osewalrus (osewalrus) wrote,
osewalrus
osewalrus

How Visualizng The "End Game" of Electronic Medical Records shapes Design.

"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When you are a doctor, it is all about you.

According to Dr. David Kibbe, spokescritter for the American Assoc. of Family Physicians, the whole point of switching to electronic medical records is: "for doctors' offices and hospitals to be able to easily share patient information, something the vast majority can't do today. That would cut down on mistaken and unnecessary procedures and give doctors faster access to more accurate information about patients' medical histories and drug regimens."

But there are, in fact many other advantages to electronic medical records. One, for example, is to facilitate patient choice of doctor or specialist by making it easy for the patient to access, or provide access, to all medical records in one place. Right now, my ability to switch from my current practitioner to another practitioner is dependent on my collecting my medical info and moving it to my preferred doctor. The law requires my current Doctor to allow this, but it does not require them to make it easy for me.

Electronic medical records with easy patient access, such as offered now by Microsoft and Google under certain programs, would make it possible for me to change doctors easily, or consult new ones. Mind you, I might make some foolish choices. And there are non-trivial privacy safeguard issues in building a system with such access. But I will not even get there if those designing the system do not consider this the "end game" or, possibly, even a desirable feature.

For a counter example, consider the internet. It was designed by people who thought the end game was making it possible to exchange all manner of information. This is the famous "end-to-end" principle, which became the foundational design feature for the TCP/IP protocol suite in the early 1980s. This produced a network in which it became very easy to send anything to anyone. This had many good features -- if you are readng this you are enjoying one right now -- but also made the easy transmission of "malware" possible. Because those designing the system did not envision "secure transmission" as the end game but "maximizing the ability to transmit" as the end game.

But there are always trade offs in any system. The rise of TCP/IP and other packet-switched networks using "best efforts" and decline of the super-reliable "five 9s" (99.999% reliable) public switched telephone network (PSTN) demonstrates that, for all its flaws, best efforts has a lot going for it. Similarly, an electronic medical record system built to maximize patient utility rather than the narrow purposes conceived by family doctors and hospitals will have a very different set of benefits, costs, and vulnerabilities. But as a patient, I'd rather make that the end game.

As always, it boils down to who gets to be in the room when the decisions get made. While I have no doubt that room will include doctors, hospital administrators, health insurance reps, and probably some engineers, I hope it will also include a good selection of others that would use electronic medical records, like nurses, pharmacists, long-term care facilities, physical and occupational therapists, nutritionists . . .

And possibly, maybe, even some patients.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 10 comments