Slashdot Mirror
Why Digital Medical Records Are No Panacea
theodp writes "As GE, Google, Intel, IBM, Microsoft and others pile into the business of computerized medical files in a stimulus-fueled frenzy, BusinessWeek reminds us that electronic health records have a dubious history. Under the federal stimulus program, hospitals can get several million dollars apiece for tech purchases over the next five years, and individual doctors can receive up to $44,000. There's also a stick: The feds will cut Medicare reimbursement for hospitals and practices that don't go electronic by 2015. But does the high cost and questionable quality of products currently on the market explain why barely 1 in 50 hospitals have a comprehensive electronic records system, and why only 17% of physicians use any type of electronic records? Joe Bugajski's chilling The Data Model That Nearly Killed Me suggests that may be the case."
Major credit card companies either can't or won;t take the necessary precautions to protect credit card information. So what if there is a breach, identify theft, headaches, etc?
Now what makes you think hospitals, private doctors, etc. are going to be able to protect their data any better? They have less money then the credit card companies.
Can you imagine a million patient digital medical record breach? The black mail or power that could be leveraged over people?
When my wife was in the hospital with a broken ankle I tried to get a copy of the X-ray, because it was on a big monitor out of view of the patient. The user interface of the DICOM viewer did not provide a way to print or save the image... presumably to protect patient confidentiality.
The next day I went in to the hospital to pick up the "films" for her doctor, and they gave me a copy of the same files on a CD, completely uncontrolled, and I used OsiriX to convert them from DICOM to JPEG so my wife could see them.
Having the files in digital format is great, but let's have some appropriate level of controls. If the patient wants the images on a flash stick, it's THEIR records, let them have it!
Like all software, digital medical records can be done badly. But they can also be done right. Joe Bugajski's story is gripping, but I want to compare it with the story of my mother.
My mom was in her mid-50s when she became ill, apparently healthy but in fact hiding a serious alcoholism problem. I'll skip the details, but suffice to say that a lifetime of drinking can destroy your body's natural blood-clotting system, leading to internal bleeding. So don't drink, kiddies.
Anyway, once she was medevaced to Queen's Hospital in Honolulu, we never saw a single obvious piece of paper. Everything was recorded digitally. But the key difference between my Mom's story and Joe Bugajski's is that the data was *available* once entered. I got a chance to look over the doctor's shoulder as he reviewed her chart. He was able to look at blood tests, x-rays, up-to-the-minute vitals, every piece of data the hospital recorded, at his fingertips in seconds. And he drove the software like a pro.
In the end, my mother died, but it definitely wasn't because of bad recordkeeping software.
Good points.
Any system can only be as good as the people that use it. I can't help but feel while reading 'The Data Model That Nearly Killed Me' that the problems encountered actually had very little to do with the electronic record system at all. It seemed more like an incompetent system was in place as a whole. The data model didn't seem to do anything wrong, it was the people using it, or not using it. Not saying whether it is actually a good electronic system or not, impossible to tell...but enough people had enough direct access to critical information, without even thinking about the electronic system, that this guy should not have had the problems he had.
Is it really the data model's fault that not only did no one use information provided on entry to the er, they didn't even READ it? Sounds to me like the real problem is that new systems were put in place without new processes or training being put in place...and then on top of that the users of the system failed to even fall back on the logical concept of direct communication!
I do not for one second believe that this situation wouldn't (Or for that matter hasn't) have happened even with the use of standard physical medical charts instead of the electronic record system in place. There is really nothing at all in the story that makes the problem specific to the system or the model being used in that system. Can't believe that had a physical medical chart been used that the same mistakes the medical staff made in this case would have somehow miraculously NOT been made on paper as well.
Basically, what I take as most important from this guy's story, is that that is NOT a medical facility I ever want to step foot into under any circumstances, electronic records or not!
No Comment.
I would go even a step further than that and posit that a good portion of his problem was stemming not from the system as much it came from the active resistance of the people attending him in using the system.
I don't directly work in healthcare, but I do work in a corporate environment for a large healthcare company that recently (in the past decade) made the switch from paper to a 'global' electronic system. At the start, stories like this were common, as people fought the system rather than use it.
Yes, not all systems are equal and it's entirely possible to design and implement an completely unusable one. But there is no avenue for improvement when the default behavior to burrs in the system is to revert to a far more inefficient (and porous) paper method, which, due to the introduction of the electronic system, is not even being monitored as well as it was when it was the only method.
In the end, the improvements that were introduced and enabled by converting to an electronic system far out weighed any of the temporary and transient issues such as this.