← Back to context

Comment by clueless123

7 years ago

For most people, (read spreadsheets, word processors, etc ) computers make their jobs easier or more productive. It is hard to say the same for medical software, mainly because it is not designed to help medical providers, but to help administrators.

I was part of an implementation team for an EHR at a very large ambulatory unit (i.e., private practices of one of the largest hospitals in the US). Complaints for EHR by medical staff were as follows: 1) "I am spending time looking at the computer instead of making eye contact with the patient. Therefore, patient experience deteriorates." 2) "Pen and paper are much faster inputs than having to click around tabs and typing values" (especially for older doctors). This slows them down, which means they can see less patients (direct impact on revenue). 3) While there were government incentives to encourage practices to implement EHRs, doctors from more lucrative specialties (who are not involved in research) did not see value in having the data computerized. Imagine an ophthalmologist who can perform another Lasek procedure instead of record a patient's drinking status, and other things that may not affect the procedure.

I wouldn't say that's correct - diagnostic imaging is entirely computerized these days and that's made life a lot more productive and efficient, but is also the source of huge frustration when these incredibly expensive machines have software glitches or network connectivity problems.

  • As a doctor, I agree with `clueless123. The imaging software is not what makes us frustrated: it's the EHR that is optimized for billing, not patients or doctors.