Comments on: Guest Article: Dr. Olson asks if we're looking at healthcare IT to solve the right clinical problems

By: Bernard Farrell

Bernard Farrell — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:42:09 +0000

I think it may be even worse than Dr. Olson makes out. I’ve been to several physicians that are using EMR systems. These certainly don’t help the patients. But they’re also not useful for healthcare people. The software is hard to use. Data entry is horrible and basic functions don’t work easily.

To my eyes, it’s like most software. It’s been designed by engineers who are mostly interested in capturing data. They forget that the data is a means to an end. Serving the needs of the healthcare team AND the patients is much more important than feeding the database.

By: Robert Murphy

Robert Murphy — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:31:25 +0000

That is exactly the kind of Q&A I was going on more. I spend many-a-day looking for IT jobs that sit in such a middle ground, between tech’s and pt’s. I hope the world catches on and utilizes those of use who speak human and machine soon, before the system crashes.

By: Alex Camus

Alex Camus — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:18:14 +0000

I agree. I think the majority of humans are naturally visually oriented, so images could help understand complex medical information. Much of our medical records and administration systems are so vastly outdated (I'm sure you're well aware of this). However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Massachusetts recently proposed legislation to require electronic medical records by 2015

By: Carol Egan

Carol Egan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:37:16 +0000

I’m a communication person not a clinician or a technology person. I’m envisioning something like this – if I am the patient, I enter in my symptoms in my language. (My elbow hurts.) Like WebMD symptom finder (only hopefully much better) it would lead me through a series of questions (the answers of which all get captured) to fine tune my problem. The system then translates this information to the doctor in medical terminology, which then as he talks to the patient the doctor fine tunes until s/he can propose either a diagnosis or a treatment plan. The system then takes the treatment plan and translates that back to a common language that I can understand and share with my significant others.

A doctor would have an electronic medical record with their appropriate terminology and a patient could have a personal heatlh record that provides them with meaninful information.

Or did I read too much “communication” into your proposal?

By: Ian Furst

Ian Furst — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:39:52 +0000

Absolutely fantastic question — anytime you want a digital round table on this one please invite me. Our clinic has invested heavily in IT (with many HP rack mounts, SQL Server, Exchange, blah, blah you get the picture) but we are not paperless. We’re not, because, we can’t make it save on time for the patient and the ROI (which is ultimately passed onto the pateint) is not there. And the server industries are all about adding value to the client.
Before we digitize any process in the clinic we do a process map to make sure that it improves quality and/or process speed. If it doesn’t do either we scrape it. If it doesn’t do one or the other we prepare for an uphill battle. I once heard an VP of a hosptial (and former CIO) say his goal for the hospital was to be 100% computerized. I thought it was ridiculous. Our goals are for the best care, best surgery, lowest infection rates, etc… If digitizing improves the process great! But it is not a goal in and of itself. The correct process map starts from the patients’ perspective. Not the providers or worse, the charts. http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com