ie8 fix

How to stop treating doctors like mushrooms

By | February 6, 2009, 10:00am PST

Summary: What we need to do is emphasize how health IT can increase the value and prestige of line physicians.

For two centuries the pay, prestige and perks of being a doctor rose in our society.

They seem to have collapsed in our time.

We’ve gone from Dr. Kildare to Scrubs, from M*A*S*H to House. Doctors feel like mushrooms, told nothing while manure is shoveled on them. Increasing numbers are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore.

This is especially true regarding technology:

  • Doctors are expected to pay for EHRs, and learn to use EHRs, but the benefits go elsewhere.
  • Trends like comparative effectiveness seem aimed at turning doctors into bus drivers.
  • Patients are encouraged to use PHRs to second-guess everything the doctor says.
  • Doctors are spending more time justifying themselves and trying to get paid than seeing patients.

Technology can turn these trends around as readily as it can make them worse.

In writing about the $20 billion in health IT contained in the President’s stimulus bill, Technology Review writer Emily Singer makes a move toward a sale based on this key value — prestige — then goes right back to selling its value to patients.

And noting its cost, in training, to doctors. When was the last time you heard anyone squeal with delight knowing they were going to an IT training class?

What we need to do is emphasize how health IT can increase the value and prestige of line physicians:

  • Having more data at the point of care.
  • Simplifying paperwork.
  • Eliminating the hassles of being paid.
  • Spending more time on each patient.
  • More assurance that the decisions they make are right.

But we need to do more than that. We also have to fulfill those promises once they are made.

Doctors, I have found, are a lot like journalists. They want to spend their time doing what they do. They want to work in their businesses, not on their businesses. They want respect. Most of all they want control, over what they do and how they do it.

Technology, in theory, can give doctors all these things. But over the last decade health IT has been sold based on benefits to everyone else — vendors, insurers, hospitals, patients — while the men and women at the center of it all have been largely ignored.

Moving IT spending from the private sector to the public sector may not change this. But if those working on the details of this spending did make doctors the center of what they were doing, it could.

And doctors might then stop fleeing the profession.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years. At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog. DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air. My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist since 1978, and has covered technology since 1982. He launched the Interactive Age Daily, the first daily coverage of the Internet to launch with a magazine, in September 1994.
7
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Cost of a doctor's time
hizaleus 8th Feb 2009
Time with the doctor could be cost effective if that was really how we spent our time. The reason a doctor's time costs so much is that for every patient encounter at least an hour must be spent by someone in data processing (we can't call it paperwork any more.) Either the doctor spends that time himself (I have heard so many patients in the hospital complain that they only saw the doctor for 5 minutes, though the doctor had to spend half an hour or more reviewing data, writing orders and documenting the encounter) or is able to delegate this to someone else, but has to see more patients in a day to make up for the expense. Much of that work is mandated by third party payers in an endless battle over payment, and to minimize liability risk. I offered a 25% discount to patients who paid in cash on the day of the visit and profited from the savings from not having to deal with insurance. Then there is the crushing cost of repaying medical school debt (military physicians get paid half of what civilian physicians make, but their schooling is paid for by the military) and the inevitable overcharges clinics pay for everything from supplies to rent because medical practices are perceived as "able to afford it."
0 Votes
+ -
I grew up with a doctor.
kozmcrae 6th Feb 2009
He was my father. He started practicing medicine in the 1930's. Did you know that doctors used to actually touch people? They don't do that much any more unless it's absolutely necessary. They let their machines do it for them. Doctors are becoming technicians. They need to be healers.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe I have a different doctor
DanaBlankenhorn 8th Feb 2009
Or maybe I'm just northern European, but I get
plenty of "touch."
0 Votes
+ -
Some time back.
kozmcrae 8th Feb 2009
My Mother in Law went to her doctor because she had swollen glands. He didn't lay a hand on her, just wrote a prescription. Now, I'm not a doctor but even I know different maladies can have the same symptoms. He was a technician, not a doctor.

0 Votes
+ -
My wife is the same
Ken_z 6th Feb 2009
She's a Physical Therapist who treated patients
from '66 until she got a Dx of leukemia in late 64.

