Slashdot Mirror
Kludgey Electronic Health Records Are Becoming Fodder For Malpractice Suits
Lucas123 writes The inherent issues that come with highly complex and kludgey electronic medical records — and for the healthcare professionals required to use them — hasn't been lost on lawyers, who see the potential for millions of dollars in judgments for plaintiffs suing for medical negligence or malpractice. Work flows that require a dozen or more mouse clicks to input even basic patient information has prompted healthcare workers to seek short cuts, such as cutting and pasting from previous visits, a practice that can also include the duplication of old vital sign data, or other critical information, such as a patient's age. While the malpractice suits have to date focused on care providers, they'll soon target EMR vendors, according to Keith Klein, a medical doctor and professor of medicine at UCLA. Klein has been called as an expert witness for more than 350 state or federal medical malpractice cases and he's seen a marked rise in plaintiff attorney's using EMRs as evidence that healthcare workers fell short of their responsibility for proper care. In one such case, a judge awarded more than $7.5 million when a patient suffered permanent kidney damage, and even though physicians hadn't neglected the patient, the complexity of the EMR was responsible for them missing uric kidney stone. The EMR was ore than 3,000 pages in length and included massive amounts of duplicated information, something that's not uncommon.
The problem is not just that, it's that those companies don't actually pay that well, either.
Writing safety-critical code is not hard - there are plenty of guidelines on what you should and shouldn't do (e.g., memory allocation is verboten). It is a specialized skill, and the job should really be done by people who have the requisite training and knowledge and often even certifications (e.g., engineering certifications).
The problem is this is very specialized, and it costs a lot of money because those people know they are taking on professional risk (not unlike many other engineers - civil, mechanical, etc., who design stuff that could fail and take lives). Of course, the IT companies behind it all? They're not willing to pay for that enhanced risk - they're going to pay market rates.
Well geez, if I'm going to be paid market, I'm not going to put my name on anything to certify because that's a specialized skill that gets paid for. (hence, things like "approved drawings" which mean some engineer actually reviewed it all and put their stamp and certification on it).
There's a reason why NASA's software for the space shuttle costs 5+ times what a normal software project of similar size and scope would cost. It's not incompetence on NASA's part, and it's not just the extensive documentation and paperwork that goes along with it, but the fact that writing safety-critical software is hard, specialized, and for every line of code, probably generates a book's worth of documentation proving it fails safe, who wrote it, who changed it, who reviewed it, etc.
Yeah. Most IT companies for health don't even come close.
Really? And let's say that instead of a normal adult visit, we're talking about a pediatric visit for a child or infant with a congenital heart defect. Will the oxygen-level gauge transmit whether the reading was from a finger or a toe? Will the manometers also transmit: 1) what side the pressure was taken from, 2) whether the pressure was taken from the arm or leg, 3) whether the patient was sitting, standing, or supine?
Yeah, that's the thing. When the /. crowd starts saying there should be a "single standard" for medical records, those of us who actually work in the industry just roll our eyes... You have no idea of the complexity of the problem, nor of how fast things change on the cutting edge of the specialties.