Slashdot Mirror
Technology Is Making Doctors Feel Like Glorified Data Entry Clerks (fastcompany.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Fast Company: The average day for a doctor consists of hours of data entry. Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009 took effect in January of 2011, which incentivized providers to adopt electronic medical records, hospitals have spent millions, sometimes billions, on computer systems that weren't designed to help providers treat patients to begin with. The technology was supposed to reduce inefficiencies, make doctors' lives easier, and improve patient outcomes, but in fact it has done the opposite. "Frankly, the main incentive is to document exhaustively so you cover your ass and get paid," says Jay Parkinson, a New York-based pediatrician and the founder of health-tech startup Sherpa. The systems are flooding doctors with important and utterly meaningless alerts. One of the biggest problems is that the systems have made it very difficult for doctors to share information between one another, which is what the systems were intended to do all along. Why? "Because it doesn't help the bottom line of the biggest medical record vendors or the hospitals to make it easy for patients to change doctors," reports Fast Company. Since it often takes weeks, or months for data to be sent to and from facilities, that, according to Consumers Union staff attorney Dana Mendelsohn, increases the chances of doctors ordering duplicate tests. All of this reduces the time doctors have with their patients. A recent study shows that the average time doctors spend with their patients is about eight minutes and 12% of their time, down from 20% of their time in the late 1980s. "This group is 15 times more likely to burn out than professionals in any other line of work," reports Fast Company. "And much of the research on the topic concludes that 'documentation overload' is a key factor." To help alleviate this pain, medical groups are working to reduce the data-entry burden for doctors, so they can in turn spend more of their time with patients.
I have stage 4 cancer and spend a few hours at the doctor's office every month. The phlebotomists spend a solid minute selecting my record, marking off all the tests, verifying id, insurance, etc. The nurses go down the list of 50 prescriptions I have, asking me if I'm still taking them, even when I say nothing has changed. They're all very polite and nice, but the whole system fails at easy things should be easy, hard things should be do-able design. You can tell that no one who designed the system ever actually performed the tasks at hand (or they were bound by absurd requirements). And all that isn't including the massive bureaucracy of insurance or scheduling that will sink days of your time pressing buttons on your phone trying to talk to an actual person.
In my experience american health care is an inefficient, bureaucratic mess manned by very friendly medical professionals.
the constant battles on the part of doctors to get paid by insurance companies who's single goal is to not pay. In no other part of my life are my goals (getting care) and the service provider's goals (not paying for that care) so diametrically opposed. I've got family members with nasty health complications from easily treatable problems that were let go because the doctor didn't want to order tests in case they came back negative. If a test comes back negative the doctors never get paid.
Come to think of it I see this in one other place. B2B transactions. In so many of them business A won't pay the invoice for business B until A needs B's services again. I read somewhere Don Trump is famous for that, but having worked for small businesses it's so common he could just be going with the flow.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It depends on their tech setup. One heathcare provider has a workstation in every room, and it takes the doctor about 1 minute to review patient records and a couple more minutes to update it after the exam is over. Another heathcare provider takes notes and transfers them all at the end of the day. Yet another still uses paperwork and is very much not organised.
It depends on their tech setup. One heathcare provider has a workstation in every room, and it takes the doctor about 1 minute to review patient records and a couple more minutes to update it after the exam is over. Another heathcare provider takes notes and transfers them all at the end of the day. Yet another still uses paperwork and is very much not organised.
I don't want to use explictives, but they are warranted to the most extreme degree possible.
This 1 minute talk, it takes that long to login..if the system is polite, then to open the chart, then to find the actual note, then to load the CT scan...
There are multiple hard studies that show 33% reduction in efficiency that cannot be recouped.
Patients just love when you stare at a computer instead of talking to them....
This is crazy, I fight with my nurses every day. They tell me I have to input codes, I have to reconcile X, or Y or whatever.
F. That! I talk to my patients. I deal with them, and I deal with that screaming on the back end, but I'm not typical. I fight to talk to people like I would want to be talked to if I was a patient. I am burnt out, I can't fight forever. They will wear us down, your care will suffer. You let this happen, you asked for it through shitty laws that paid doctors 20% more to be part of a hospital system. You will suffer and you asked for it.
Practicing Surgeon MD
No, "better healthcare outcomes" is a measurment anomaly.
The fact that the average is dragged down because a large percentage of the US population doesn't get adequate health care is not a "measurement anomaly". It's an epic failure.
It's like a C average student claiming: "I'm really a straight-A student! I got As in all the classes I didn't flunk. (And BTW, for some reason my education cost twice as much as that of any other student.)"
So, the US spends 18% of its GDP on healthcare, but that only covers part of the population. Meanwhile those countries who only spend 6-9% of GDP on healthcare manage to cover everyone. So, that 18-6 cost disparity is actually understated
This is your argument that quality of care in the US is actually the best in the world?
I'm not really sure I care that a US millionaire can get outstanding care, if he can only do so at the cost of forcing the rest of the country to get 3rd-world quality care. I'm sure appropriately rich people in those other countries also get better than local average care. It's ridiculous to compare the quality of care available to the few Americans who can afford it to the quality of care available to an average 'socialized' medicine citizen.