Why This Primary Care Doctor Loves his Electronic Health Record

A recent post in the Wall Street Journal Health Blog noted that a study found electronic medical records don't improve outpatient quality.  The authors of the Archives of Internal Medicine article, Electronic Health Records and Clinical Decision Support Systems, correctly points out that we should be skeptical and "doubt [the] argument that the use of EHRs is a "magic bullet" for health care quality improvement, as some advocates imply."

This should surprise no one.  Were we that naive to think that simply installing health information technology (HIT) in the medical field would generate significant improvement in outcomes?  Does simply installing computers in our classrooms improve educational test scores?

Of course not.

The excellent commentary after the article makes some plausible reasons why the clinical decision support (CDS) didn't seem to improve outcomes on 20 quality indicators.  First, it isn't clear that the CDS implemented across the various doctors' offices and emergency rooms actually addressed the indicators studied.  Second, the data studied is already dated (from the 2005 to 2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey), a long time in technology terms (iPhone first debuted in 2007).  The authors of the original article also point out that there is some evidence that institution specific use of CDS actually improves quality.  Whether this can be scaled to the national level is the question.

In other words, it isn't just that perhaps CDS failed, but rather the robustness of the system was inadequate, that doctors failed to use them, or just as importantly patients were unswayed by the doctors reminded by the CDS to do the right thing. One of the 20 quality indicators studied was in fact the appropriate antibiotic use in viral upper respiratory infections.  As most people know already, there is not typically an appropriate antibiotic to use for a virus.  It's a virus.  It does, however, take good bedside manner to inform and educate an ill patient!

As someone who has had the benefit of a robust electronic health record since the spring of 2006, I know I'm incredibly lucky.  In an April 2009 New England Journal of Medicine article, only 4 percent of doctors nationally have a fully comprehensive EHR that I take for granted daily. Only 1.5 percent of hospitals have a comprehensive EHR, which I also have access to.  CDS is also an incredibly helpful tool and an excellent reminder to provide the right care every time.  It is a safety net.  Understandably some EHRs aren't that good, the CDS is clunky, and certainly the one I use is good, but not perfect.

The real issue isn't finding a perfect EHR, but rather how do we address the culture of the medical profession. There is something still heroic and mystical about a lone doctor, independent, smart, and getting the job done.  Indeed, to get into medical school, one has to be self-motivated, persistent, and determined.  Why on earth would we need a computer to help us?

Frankly, because it makes us better doctors.  CDS frees up time and mental energy.  I don't have to remember the latest guidelines on immunizations, repeating blood work, or treatment of illness like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and hyperlipidemia.  Most of these diseases are well understood and often under a protocol, something known as precision medicine, a term used by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. 

Now I can focus on if the patient in front of me is an exception to the protocol as well as thoughtfully diagnose and treat their ailments which don't fit any protocol (cognitive medicine) because science hasn't evolved to that level of understanding.  I'm a big believer in the history and physical exam and how the use of HIT can make care more personal.  Having real-time access quickly and reliably to medical information and data 24/7 is important to make this happen.  Instead of hunting for lab work in a paper chart or trying to find a specialist's consultation, I can access the information I need rapidly and focus on the patient in front of me.


Sadly, however, many doctors don't feel the same way. Perhaps it is a generational thing. Perhaps it is because their EHR is inadequate.  It might also be, however, our training and tradition which limits us from improving.  If anything, the medical profession needs to emulate ourselves after the aviation industry where technology is used to support decision making and make pilots and flying even safer and better.  We are where our aviation colleagues were in 1935 as noted in Dr. Atul Gawande's New Yorker piece, the Checklist.  Because, really, CDS is essentially a checklist.

In the situation where a patient doesn't fit CDS, then we get to do what we do best and that is use all of our training to get a patient better.   HIT, EHR, and CDS are things the next generation of doctors must accept that will make the care we provide more personal than ever before.  In the end, that is what patients really want.

This is why I love my EHR so much.

Book Review -- The Checklist Manifesto - Checklists and Team Communications Make Us Better

I’m a huge fan of Dr. Atul Gawande ever since meeting him at a patient safety conference in 2005, and then subsequently reading his books and following his New Yorker articles. Perhaps because I’ve been following his works closely or maybe because I’m a practicing doctor diligently making the healthcare system better is why I didn’t find his latest work the most compelling.

Dr. Gawande makes two points, checklists and clear communications among teams, are absolutely required to decrease errors and problems and increase the chances of absolutely the best outcome, whether in constructing buildings, flying airplanes, and performing surgery. We aren’t perfect. Systematic approaches make us better.

Only the last two chapters, “The Hero in the Age of Checklists” and “The Save”, which highlight the “Miracle on the Hudson” landing of US Airways flight 1549 by Captain Sullenberger and his crew and Dr. Gawande’s experience in the operating room of adverting a near catastrophe respectively, were the most gripping.

Ultimately, despite his points the irony will be that the healthcare system will not adopt these ideas, which are accepted as expectations in the aviation industry, because doctors still feel that we are somehow smarter or above checklists or teamwork. This failure to do what we are truly capable of is disheartening. As a result, individual patients will be the ones responsible in taking care of their health and asking questions. A good easy to read book or “checklist” in ensuring you get the right care every time is at Stay Healthy, Live Longer, Spend Wisely: Making Intelligent Choices in America's Healthcare System.

Although I wasn’t bowled over like his other works, nevertheless, I have my own checklist and that is to continue reading and learning from Dr. Gawande and many others who toil in making healthcare better and safer.

Near Misses by Air Traffic Control Still Better than Healthcare System

ABC News reported that two regional jets nearly collided before Thanksgiving near Denver when an air traffic controller accidentally told an approaching aircraft to make a u-turn into the other.

The error was both unbeknownst both pilot crews of the airplanes as well as the air traffic controller. Only 200 feet apart in altitude and less than 2 miles away, these planes flying at hundreds of miles per hour were within seconds of catastrophe.

What prevented this disaster so that it was simply a near miss? Two critical factors.

Computers in both cockpits alarmed imminent collision and advised immediate course of action. Pilots trained to trust the safety systems built to identify threats and problems and not question them.

Although human error is to blame for the near miss, it is clear that technology can assist to improve safety. Also, more importantly is that those using the systems need to have a mindset of trust and act accordingly even if it isn't immediately obvious why the action must be taken. As a result, the aviation industry is the leader when it comes to safety.

When it comes to patient safety, the healthcare system could do much better. Approximately 100,000 Americans die annually due to these preventable medical errors or errors of omission and missed opportunities. However, since these typically only occur one death at a time throughout the country no one seems to notice.

100,000 Americans is about 250 Boeing 747 jumbo jets filled to capacity. Imagine if that many crashed in a year. Would that get your attention?

These errors and omissions occur because doctors and hospitals lack the basic information technology for making patients safer. The vast majority of healthcare providers still use paper charts and handwritten prescription pads. Without a comprehensive electronic medical record which would help identify drug-drug interactions, avoid dispensing the wrong medication or dosage due to illegible handwriting, suggest the lab tests due for specific medical conditions, or prompting both doctors and patients when to get important screening tests done, all of us instead depend on our doctors and pharmacists never to make a mistake.

This is of course impossible.

So why doesn't the healthcare system do better?

Two simple reasons. First, the implementation of technology like electronic medical records is costly and no one wants to pay for it. For a doctor to implement an electronic medical record can easily cost $30,000. If it prevents a drug drug interaction or stops from having the wrong prescription dispensed, the patient benefits. Does the doctor or pharmacist benefit?

Second and perhaps the biggest challenge is in changing the mindset of doctors. Pilots and flight crews are trained to communicate and speak up regardless of their rank. Doctors, however, operate in a world with a set hierarchy and perspective that impedes safety. The pecking order still is medical student, intern, resident, fellow, and attending physician. Medical assistants, physician assistants, nurses, and doctors. Attending doctors tell residents what to do. Residents tell medical students what to do. Doctors tell support staff what to do.

As a result, the mindset becomes one of self reliance and a top down approach rather than one that values collaboration and team orientation. Rules, regulations, and computerized systems aren't going to tell a doctor what to do. This perspective explains why wrong side surgeries still occur and surgical instruments are left in patients even though surgical timeouts and checklists have been implemented in hospitals. Despite built-in safety systems and reminders in electronic medical systems which could help doctors provide better and safer care, doctors balk at the hassle factor of being slowed down or being prompted by a computer even though using paper charts they have more potential for serious harm.

The aviation industry takes safety seriously. When two Northwest airline pilots were using personal laptops in the cockpit which resulted it distracting them from their duties, being out of contact with air traffic control for 90 minutes, and resulted in them missing their destination airport, the airline suspended the pilots immediately while the FAA revoked their license.

The healthcare system says that it takes patient safety seriously, but do we? If doctors don't wash their hands routinely before every patient and every time, should physicians be suspended? Watch your doctor next time you see him. If he doesn't wash his hands, a simple yet important ritual to avoid spreading germs, then what other important steps might he be skipping?

The healthcare industry still has a long way to go in regards to patient safety. Until the mindset changes where doctors embrace systems and teamwork to prevent adverse outcomes which will invariably occur due to human errors and flaws, you'll be far safer flying than staying overnight in a hospital.