[fluoridation]

>suggestions using the notes are routinely ignored

Of course. The records are known to not be 100% accurate. Any conclusion you derive from them will be faulty.

>There is no professional or legal liability if the records are wrong.

Again, of course. In many cases it may not even be possible to show a record is incorrect. For example, if the record doesn't say a test was performed, but the patient insists that it was, is the record wrong, or is the patient mistaken? Or a doctor could incorrectly write down something that only he saw, such as a blood pressure value on a gauge.

I would guess a key obstacle to eliminating all these inaccuracies is that doctors don't see strict record-keeping as actually useful in helping patients. Every minute that they're taking notes of dubious future utility is a minute they could spend seeing a patient.

[riknos314]

The real issue is the administration of the hospital sees every minute the doctors spend taking better records instead of seeing another patient as a loss of ability to bill someone's insurance for that time.

I'm sure there's many doctors who would like to take better notes if they were allowed the time to do so.

Maybe the case for better records reducing costs to insurance by assisting in prevention / early intervention is a path forward?