There were new bits of equipment that came out
that would give precise measurements of, say.
strength. My wife's preference was to "feel" the
change over time as she was treating the patient.

Some things in medicine are better today but
vigorous training that includes a lot of patient
exposure is still needed. So is the removal of a
timer to ensure a Doc in a large clinic doesn't
spend over 15 minutes with a patient.
0 Votes
+ -
The Timer
DanaBlankenhorn 8th Feb 2009
The timer, whether real or imagined, is an
important reason why we can't have doctors as
our primary interfaces with the medical
community any more.

Each of us needs a lot of time with our primary
care manager. Doctors' time costs too much. The
numbers just don't work.
0 Votes
+ -
Cost of a doctor's time
hizaleus 8th Feb 2009
Time with the doctor could be cost effective if that was really how we spent our time. The reason a doctor's time costs so much is that for every patient encounter at least an hour must be spent by someone in data processing (we can't call it paperwork any more.) Either the doctor spends that time himself (I have heard so many patients in the hospital complain that they only saw the doctor for 5 minutes, though the doctor had to spend half an hour or more reviewing data, writing orders and documenting the encounter) or is able to delegate this to someone else, but has to see more patients in a day to make up for the expense. Much of that work is mandated by third party payers in an endless battle over payment, and to minimize liability risk. I offered a 25% discount to patients who paid in cash on the day of the visit and profited from the savings from not having to deal with insurance. Then there is the crushing cost of repaying medical school debt (military physicians get paid half of what civilian physicians make, but their schooling is paid for by the military) and the inevitable overcharges clinics pay for everything from supplies to rent because medical practices are perceived as "able to afford it."
0 Votes
+ -
The problem has been the increasing rise of the medical record as first a surrogate, then a substitute for medical decision making. Originally a doctor's notes were intended as a record of information and decision making for the use of the doctor and other healthcare providers. Now the medical record is the basis for reimbursement (quite divorced from any patient benefit from the encounter) and a medical-legal document, often sanitized or even bordering on fiction for reasons of liability. Standardized record keeping also allows the introduction of evaluation based on easily quantifiable criteria, as opposed to the more messy evaluation of individual patient wellbeing and outcomes.

Progress notes used to be hand written, at the time of the encounter. These were criticized rightly for being frequently illegible to anyone but the physician writing them. As a result they have been replaced with typewritten derivatives from dictation or electronic medical record systems. In almost all cases creating these records is an additional time burden on the health care provider, they are not able to be created at the time of the encounter and are thus often incomplete, edited, erroneous or even downright fraudulent. The actual notes of the encounter are either kept in the caregiver's head or on scrap paper or the like until dictation or entry into an EMR. The actual original is usually not allowed to be on the chart, or retained in any way. This includes erasing the dictation tape after transcription, usually before the transcription is even reviewed by the person doing the dictation (if that ever actually happens. Most physicians just sign their dictations because it takes too long to read and correct them.)

Electronic medical records can all too easily increase the trend toward professional looking, billable records produced with a minimum of doctor-patient interaction. Ideally an EMR could allow direct entry of data during the patient encounter. In practice these systems are usually much too cumbersome to be used that way. An EMR can make progress notes and lab results available quickly (though in practice it often does not,) but if the information itself is superficial, inaccurate or too disorganized to be reviewed quickly, there is no benefit derived from this. The notes and reports generated by most EMRs are painfully obviously the result of a machine and although they appear neat and legible, they are usually completely indigestible. The notes and reports from the VA's Vista EMR for example are so filled with canned verbiage and references to possible tests that were not done, as to be impossible to decipher in a reasonable amount of time.

Unfortunately, the more likely result of adopting universal EMR systems will be a further move toward something that looks good and comforts us with "objective" evaluation, but increasingly moves the physician's role and standards of evaluation away from caring for patients toward jumping through hoops. Of course, solo practitioners and small group physicians will be driven out of practice by the time and expense required to adopt an EMR, and patients will be dead or disabled, so there won't be anyone in a position to complain.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix