If doctors are going to spend money on a
computer based system then the first
thing they need to be assured of is that
there will be no problem interfacing with
other doctor's systems when needed.
Then there is the need to interface with
the systems at hospitals and insurance
companies.
I guess in the end it will mean that the
federal government will need to set design
standards through working with the health
care and medical insurance groups.
There is also a need to have standardized
formats in areas like Imaging. I get digital
copies of all x-rays, CT Scans, etc. and
keep them on my computer (as a Mac user
I use OsiriX). The CD of my last x-ray
didn't work as the format was not
compatible. While that might not be a
problem for me it does represent a
problem in terms of a doctor's office
having a digital copy of the x-ray. My
response was simply to scratch that
radiology office off of my list of places to
use.
I'll soon be able to keep OsiriX files on my
iPhone (free) and can see that as a good
move. Far better would be the ability to
keep all important medical information on
my notebook and iPhone. Why can't I
download all of the last lab reports? Or
have read only links to my medical
records at the doctor's office and hospital?
If I go to an emergency room at another
hospital that information on my iPhone
could save my life.
The potential for all of this is huge, but it
all gets down to standardized formats and
a means of ensuring that data is available
within the privacy environment that the
medical systems have to work in.
How is health care technology in the U.S. like the Philippines? (This Philippine map appeared in a CNN story back in 1996.)
It’s an archipelago, islands of technology, often unconnected, linked by ferry lines of bureaucracy and paper.
That’s my conclusion after reading the final report of the Healthcare Information and Management System Society (HIMSS) Analytics group. It’s in line with results from an earlier survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
About one-third of respondents said some components of a computerized system were in place at their locations. HIMSS Analytics said there was “purchasing hesitation,” with just 13% saying they planned to buy an EMR system in the next year.
There is no dominant vendor in the market, the survey added, the most common application is basic charting, but three-quarters use computers to get paid.
Why? Cost and “lack of interest,” the report said.
It’s worse if you’re looking to get rid of those scribbled prescriptions. Only one practice in four uses e-prescribing, and most who don’t have no plans to buy it.
My best guess as to this state of affairs is the old, “What’s in it for me?” And it’s a valid objection.
Doctors are being told to pay for automation, but the benefits are not going to their own bottom lines. They’re going to insurance companies or hospital groups. Thus those doctors who do automate do so under pressure from such groups.
Will government pressure accelerate the trend? Only if it comes with more carrot than stick.
