The EHR can be touted as a cost-saving, quality-promoting device, though cost-saving projections have been debunked and data on quality are blended.2 Although we’ve made improvement in individual safety only by carefully examining our errors, somehow the hazards posed by technology are expected to right themselves. Second, letting the marketplace form usability assumes that clinicians are the focus on users. Therefore EHRs will be just as good as the quality metrics they’re designed to catch; technology can’t conquer fundamental measurement challenges. We measure a lot of things that have no value to patients, while a lot of what individuals do worth, including our interest, remains unmeasurable.Third, decisions regarding hospitalization were unblinded, and the path of any bias is unidentified. If doctors thought there is less need to hospitalize patients, realizing that these were receiving ample medicine, the bias could favor long-acting injectable risperidone. However, if admitting doctors knew that individuals receiving long-acting risperidone were symptomatic regardless of becoming adequately medicated, the bias could favor oral treatment. Fourth, this sample included older, male veterans primarily, and results might not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, although our revised target sample was 450 subjects, we enrolled just 382 topics, and data were available for only 369 because of early dropouts.