Health IT

Do EMRs not work for surgeons, or is this doc a Luddite?

It wasn't the story itself or anything about healthfinch that was controversial, though. It was more about the idea of electronic medical records in the first place.

Meaningful useOur story Monday on healthfinch, maker of “EMR extender tools,” has sparked a bit of a kerfuffle on social media.

It wasn’t the story itself or anything about healthfinch that was controversial, though. It was more about the idea of electronic medical records in the first place — as in, some believe that no amount of extenders or simplifications could save EMRs.

Count Waco, Texas, otolaryngologist Dr. Bradford Holland as one of those. Holland responded to a tweet about the story with this critique of EMRs in general:

Since Holland tagged me in the tweet, I was intrigued about what led him to this conclusion. (His Twitter profile, which says he is active in “Organized Medicine” is a clue, since the American Medical Association and, to a lesser extent, the Texas Medical Association, have long been critical of health IT that many members see as intrusive on the practice of medicine.) I responded with a question that I thought might lead me to a future story, and he replied.

 

Others jumped into the conversation, and, happily, it has stayed civil so far.

Actually, if anyone is guilty of name-calling, it’s me.

Looking at this a few hours later, I kind of regret being so flippant. But kudos to other tweeters for staying on point.

So, is it a matter of workflow and design? Are EMRs simply not suitable for office-based surgeons? Is Holland right to stick with what works for him, or is he putting safety at risk by holding out? Or is he actually protecting patient safety by not relying on a computer for his patient records?

All this takes on new intrigue with the news that the federal government is pretty much ready to scrap the Meaningful Use incentive program before Stage 3 even gets off the ground.

Photo: Flickr user luxomedia

 

 

Shares0
Shares0