I think the best point the article makes is regarding the patient records systems. It sounds like the "best" systems out there were developed with the same sens

I think the best point the article makes is regarding the patient records systems. It sounds like the "best" systems out there were developed with the same sensibilities that leads to Enterprise and QA tracking systems with more than 100 fields per screen, 90% of which are useless in any given installation. Basically there's a ton of room for improvement, and the reason the improvement never happens is that the people who evaluate the systems are never the same people as the users. Moreover, the people who evaluate the system have no idea how to do anyone else's job, and so they have no idea how much inefficiency they're saddling their underlings with. They probably also don't care.