The debate to go digital in the medical field has be a battle since the early computers. With the recent release of the tablet computers, particularly iPad, doctors and other medical personal have begun to seriously consider a tablet device. According to amednews, over 50% of doctors surveyed are seriously considering replacing their current system - whether its paper and pen or another electronic device - with an iPad. So what are the pro's and con's to technology replacing medical documents?
The two most significant advantages of going electronic are simple, paper and efficiency. Cutting back drastically on paper would eventually lower the spending of the hospital/facility, which would in turn, lower patient bills. Not only is the hassle of paper gone, but it is more efficient. When a doctor needs critical information on a patient, they can get it within a few clicks, which is much more reliable than looking for a physical chart. The ability to update the charts instantly also provides a much safer environment, especially in a field where time is critical.
For this, I wanted to get some personal feedback. I sent an email to 15 recent patients and 5 medical personal in a hospital in my hometown, and asked the simple question: "How do you feel about a tablet computer replacing physical paper charts in the medical field?" In my hometown, doctors are given the option to adopt the technology on their own if they choose to. Some have adopted this technology and are using it with their patients daily.
Of the 15 patients surveyed, 67% (10 out of 15) liked the idea of the technology. Some patients commented with the following...
"I felt disconnected from the doctor. He seemed distracted with his computer" - 55 F
"I was intrigued by it, I wanted to learn more. I was impressed with it" - 28 M
"The idea makes me uncomfortable, I don't understand whats wrong with a pen and paper" - 80 M
Of the 5 medical personal, I received an 80% (4 out of 5) positive response.
"Its really the best thing a hospital can do. Things are so efficient and quick, and time is so critical in the medical field" - 49 Nurse
"Its too much to learn. Im not interested, I like how things are" - 57 Doctor
And so the debate continues. With new technology heading our way, there may be a definitive answer within a few years.
Sources:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/02/22/bica0222.htm
I am not sure "the debate" is suggesting two opposed points of view. One is your view, which is based on a summary of MacPractice, and not on research that touts the cost-savings. The other point of view is talking to a few patients and nurses, some of which are favorable. Are there other surveys or research that would shed light on this debate? Either that or talk to more people about why they like or don't like it, or provide that information from the people you interviewed.
ReplyDelete