I dunno about the "always works" claim. I have nothing to do with health care, per se, but I always tell everyone to factor in a base 1%-5% error rate for basic information and data entry that a human beings end up doing manually...
I imagine the number of errors/deaths/kerfuffles due to the opportunity cost of professional time, not to mention transcription and human errors of such systems are not inconsequential...even if they aren't at the forefront of our minds, and even if some of them haven't been measured accurately.
You are never going to take away the human from this equation. Notes are taken over the course of the day, and many of the proposed systems end up taking more time: nurses do their rounds, use pen and paper to take notes while walking around, and at the end of the shift copy the notes from the paper into the system.
This means that you have basically added another data entry level, increasing both time and error rate.
Well I can't comment on the system/app offered by the author of the OP, but obviously the point of designing a system to fix/improve such operations wouldn't just be adding another level of data entry and subsequently multiply risk, but instead to minimize it.
The goal is not to remove humans from the equation, since that is probably both impossible and undesired, but to separate humans and computers into supporting each other in the task at hand by specialising into what they do best: computers for tasks that can be broken down into repetition, replication, automation, speed, validation, and volume, and humans for creation, ambiguity, complexity, context, service delivery and interpretation.
At the moment i'm guessing there's a fair bit of humans doing the jobs computers are good at in hospitals around the world...
Comments
I dunno about the "always works" claim. I have nothing to do with health care, per se, but I always tell everyone to factor in a base 1%-5% error rate for basic information and data entry that a human beings end up doing manually...
I imagine the number of errors/deaths/kerfuffles due to the opportunity cost of professional time, not to mention transcription and human errors of such systems are not inconsequential...even if they aren't at the forefront of our minds, and even if some of them haven't been measured accurately.
You are never going to take away the human from this equation. Notes are taken over the course of the day, and many of the proposed systems end up taking more time: nurses do their rounds, use pen and paper to take notes while walking around, and at the end of the shift copy the notes from the paper into the system.
This means that you have basically added another data entry level, increasing both time and error rate.
Well I can't comment on the system/app offered by the author of the OP, but obviously the point of designing a system to fix/improve such operations wouldn't just be adding another level of data entry and subsequently multiply risk, but instead to minimize it.
The goal is not to remove humans from the equation, since that is probably both impossible and undesired, but to separate humans and computers into supporting each other in the task at hand by specialising into what they do best: computers for tasks that can be broken down into repetition, replication, automation, speed, validation, and volume, and humans for creation, ambiguity, complexity, context, service delivery and interpretation.
At the moment i'm guessing there's a fair bit of humans doing the jobs computers are good at in hospitals around the world...