Why Doctors hate their computers ? - Article by Dr. Atul Gawande

[Nitin Bhide]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/12/why-doctors-hate-their-computers

Today I found this article by Dr. Atul Gawade. The complexity of software and its user interface is growin so fast that the software is becoming unusable or taking a long time to master. I see this problem in CAD software and PLM software. I see the same problem with IDEs like Visual Studio. Visual Studio Code (which started life as a really simple IDE is now becoming increasingly complex). I see same problem on development side where complexity of tech stack and code is dramatically increased. I see the echo of my experiences in this article but in the field of "medical software". 

 Unfortunately I don't see any good solution.  Do you have any ideas/solutions ?

But three years later I’ve come to feel that a system that promised to increase my mastery over my work has, instead, increased my work’s mastery over me. I’m not the only one. A 2016 study found that physicians spent about two hours doing computer work for every hour spent face to face with a patient—whatever the brand of medical software. In the examination room, physicians devoted half of their patient time facing the screen to do electronic tasks. And these tasks were spilling over after hours. The University of Wisconsin found that the average workday for its family physicians had grown to eleven and a half hours. The result has been epidemic levels of burnout among clinicians. Forty per cent screen positive for depression, and seven per cent report suicidal thinking—almost double the rate of the general working population. 

#uxui #complexity #complexitymanagement  

Regards,

Nitin

[SreenivasaMurthy Gullapalli]

...Contd

...

3. when we go to McDonald, initially we also used to feel impatient standing at the counter while giving orders. There was an improvement in the interaction in the later days when the screen that operator sees on his side, is also put on customer's side - dual monitor system. A similar change could be brought to the table of the doctor by having another monitor facing the patient that shows all the work that doctor is doing on his side. it improves the feelings of belongingness in the minds of the patients.

G Sreenivasa Murthy, PMP

9890160655

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:18 PM SreenivasaMurthy Gullapalli <gsmur...@gmail.com> wrote:

My 2 cents....

Softwares are replica's to human brain.

And, the human brain is a very complex thing and an unfathomable thing. Anything that tries to replicate will eventually attain complexity over a period of time even if it starts as a simple thing at its infancy stage.

For engineering software, inputs are maths oriented, more or less standardised and are immune to the human being using it.

Whereas, the software in the medical field trying to assist the doctors is not math oriented; it is text-entry oriented; But, it should do so in a free wheel manner, user-doctor oriented. Because, entries into the software cannot be standardised as these are human thoughts, human assessments, and human feelings. They cannot be constrained into the options of drop-boxes, radio buttons, check boxes.

When the present software, in its evolution stage, is constraining the doctors in this fashion, doctors are feeling helpless and the software is really under-performing in bringing out the real intent of the patient-doctor conversations. This is the frustration expressed by the 'hands-on person cum user' of the software - the doctor.

Of course, as any software does, this medical software is also capable of dishing out statistics which cannot be done by a human brain. This is what Gregg Meyer, the chief clinical officer at Partners HealthCare, boasts of about the benefits of sticking to the software.

I see a possible solution here -

1. Every widget that demands entry by the doctor should have a 'voice to text' converting widget that we see in Google Search or in Whatsapp text boxes. 99% of the doctor's intentions, thoughts, feelings, assessments would be converted instantly into the text entries, and if any corrections are needed here and there, they could be done by the doctors with minimal typing on the key-board.

2. All the schools across the globe should introduce type-writing classes as a part of curriculum in one of the classes during schooling. This skill will definitely helps professionals in their later stages. 

G Sreenivasa Murthy, PMP

9890160655

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nitinsknowledgeshare" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nitinsknowledges...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nitinsknowledgeshare/906bb480-2743-46ee-b3f2-844ad802ed64n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mandar Vaze / मंदार वझे]

IMO when a software tries to do too many things for too many people, the complexity is bound to increase.

This was typical of B2B software

e.g. VScode provides a lot of functionality but simple "editor" (say Sublime) does not,  and is thus simple (For the user)

Another example : dumb phones (does anybody have those anymore?) with number pad, red and green buttons was easy to use, also intuitive ? (Red to end the call, Green to answer/make call) Smart phones offer a lot more "flexibility" and functionality, but have become complex.

I know this is not a "solution", but maybe it will help us think in the right direction ?

-Mandar

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:39 AM Nitin Bhide <thinking...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SreenivasaMurthy Gullapalli]

My 2 cents....

Softwares are replica's to human brain.

And, the human brain is a very complex thing and an unfathomable thing. Anything that tries to replicate will eventually attain complexity over a period of time even if it starts as a simple thing at its infancy stage.

For engineering software, inputs are maths oriented, more or less standardised and are immune to the human being using it.

Whereas, the software in the medical field trying to assist the doctors is not math oriented; it is text-entry oriented; But, it should do so in a free wheel manner, user-doctor oriented. Because, entries into the software cannot be standardised as these are human thoughts, human assessments, and human feelings. They cannot be constrained into the options of drop-boxes, radio buttons, check boxes.

When the present software, in its evolution stage, is constraining the doctors in this fashion, doctors are feeling helpless and the software is really under-performing in bringing out the real intent of the patient-doctor conversations. This is the frustration expressed by the 'hands-on person cum user' of the software - the doctor.

Of course, as any software does, this medical software is also capable of dishing out statistics which cannot be done by a human brain. This is what Gregg Meyer, the chief clinical officer at Partners HealthCare, boasts of about the benefits of sticking to the software.

I see a possible solution here -

1. Every widget that demands entry by the doctor should have a 'voice to text' converting widget that we see in Google Search or in Whatsapp text boxes. 99% of the doctor's intentions, thoughts, feelings, assessments would be converted instantly into the text entries, and if any corrections are needed here and there, they could be done by the doctors with minimal typing on the key-board.

2. All the schools across the globe should introduce type-writing classes as a part of curriculum in one of the classes during schooling. This skill will definitely helps professionals in their later stages. 

G Sreenivasa Murthy, PMP

9890160655

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:39 AM Nitin Bhide <thinking...@gmail.com> wrote: