A physician and a patient are sitting in an exam room. The physician has an EHR, and the patient appreciates that their doctor employs technology for the betterment of their health. But as the visit gets underway, the patient begins to wonder: why is the doctor paying more attention to the computer than to me?
There is no lack of concern from the physician community that this conundrum (and the future requirements for Meaningful Use) will erode the foundation of the patient-doctor relationship in primary care. And the concerns are well-founded; from a purely technological perspective, Meaningful Use Stages 2 and 3 will inherently require a greater amount of effort on the part of the software user in order to document information with the level of detail that will be required (this is due to the fact that future states of Meaningful Use require even more granular, specific data capture, which will increase the number of potential options from which the software user has to select).
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating against the basis for Meaningful Use. In fact, I am a firm believer that the future quality and affordability of health care in the United States is highly dependent on the incorporation of technology. But one has to wonder whether the “solutions” being hawked by today’s vendors aren’t numbered in their days. For a primary healthcare system as stressed as ours, it seems that the only permanent solution will be one which actually liberates physicians from technology, not one that further burdens them with the chore of “picking the ticks” from a long pick-list of options. How would that be helping the patient?
Though there may appear to be a doomsday scenario looming, I can’t help but have faith in the ingenuity and innovation of American inventors to deliver a winning solution. If there’s one thing I know for sure, it’s that the evolution of healthcare in the United States in the 21st century will truly be a sight for sore eyes.
User Testimonials
Loading 