Home » Time Capsule » Currently Reading:

Time Capsule: Is Forcing Physicians to Use Computers a Flawed Paradigm? 3/25/11

March 25, 2011 Time Capsule 3 Comments

I wrote weekly editorials for a boutique industry newsletter for several years, anxious for both audience and income. I learned a lot about coming up with ideas for the weekly grind, trying to be simultaneously opinionated and entertaining in a few hundred words, and not sleeping much because I was working all the time. They’re fun to read as a look back at what was important then (and often still important now).

I wrote this piece in January 2006.

Is Forcing Physicians to Use Computers a Flawed Paradigm?
By Mr. HIStalk

3-25-2011 8-34-37 PM

Welcome to my weekly column, which will appear every Thursday morning as part of the Inside Healthcare Computing Electronic Update. For those subscribers who don’t know me, I’m Mr. HIStalk. I’ve been writing the blog HIStalk under that keyboard name for almost three years now, cranking out nearly 500 long and detailed articles about the health care IT industry, interviewing CEOs, and providing sniggering, sophomoric humor to an industry that often takes itself too seriously.

I don’t use my real name because I’m a cynical blowhard who likes to speak his mind. I think I’m entitled to that privilege after many years in the HIT industry as a clinician, vendor peon, informatics practitioner, and IT director for a couple of large IDNs. On the other hand, getting vendors, member organizations, and industry notables riled up (especially those associated with the hospital from which my paycheck flows) is hardly a ticket to job security. So, let’s just leave it as Mr. HIStalk, if that’s OK with you. I still need that day job.

My writing here will be specific to one timely topic, different than the highly-condensed news and occasional editorial that I write for HIStalk. I have just one objective: to make you think. Like an aging hippie, I’m imploring you to question authority and don’t trust people who tell you what to believe (even me).

Let’s jump into what’s new. The online world has been abuzz about the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh article in the December issue of the journal Pediatrics, which suggests CPOE caused increased mortality in the hospital. I’ve put some of my thoughts about this on HIStalk, but let’s look at this story from another angle. Namely, is the paradigm of forcing physicians to use our computer systems personally and directly a flawed one?

Think of your most recent meeting with a local banker, attorney, real estate agent, dentist, or accountant. Did they place a computer monitor between themselves and you, making your conversation nearly inaudible over their furious keyboard tapping? Did you trust their advice even though they weren’t staring at the computer screen while awaiting an infusion of wisdom from faceless offshore programmers whom they’ll never meet personally? Did you think less of them because they listened and talked instead of typed?

I haven’t seen that. So why then do we expect doctors to be held to a different standard? It doesn’t make much sense, especially considering that they’re mostly self-employed and are as much a hospital customer as patients. Is it realistic to believe that their profession alone requires them to interact constantly with a computer to be effective, both providing information for use by others and receiving similar information in return?

Suppose you go into a restaurant and the waiter informs you that a new policy requires you to enter your order directly into a PDA, which will also provide recommendations and dietary warnings that someone has decided you should be forced to review. This will also solve the problem of illegible food orders and wastage due to poor waiter handwriting, along with incorrect tallying of your final bill (and maybe slyly pitching high-margin alcohol and desserts along the way). Maybe you’d see this as a good thing, maybe not. And if not, you’d go elsewhere.

As a customer, the only place that I see a lot of computers in use is in retail establishments, where the user is the lowest level of employee. Those folks aren’t rocket scientists. They didn’t have to go away for a week of training, nor do they have to tape reminders to their smocks or juggle 10 passwords. The systems they use were written with them in mind: simplified, optimized to their workflow, and nearly impossible to mess up. The part-time kid at McDonald’s can get your hamburger order right just as easily at Wendy’s, every time. Very smart minds dumbed down the systems to be as foolproof as the French fry cooker.

CPOE systems, on the other hand, are confusing, even to long-time users who have attended training. Just ask a nurse or pharmacist exactly what will happen when they change the schedule of a QID order and you’ll see what I mean. Hospitals that found their clinical systems too inconvenient for impatient nurses to use (turfing them off to unit secretaries) are now surprised at CPOE pushback from the docs. If their systems are so great, how come every nurse doesn’t already use them for medication barcoding, for entering nurses’ notes, for receiving point-of-care recommendations, and for shift scheduling based on expertise?

