Computers, Medicine, Usability, viewed from the ED
If you're new here, you might like to look through this introduction to the site first.
Are you interested in how computers can reduce medical error?
Did you know that many early medical computer systems increased medical error? (Some current ones, too.)
From your own experience with your own computer at home, do you think that some computers and programs crash on a regular basis? Do you think that most software is hard to use, rude, and frustrating to work with? Based on experience, what you’ve heard, or simple extrapolation, do you suspect that medical computer systems are even worse?
Did you know that the best place to test medical computer systems is the ED, because people working in the ED don’t have the time to deal with bad computer systems, and are intolerant of BS? (If it works in the ED, you can make it work anywhere else in the hospital.)
Do you want to learn more about how to make medical computer systems usable, so as to prevent medical error?
If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then read through the Medical Computing series. Although looked at from my viewpoint in the ED, it all applies to medical computer systems wherever they are used, in a hospital, in a clinic or in an office.
If you need a backgrounder on Healthcare IT concepts and terminology, see Healthcare IT in a Nutshell.
There’s also a series of “word” essays that focus on particular and generally more advanced medical computer issues.
To keep up with new postings, you might want to subscribe to my RSS feed.
One final note: Once explained, most of the suggestions on this site seem simple and obvious. But as one is creating a program, or even as one is using a program with a high level of frustration, they are still not obvious until pointed out.
I hope you find the site informative and, perhaps, a bit mind-expandingly entertaining.
Keith Conover, M.D., FACEP
Dueling Whiteboards courtesy Dr. R.L. Wears
A good principle for medical software is to design for the ED as a worst-case scenario. If it works there, it will work anywhere.No clinicians are as time-pressured as those in a busy Emergency Department. There, distractions – even seemingly minor ones like presenting a complete CBC instead of an abstract – slow the clinician down, and may distract from something more important.
Quoting from a recent presentation at HIMSS:
Emergency physicians are majorly stressed and working at max capacity already. Darwinian selection means that ED staff (this is from the Critical Incident Stress Management literature):
- have obsessive/compulsive personality traits
- they like to be in control
- they are risk oriented
- they are action-oriented
- they “need to be needed” and
- they are dedicated
Emergency physicians are interrupted far more frequently than other physicians, and the same is true of ED nurses, techs, and certainly clinical secretaries. So, those in the ED are intolerant of anything that wastes their time. (Look at the “Dueling whiteboards” picture at the beginning of this post; note the number of users of the handwritten whiteboard vs. the computer-based one.) This is why the IT department (Information Technology = “the computer nerds”) traditionally hates the ED, and why IT projects fail in the ED more than in other units. Nonetheless, making things work in the ED is a path to success throughout the hospital. Read the rest of this entry »