I’ve come across few articles recently that really validate the notion that the success of healthcare IT is really in the eye of the beholder, or in some cases, the editorialized results of a study.
Take, for example, the following headlines:
I find it hard to believe that if formally connected, the second study couldn’t somehow influence the first. In other words, if a mobile health app can improve diabetes management among teenagers, shouldn’t whatever data that app is capturing transmit successfully to the teen patients’ EHRs for easy access by their doctors? And then couldn’t that doctor digest that information, picking out patterns in the patient’s behavior that is either positively or negatively impacting their diabetic condition and overall health, to better inform care protocols?
I’m taking big leaps of logic here, since the first study found that not only was there no correlation between the use of an EHR and “increased adherence to clinical guidelines for care processes and treatments,” but there was actually a “higher probability of meeting certain targets for blood pressure and A lc levels after two years” at practices without such systems. (Seems like these outcomes might be due more to end-user experience than the technology itself.)
The second study doesn’t even mention EHRs, but I wonder how many of the 20 teens participating in the study see doctors who have this type of technology, how many of those doctors know their patients are participating in the study (all I’d assume), and how many are feeding the app’s info into an EHR.
Surely if a smartphone app is helping a diabetic teenager better adhere to medication regimens, then the EHR their doctor could potentially be using would somehow tie in to better clinical outcomes. Another study to start, perhaps?
The second set of headlines that gives me pause (and kinda makes me chuckle) includes:
Neither headline surprises me. We all know that adoption of mobile health tools is growing, if not by leaps and bounds then at least steadily. It would make sense that providers are adopting tablets in relation to this. Every technology has its detractors, so of course not everyone is going to be happy with how an iPad works in a clinical setting, just as not every provider is going to want to install an EHR. I do wonder, though, how the same set of users mentioned in the second article would rate a different kind of tablet if given the opportunity to use one.
I find the first sentence to be kind of hard to believe: “It looks as if most doctors and nurses would rather not touch the iPad at work (or deal with any other kind of tablet computing).” If “most” doctors and nurses would rather have nothing to do with tablets at work, than how can physician use of tablets have doubled since last year?
So you see, the “success” of healthcare IT seems to depend on whose writing about it. I have a feeling the American Forest and Paper Association might be behind the very first one.