Coinciding with the Harvard Medical School study on the inefficiency of current health information technology (‘The automated mess’ 10 Dec) is this article published in the US-based Milbank Quarterly. This ‘study of studies’ conducted by University College of London reviewed hundreds of previous studies from all over the world, and found that 50 to 80% of electronic health records (EHR) projects fail–and the larger the project, the more likely it will fail. Similar to the Harvard study, EHRs can benefit audit and billing but interfere with clinical work; systems are difficult to integrate and human input is always needed; smaller, more localized systems fare better and (shock finding) paper records can be better and more flexible versus the systems available now! It doesn’t advocate a return to paper, but a more responsive approach. Healthcare IT News 14 Dec article. Milbank Quarterly.