One of my favorite conference speakers, Lexington, S.C., family physician Allen Wenner, M.D., who created Primetime Software’s Instant Medical History software, often jokes that many of his contemporaries “need to die” before we see much change in the way physicians practice medicine. I’m increasingly convinced that he’s right.
It’s, of course, older doctors, that seem to be the most resistant to change. They also happen to be the ones most likely to hold leadership positions, if for no other reason than their seniority.
That’s why I’m so troubled by the attitude of physicians such as Arvind Goyal, M.D., a family physician in Rolling Meadows, Ill., who’s on the faculty of Chicago Medical School/Rosalind Franklin University in North Chicago, Ill., and is a past president of the Illinois State Medical Society. Last week, the Chicago Tribune published a lengthy, scathing letter from Goyal, in which he thoroughly trashed electronic medical records based on a negative experience he had with “a popular brand of EMR” at a Federally Qualified Community Health Center.
Goyal brought up some salient points about what can go wrong with a poorly implemented EMR. “The system was slow generally, froze up a few times a day and crashed every few months, requiring us to reschedule patients. Pricey service calls, multiple system updates, periodic shutdowns, user training and hiring of a full-time IT expert at a significant cost helped some, but the dissatisfaction persisted,” he wrote.
He ticked off the standard laundry list of why physicians struggle with EMRs, including the argument that “documentation and accessibility of information in EMR is more time-consuming than paper records.” Forgive me if I’m wrong, but that sounds like a workflow problem more than a technology problem.
“Federal incentives for adoption of EMRs come with complicated bureaucratic requirements,” he added. Perhaps, but will you still be making that argument when Medicare and then private payers start requiring EMR usage as a condition of reimbursement?
“Data backup is a prudent need and often requires an additional investment.” Well, duh, but isn’t that true of your home computer as well? Your practice management systems?
But Goyal really stepped over the line when he repeated one of the greatest fallacies in medicine, that doctors know all.
“In my successful suburban solo family practice of several years, I did not use electronic medical records. Knowledge of each patient I served was on the tip of my tongue when an emergency-room doctor seeing one of my patients called in the middle of a night. I was available 24/7 with few exceptions. The paper records were organized such that I was able to access clinical details quickly when needed,” Goyal wrote.
How can knowledge of each patient be on the tip of his tongue if he’s woken up in the middle of the night and his precious paper files aren’t right there next to his bed? Is his memory that good that he knows every pertinent detail of every patient, even when still in a haze from an unexpected wake-up call? Yeah, nice try.
Furthermore, it’s great that Goyal is available to other doctors around the clock in case of an emergency, but is he available to patients? Medicine is changing. It’s supposed to be about patients, not physicians. But some physicians still wrongly believe they know everything and will do just about anything to cling to the status quo.
In case you haven’t noticed, the status quo isn’t so good.