Our 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:
Reducing Clinical and Staff Burnout with AI Automation
As technology advances, AI-powered tools will increasingly reduce the administrative burdens on healthcare providers.
@Cascadia @DrLyleMD @nversel @healthfinch Its a silly proposition. The #EMR is-at its heart-an insurance form. Reject it all-together.
— Bradford Holland MD FACS (@DrBradHolland) January 12, 2016
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.
The Funding Model for Cancer Innovation is Broken — We Can Fix It
Closing cancer health equity gaps require medical breakthroughs made possible by new funding approaches.
@nversel @Cascadia @DrLyleMD @healthfinch No. #EHR since '07. But I use scribes & never touch computer during the day #OnlyThePatientMatters
— Bradford Holland MD FACS (@DrBradHolland) January 12, 2016
Others jumped into the conversation, and, happily, it has stayed civil so far.
@DrBradHolland that is some overhead 😊 scribe vs. EMR ROI, I suppose. @nversel @Cascadia @DrLyleMD @healthfinch
— Faisal Qureshi (@fqure) January 12, 2016
@fqure none of surgeons I trained (Stanford, Sutter, GHC) used scribes – few older ones thought it was “clerical” but younger ones love EHR
— 🌟 Sherry Reynolds ✨ Person-Centered Health (@Cascadia) January 12, 2016
.@Cascadia both sides right. We asked older gen to completely change how they work vs. new starting gen who have zero change-up costs
— Faisal Qureshi (@fqure) January 12, 2016
@fqure we had some retired docs working as locums (covered for surgeons in training) asked to be trained as well – and drove adoption
— 🌟 Sherry Reynolds ✨ Person-Centered Health (@Cascadia) January 12, 2016
Actually, if anyone is guilty of name-calling, it’s me.
@nversel 😉 the advocate in me always wants to convert the last laggard but I usually focus on innovators and early adopters
— 🌟 Sherry Reynolds ✨ Person-Centered Health (@Cascadia) January 12, 2016
Looking at this a few hours later, I kind of regret being so flippant. But kudos to other tweeters for staying on point.
@wareFLO everything late has benefit of hindsight 😄 @nversel @DrBradHolland @DrLyleMD
— Faisal Qureshi (@fqure) January 12, 2016
https://twitter.com/jimmie_vanagon/status/686946618302574592
https://twitter.com/jimmie_vanagon/status/686946618302574592
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