4 ms·

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

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.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
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.
- carbocation 8y ago
  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.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    I'm just speaking from my experience with Rads and their technologists. I imagine billing is a nightmare as well.
    - carbocation 8y ago
      I actually don't think there is a real dichotomy - the system can be annoying to different groups for different reasons. The reasons it's annoying to MDs may be different from the reasons it's annoying to rads techs, etc. But you started by contradicting the parent post ("I wouldn't say that's correct"), which is why I felt inclined to chime in.
draz 8y ago
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.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

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.

carbocation 8y ago
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.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  I'm just speaking from my experience with Rads and their technologists. I imagine billing is a nightmare as well.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    I actually don't think there is a real dichotomy - the system can be annoying to different groups for different reasons. The reasons it's annoying to MDs may be different from the reasons it's annoying to rads techs, etc. But you started by contradicting the parent post ("I wouldn't say that's correct"), which is why I felt inclined to chime in.

draz 8y ago

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.