I’m not saying that CPOE is a bad concept. I’m saying that CPOE systems (and user implementations of them) need to be better to avoid harming patients, as the Pediatrics article’s authors described in Pittsburgh. If not, then please don’t install anything that makes the situation worse. And if those systems really do reduce unwanted outcomes and decrease costs as everyone believes (but few have proven), shouldn’t whoever benefits from that situation be willing to pay doctors for the indisputable extra time it takes to use the systems, possibly in the form of reduced malpractice insurance premiums or higher reimbursement?

Maybe what we should be pitching is electronic medical records — still a new concept to the hospitals that are chasing the sultry siren of CPOE instead of automating the basics first. Let’s worry less about who does the keyboarding and concentrate instead on making all existing information available in electronic form.

In the meantime, vendors can do a better job in designing CPOE that works for doctors, not programmers. And we in hospitals can rethink whether we’re using doctors optimally by having them interact with computers, doing the same things they did on paper, or whether new roles are needed for “information assistants.”

View/Print Text Only View/Print Text Only

HIStalk Featured Sponsors


Currently there are "3 comments" on this Article:

  1. I know you wrote this in 2006, but its still so very relevant today. I’m still amazed at the organizations that dumped transcription and think its more efficient to have their physicians (the ones that bring in the money) to spend their time documenting instead of seeing patients. But what I really liked is your comparison of healthcare to other industries. If my banker/lawyer/restraurant treated me like my doc treats me (facing the computer), I wouldn’t be their customer. Which got me thinking about why I’m putting up with this behavior with my own healthcare.

    Thanks for the repost!

  2. The flaw in the paradigm is the assumption that a badly designed piece of EMR software can have all of its defects disappear simply by mandating that doctors use it.

    The corollary to this flawed paradigm is the assumption that doctors (particularly older doctors) will only adopt technology if they are forced to do so. But how many doctors including older docs are already iPad or iPhone users? The answer is: A whole lot. Why? Because it’s easily learned, easily used and adds valuable resources that help in ones day-to-day existence. At the very least, it’s fun to use and keeps you from feeling frustrated and burned out.

    How long did it take after CT scans and MRI scans were introduced before doctors started ordering them? Not long at all. Because they gave valuable assistance in caring for patients.

    Doctors have more important things to do than listening to nonsensical hype from ONC or EMR vendors or rapidly acceding when hospital administrators tell us we have to use the wonderful new CPOE system that they were gullible enough to buy. And we get enough frustration in our days dealing with insurers without also having to struggle with bad software.

    This is not an issue of build it and they will come. It’s got to be built RIGHT.

Subscribe to Updates



Text Ads

Report News and Rumors

No title

Anonymous online form
Rumor line: 801.HIT.NEWS



Founding Sponsors


Platinum Sponsors




























































Gold Sponsors
















Reader Comments

  • HIT Observer: What I find most interesting here, is people defending their common practices rather than truly taking this as invaluabl...
  • Bob: There's no incentive for the provider to spend time doing a price comparison for the patient. Nor is it a good use of th...
  • Peppermint Patty: Veteran - can you clarify what was "fake "? Was something made up (definition of fake) or did you disagree with Vapo...
  • Pat Wolfram: Such a refreshing article. Thanks -- there really can be a simpler version of an acute HIT implementation. But I do ...
  • Woodstock Generation: Bravo to HIStalk's Weekender recaps and other news/opinions. I read it first thing on Monday mornings..................
  • Veteran: #fakenews...
  • Vaporware?: Secretary Shulkin: "the American healthcare system hasn’t yet figured out interoperability, but the VA can lead the wa...
  • Justa CIO: The reported go live date for McLaren Oakland is wrong. There are no dates set for activations for any locations. Post...
  • Brian Too: I admit I am partial to the quoted ICD-10-CM of "S07.9XXA Crushing injury of head, part unspecified, initial encounter....
  • Cosmos: As others in the comments section have pointed out before, GE's EMR for athletes is ironically a health record for the h...

Sponsor Quick Links