Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   More complicated than that

   

   dorpus, Jun 18th, 2004 @ 10:52am

   
   

   - Who is going to pay the bill for hospital IT systems, when many of them are losing money like crazy?
   
   - What if the new computerized system has software bugs, makes fatal mistakes, and kills patients?
   
   - What if the new computerized system allows information to flow freely to health insurers, so patients get upset?
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2004 @ 11:21am

   
   

   People make mistakes, not computers. New doesn't necessarily mean better. Government Force -- never good.
   
   Profit matters. Yes. Unless the government wants to subsidize it.
   
   Hospitals usually have better IT staff than you might realize. If the government and vendors want the hospitals to move to newer systems, then there should be a benefit to both the hospital and the customer/patient. When it benefits both, it will be freely and widely adopted.
   
   And regardless of how good the technology is, there will always be mistakes and there will always be law suits.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   dorpus, Jun 18th, 2004 @ 11:35am

   
   

   Health care is an inherently uneconomical field, as health care professionals are taught to save patients regardless of whether they can pay for it, or their health condition. Even the most rabid free-market ideologue would not want to live in a society where hospital ER's refuse to treat patients whose credit card has maxed out.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Newer isn't always better.

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2004 @ 9:25am

   
   

   
   The thing that's missing in the sarcastic slant posted here is the fact that electronic patient records are not more secure than paper records. The basic problem is that the general public who are NOT geeks just don't care about passwords or walking away from their terminal with patient data openly displayed on the monitor. Personally, I'd prefer the paper record hands down - it's a lot less likely to get 'lost', copied, etc.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Newer isn't always better.

   

   Anonymous Grizzled Healthcare Veteran, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 2:11am

   
   

   Don't forget: Computers didn't reduce paperwork. It isn't the monitor left displaying patient information we have to worry about. It's the shared printer sitting where all have access, but little time to retrieve prints, sitting there with multiple patient checkouts in the tray, because someone thought it was too expensive for each provider to have their own printer in an office with no public access. Its too easy to minimize a window and have a clear screen compared to walking an extra 30 feet to keep printouts cleared. And you won't convince me it couldn't be anticipated: you could see the same sort of thing happening with those big expensive photocopiers a few years back.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment