EMRs for Better or Worse?
As I watched this week's first official presidential press conference, the thing that stood out to me (well, after the outrage at all the political posturing and stonewalling that are getting the stimulus plan nowhere) was a comment that reminded me of Pres. Obama's gung ho stance on EMRs. Mainly, I guess my feeling about this subject has been tainted by my own experiences with the automation of medical transcription and the abysmal impact speech recognition has had, not only on the field of MT, but also in driving the quality of the medical record down to the lowest common denominator. How will the EMR fare any better?
As a patient (more accurately, the daughter and mother of patients), my own experiences with EMR are mixed, but leaning heavily toward the negative. When I had to take my mom to the ER with an allergic reaction (repeatedly), we spent hours repeating the same information to everyone we dealt with--the receptionist, the triage nurse, the nurse in the cubicle, the doctor (when he finally came). Oddly enough, entering the information in that form did not seem to mean it was there for the next person, merely that they had to enter it all again, too. Shiny new workstations took up precious space and in the exam room; that even meant that every person who came in to treat the patient was guaranteed of hitting their head on the monitor and/or running into the keyboard. Subsequent trips were similarly not simplified by the information monster, sadly enough. It wasn't enough to simply show her ID bracelet so they could key in the number and call up her very recent past medical history. . . We once again had to repeat everything to everyone. By the third visit and after sitting in the waiting room for three hours (apparently, it was prime heart attack time at the nursing homes), she finally allowed me to play doctor and we bailed to head to the nearest drug store for a box of Benadryl.
This was a very expensive private hospital (the only one in my little burg) and clearly, some software salesman had sold them a very expensive system with the promise of saving them transcription expense and streamlining their record keeping. I notice he wasn't around for the fallout when they put it into practice and had doctors and nurses doing my job for them. Is it a savings when you pay a nurse $30/hr to enter data versus a transcriptionist who's nowadays lucky to get hired for 6-7 cents per line? How about that doctor who has to spend 15 minutes fumbling through a wizard and then has no patience to deal with the face-to-face patient care because he's got to run off to the next one and do it again? (My mom's doctor looked up from the monitor, declared that she didn't look too bad and dashed off a prescription. We waited three hours for less than 60 seconds of actual care.)
When my son was recently hospitalized with an infection, we opted for a much bigger, better, and public hospital. Once again, they had that evil EMR, only this was a more manageable laptop on wheels. We answered questions once and though people occasionally asked again, it was usually to clarify details as they read from the screen. They were indeed able to call up prior admissions to help jog our memories of past history. The real advantage I saw here was that in everything they did, they were able to answer questions. My son (probably not the easiest of patients because he has to ask WHY and HOW about everything) would ask for specifics and his doctor or nurse could pull it to the bedside and say, "Let's look at your lab values and imaging studies," or "I bet I can find a good illustration online." They utilized this to make the patient a working part of the team and not merely a victim or child. At discharge, they were also able to generate instructions and followup.
Nothing with the finesse of a carefully crafted and conversational dictation, but clearly more along the lines of how an EMR is supposed to work. After the latter experience, I have to say my sadness at being put out of a job was not uppermost in my mind. The biggest danger I saw was that a keyboard itself has got to be a major player in the spread of pathogens. As most of the patients I transcribe end up suffering as much (or more) from opportunistic infections, maybe I'm just attuned to this negative, but clearly, there is no way to prevent the spread of germs when everyone's sharing a keyboard and that device is being wheeled from room to room. This hospital also has instituted a protocol that provides antibacterial foam dispensers to use as you enter and leave each room, but does nothing to sterilize computers, IV poles, and other equipment.
But I digress. In my world, speech recognition engines are poised to eliminate straight transcription. This isn't because the technology is good, but because there are software people selling the product as though it were. I have yet to hear from an MT who's been asked to help develop a platform that truly works and in the end, we're merely asked to correct the gibberish, essentially working twice as hard as we do now, but for half the money. All those great Shorthand macros we've created over the years for those dictators who always say the same thing every time? Forget that it's a time-saver, a wrist-saver, and just plain more accurate to have a whole paragraph pop up with a few keystrokes. Nope, can't use them because the SR engine won't learn unless we work with what's already given to us and make specific corrections. We are working crap wages to train computers to take our jobs, and are supposed to be grateful to have jobs at all. In the end, those long, rambling office notes will no longer contain information that conveys a patient's humanity, but only the facts necessary to fill those key boxes on a form. I suspect the only thing holding them back is the fact that there are too many old-school docs who refuse to dictate carefully enough for SR to understand them. The new kids are learning and the old ways will die off as their generation takes over.
So how will EMR be any better? Once again, we're talking software developers, salesmen, and little to no input from the people who actually have to work with these things. To complicate matters, how does the government mandate a nationwide compliance with EMRs when competing platforms can't even communicate with each other? I think the answer is simple, but I don't see the money guys being too happy about it: There are already FREE EMRs out there (Practice Fusion and Synapse are good examples and seem to get favorable reviews), many developed by doctors with a geek gene on the side. The new technology czar (yes, we're actually supposed to be getting a cabinet position along those lines) should study what's already available and pick the best one. Make it open source--i.e. free to use and to customize--so that everyone's on the same page, and so that no one stands to profit at the expense of our healthcare or livelihoods. This would be totally in keeping with the new agenda to make our government itself more transparent and accessible to citizens.
Of course, I still think the EMR's greatest potential for evil lies in the fact it will serve as a storehouse of private information that can be farmed to deny us care on the basis of preexisting conditions, to deny us employment based on facts no employer should have access to, or to target us for marketers and other unscrupulous people, but at least we could avoid the snafus that have plagued the transcription world. If this administration does manage to do this right, who knows--maybe they really will succeed in disabling Big Pharma and Big Insurance, too, and making health care for all a right, not a privilege.
MTs are clearly not the only ones in a bad place right now. Change is inevitable, but it will be interesting to see if greed continues to make policy or if common sense finally becomes a player.