Int J Emerg Med (2010) 3:181–185 this as an opportunity, because careful analysis of available platforms and the pitfalls in their implementation may result in better outcomes and less difficulty in the implementation process. The ideal forum for such analysis remains unclear, though the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology ED work group is a notable effort [11]. References 1. Blumenthal D (2009) Stimulating the adoption of health informa- tion technology. N Engl J Med 360(15):1477–1479 2. Pallin DJ, Sullivan AF, Auerbach BS, Camargo CA, Jr. Adoption of Information Technology in Massachusetts Emer- gency Departments. J Emerg Med. 2009 Feb 18 [Epub ahead of print.] 2009 3. Burt CW, Hing E. Use of computerized clinical support systems in medical settings: United States, 2001-03. Adv Data. Mar 2 2005 (353):1–8 185 4. Sullivan AF, Camargo CA Jr, Cleary PD et al (2007) The national emergency department safety study: study rationale and design. Acad Emerg Med 14(12):1182–1189 5. Pallin D, Lahman M, Baumlin K (2003) Information technology in emergency medicine residency-affiliated emergency depart- ments. Acad Emerg Med 10(8):848–852 6. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007:26–30 7. Himmelstein DU, Wright A, Woolhandler S. Hospital Computing and the Costs and Quality of Care: A National Study. Am J Med. Nov 16 2009 8. DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR et al (2008) Electronic health records in ambulatory care—a national survey of physi- cians. N Engl J Med 359(1):50–60 9. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG et al (2009) Use of electronic health records in US hospitals. N Engl J Med 360 (16):1628–1638 10. Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST et al (2005) Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 116 (6):1506–1512 11. http://www.cchit.org/emergency/ Accessed 3/9/09