Comment by HWR_14
10 days ago
Which is why they don't food liability when they can. Is it worth saving $100,000 a year if it allows the lawyer to say "if they had used industry standard software would the medical error have happened?"
10 days ago
Which is why they don't food liability when they can. Is it worth saving $100,000 a year if it allows the lawyer to say "if they had used industry standard software would the medical error have happened?"
The research hospital in my neighborhood has a whole biomedical engineering dept and regularly tries out new medical technology on me.
They consistently try non-standard approaches if they feel like it can improve the standard of care since their commercialization team can make more money. They can also iterate faster and deliver better outcomes.
I'm guessing either EHR software is uncompetitive or nobody has tried it yet. Or it's just because I live in Toronto and we have a really good healthcare system.
Trying to improve medicine has a different upside and different calculation than making software less annoying.
Improved EHRs would improve medicine by making doctors more productive. Increases the amount of time they can spend billing instead of on administrative overhead. More billing is more money.
I don't think this is bureaucratic maliciousness to kill innovative EHRs. My guess is it's a really hard and boring problem to solve due to the integration work which makes it hard to break the network effects.