows, reduce billing errors, and reinforce the credibility of all doctoral‑qualified clinicians.
Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 2/16/26
As I recall, the EHR term emerged during Bush 43 when some staffers thought that moniker would be easier to remember. I don’t think it matters what it is called to anyone other than a vendor wanting to charge more for its product. Some of us elders remember when it was a CPR (computerized patient record), and I don’t think the switch to EMR necessarily brought new features then either.
As we have reached senior citizen status, my wife and I see a lot of people often referred to as providers. That label is fine for PAs and NPs, if they wish, but I prefer to know when a physician is seeing me, and I’d rather call them doctor.
That raises the topic of the abundance of professions with doctoral degrees and the holders referred to or addressed as “Doctor X”. I admire and respect the effort in attaining the credentials, but a doctor of nursing, physical therapy, pharmacy, hospital administration, etc., is not at the level of a doctor of medicine or osteopathy. (Pharmacy is pretty good yet still not at the physician level.)
I guess we’re stuck with this confusing pot‑pourri unless I want to start calling you Physician Jane!
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...