http://titin.net/2009/04/26/clinicians-computerized-documentation-adds-more-problems/ My thoughts on Family Medicine and Health Informatics Thu, 31 May 2012 19:04:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://titin.net/2009/04/26/clinicians-computerized-documentation-adds-more-problems/#comment-2861 Thu, 31 May 2012 19:04:04 +0000 http://titindotnet.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/clinicians-computerized-documentation-adds-more-problems/#comment-2861 Thank you for your comment.
I am against over automation. There are parts of Electronic Heath Records that lend themselves to full automation, as drug checks (your example). However, other parts as clinicians narratives ( as progress notes) do not lend themselves to automation. In the quoted study automating this part produces unwanted effects.

]]> http://titin.net/2009/04/26/clinicians-computerized-documentation-adds-more-problems/#comment-2859 Thu, 31 May 2012 14:43:02 +0000 http://titindotnet.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/clinicians-computerized-documentation-adds-more-problems/#comment-2859 It seems to me that you argue against the worth of CDS in a busy ocffie practice. Actually you made the case at Relevance . The other points were just window dressing. For CDS to work effectively in a busy clinical practice, one would need vary fast (expensive) processors with ability to frequently upgrade equipment. The only piece that seems useful (drug interaction check) usually becomes very slow in patients with poly-pharmacy (10-15 drugs). These are the patients that we really need to run these checks, but a lot of time elapse while a system cross-checks 15 drugs. The answer to your question, unfortunately is no . CDS can perhaps help one avoid major mistakes, if used appropriately, but that does not define a good clinician.

]]>