4 ms·
This just touched a big nerve with me, so be prepared for a rant. I've been an ER/Critical Care nurse for 15 years. I've worked/contracted at over 30 hospital
by iamelgringo 17y ago
This just touched a big nerve with me, so be prepared for a rant.
I've been an ER/Critical Care nurse for 15 years. I've worked/contracted at over 30 hospital, and I've worked in a number of different specialties. I recently went back to school for a CS degree, and I'm working 3 days a week as an ER nurse, and I code the other 3 nights a week on my social news site for economic and financial news, http://Newsley.com http://Newsley.com.
I get asked all the time by people at Hackers and Founders meetups as to why I'm not going in to Health Care IT.
And, the short answer, is that the computerization of healthcare is wrong. I currently work at a hospital that's consistently named one of the nation's "Most Wired", and the more I work at a "Wired" hospital, the more of a luddite I become. As much as I love computers, I think that their role in Health Care should be limited to a very few places.
Why? Here's the long answer:
- Culture. When a physician graduates from med school, they take a vow to "First, do no harm." The culture of safety, is everywhere. Physicians change their practice slowly based on research that often takes years to vet. Medications take years to pass FDA approval. This is all because of the very strong culture of safety in hospitals. Now, try and meld that with an IT culture where a generation in technology is 18 months, and user's heads explode. I've seen CardioThoracic surgeons who makes $750 thousand a year cutting into beating hearts struggle for an hour trying to put orders into a new computer system . A lot of physicians trained in the last 40 years never learned to type, and really don't use computers much. It's simply not cost effective to force physicians to make the huge adjustments in their practice to fit the needs of the IT department.
-Disasters. If any organization has to run in a disaster, it has to be a hospital. There aren't many disasters that can prevent me from writing a note on a paper chart in a disaster. But, every computer system that I've worked on in hospitals crashes. When that happens the whole hospital is crippled. Fault tolerant, reliable systems are essential for hospitals, and frankly, they just don't have the money to spend to build them or buy them. Paper is much more forgiving in a disaster than a huge distributed computer applcation running on 1000 Windows PC's with a datacenter back in New Jersey.
-Time. More often than not, I've seen software systems slow patient care down by a factor of 1-4x. We have to spend a lot more time looking at the computer rather than looking at my patient.
-Money. I've alluded to it above. But, when hospitals actually are running in the black financially, they tend to run a 1-2% profit margin. Software systems to run hospitals usually tend to cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and a large support team to manage them. Hospitals generally don't have the money to pay top notch talent to maintain a really complex IT system.
-Bugs. Bugs are a fact of life for programmers. Bugs happen all the time. But, when a bug happens in a healthcare setting, people die. I've seen in happen, and it sickens me.
-Proprietary data formats. Every application that I've ever worked with in a hospital has been proprietary. That means proprietary data formats. A typical hospital will use dozens of different systems that all have their own proprietary data formats from automated lab systems, EKG machines, vital sign monitors, billing systems, inventory tracking systems, etc... All those systems have to be integrated, and for that data to be available across systems is really hard. (see Bugs and Money above).
After years of thinking about this, and working in this environment, I've come to the conclusion that paper is simply a much better technology for the industry. Really. Paper is cheap, portable, fault tolerant and easy to change. I don't have to wait for months for a work order to go through IT to change a database schema when I want to adjust the data that I'm gathering at Triage for instance. I can just have someone print up a copy of the new form.
I'll stop now, but if you want to hear more of this rant, feel free to stop by our next meetup and buy me a beer. By the time we're done we'll both need it. As you can see, it's a hot button issue for me. :)
- izend 17y agoYour points are quite valid, however, I must say when I went in for my last surgery a young surgeon was standing at a computer and reading up on procedures on a medical Wiki. I would have to guess that has improved his efficiency versus trying to find the information in some books?
- ippisl 17y agohospital IT systems are big , complex , require training, have bugs , generate changes , etc etc... that's basiclly the essence of your rant. probably like any computer system in any complex organization. But they have huge potential(in the long term) , when done properly to transform medicine , reduce costs , prevent errors , give better treatments, enable better research , etc, etc. In essence , medical IT systems are a huge problem , with a huge payoff. should'nt we tackle the problem because it's huge ?
- nradov 17y agoPaper occupies space and eventually becomes expensive to store. Paper can't be easily shared with other providers outside the hospital walls. Paper can't be automatically copied to the patient's PHR. Paper can't be data mined for quality control, outcomes analysis, and clinical research; we must have those capabilities to eventually be able to improve quality of care and drive down costs. The EMR/EHR problems with usability, reliability, and interoperability are gradually being fixed (although some vendors still lag behind). At this point there's no going back.
- Retric 17y agoI would counter by saying software helps save lives when used dealing with medications. Knowing that Drug A + Drug B + Drug C = death is one thing keeping track that Doctor bob does not prescribe A and B, and then doctor Todd hands out Drug C is next to impossible when using paper records, unless the interaction is very well known. The secret is finding a balance between when something is recorded and when it’s entered in a computer somewhere. While still pricy integrating a computer whiteboard with OCR let’s you mix physical and electronic records at the same time. You can even mix pen based solutions to do the same thing with paper copies. So while current solutions are horrible there it’s far from hopeless. PS: Hospital software needs to cover a wide range of bases from billing to lawsuits which means it’s really hard to get right. But, just because it's been sold as enterprise software does not mean it's got to be terrible.