Can Today's Doctors Be Competent Without Computers?
Main Category: IT / Internet / E-mailAlso Included In: Primary Care / General Practice
Article Date: 18 Jul 2008 - 2:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
3 (2 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4 (1 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
Physicians who do not use the tools of information technology (IT) such as electronic health records and computerized entry of prescriptions could fall short of professional standards, according to a new review.
Although technology cannot replace thoughtfulness and caring, it is increasingly difficult to be a competent doctor without tech support, contends David Mechanic, Ph.D., of Rutgers University in the June issue of The Milbank Quarterly.
However, it is important to view health information technology "as a tool and not as a substitute for physicians' vigilance and judgment,'" said Mechanic, who analyzed scientific literature, Web sites and his own experience working with medical professionals.
The "increasing complexity and demands of patient care, along with an explosion of medical knowledge, can make it increasingly challenging for doctors to provide care that is fair, economical and aligned with the best practices," Mechanic said. Tools like evidence-based treatment guidelines delivered to a doctor's computer "can help physicians overcome some of these barriers barriers that must be overcome if they are to be considered competent physicians delivering the best care."
"In addition to having more active patients, physicians now have many more treatments, options and choices to consider and explain," he said.
E-mail communication with patients, automated reminders and specialized Web sites and disease registries can help doctors do more in the smaller amount of time allotted for patient care, the study suggests. Automated reminders can also help patients stay on top of their chronic diseases.
However, physicians in the United States have been slow to adopt health information technology. Because of high implementation costs, larger managed care programs and large group practices are more likely to use these systems than smaller independent doctors' offices, according to Mechanic.
However, Mechanic and others say cost is not the only factor that could make smaller practices which make up the majority of physician care in the United States reluctant to adopt new health information technology systems.
"One thing that we're seeing is that in order for health IT to be used effectively, the software has to be modifiable to fit physician needs and work flow. Software also has to align with other IT systems; for example, electronic medical record systems must work well with existing or new systems for billing and e-prescribing," said Michael Harrison, Ph.D., a senior research scientist in health care organization and systems at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. "At the moment, only the biggest systems have the ability to build software that fits their own needs or fully adapt available products."
Larger health care organizations can tailor these systems to their physicians' needs, disabling unnecessary alerts in a computerized physician order entry system, for example.
Many clinicians in smaller practices "seem to expect software products that come off the shelf to be immediately useful to them. Instead, without appropriate customization to the physician's needs and the workflow of the practice, the pre-constructed software may actually interfere with the clinicians' work," Harrison said.
The Milbank Quarterly: Heidi Bresnahan, publications manager, at (212) 355-8400.
Mechanic D. (2008) Rethinking medical professionalism: the role of information technology and practice innovations. The Milbank Quarterly 86(2), 327-5.
Health Behavior News Service
Center for the Advancement of Health 2000 Florida Ave. NW, Ste 210
Washington, DC 20009
United States
http://www.hbns.org
Visit our it / internet / e-mail section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/115431.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/115431.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Get Up To Date
posted by Mary Catherine McDougall on 22 Jul 2008 at 6:32 pmI am a PhD graduate in 2005. Over 5 years since I became ill, when doctors didn't know what was the matter, I have used my computer to research my illness, documenting what I sent in letters to local and far hospitals.
I was appalled 2 years ago when it was imperative to have my patient history- through the medico-legal at the local hospital- from 1978 until start of 2005. It was actually there on physical paper- as this hospital had a policy of keeping it local.
However it did show that in 1978 that I lay for 3 days in a coma (I did not know that) with no x-ray until a local female doctor thought cerebral bleed, and I was flown to capital city 1000km away. apparently had 7hour /aneurism operation, in hospital there for 6 weeks. Local gen specialist attended me as did eye specialist later. However the Med Supt had written a letter to ask what happened to me down south. Apparently not reply.Then again had seizure, and much later another stroke- no speech, and got myself back to my country. Back to study again. Then 5 years ago problems again, and I have had to research my probs- and have- still using those records, which I copy if needed to give to G.P. and specialists. When trying to access record of the 1978 hospital down south- they cannot give them to me, as I did not go back there until 2004 for serious eye probs.
All my copy records are placed in days, months, years for accessability- mine or whoever. The same with all these newer referrals, specialist reports, scan discs, xrays and reports, the notes I take to my G.P. as well in hard folders as well as computer files I have so many re my immune condition.
Some doctors are appreciative- one said when seeing my folders, would/could I email her copies of them to her, which I did with much time spent? Then when I went to her for the second time, she said she didn't believe that GPs should send patients to so many specialist, and actually contacted local hospital. No go again. My G.P. had taken a long time to understand what is going on, but is ready for me to have salivary gland biopsy with visiting specialist. Living in an Australian regional area with no specialists, visiting or at hospital I have had to devise ways to get my body healthy- find spec online.I might add that my G.P. does touchtype when I am speaking, and she is happy now for me to copy history parts to add to her file. We are so short of G.Ps here- I've had to fly cross half my country to get tpospecialists. When I had second stroke up north doctor did not know whether aneurism was clipped or not. Scan does not show.
Next is to see a neurologist and have an MRI- never had/seen either. Some specialists did not allow me to ask any questions in the half hour appt, and did not look me in the eyes, but head down wrote on folders. Reports sometimes took 5 months to arrive to G.P. after nudging.
This could be a fascinating PhD- or post-doctoral study.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




