-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Calle Hedberg wrote: | | | That's VERY interesting - I have heard about this before, but I have not | seen any of the actual studies/papers showing 20-30% loss of efficiency. | (It's largely in line with my personal observations, and it largely | explain why EHRs in resource poor settings usually are utter failures - | you just don't have the 20-30% extra time if you are seeing 60-70 | patients per day to begin with). | | Can you provide any direct references (or even better URLs) to such | studies? | I don't have any URL's or references either. I want to comment that it's just not resource poor settings where this efficiency hit leads to failure, it's also true here in the US. That's because the pressure to reduce the average visit time per patient with the physician is an extremely powerful economic force in workflow re-design.
I was the introducer at the TEPR 98 session on cost justification. There was only one presentation that addressed the issue of time spent per patient, that was by Dr. Wenner. He made an assertion then about the increased time/cost of EHR's and I challenged where the evidence was. Much to my suprise, the clinical head of a large healthcare software vendor, standing in the back of the room (we were SRO), came to Dr. Wenner's defense, saying that it was the case.
Dr. Wenner sells a bit of software called Instant Medical History, used in primary care settings that have patients do a pre-interview on computer, the synopised results of which are available during the physician/patient encounter.
This is yet another area where evidence seems lacking and marketing seems predominant. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBYWwCY+HG7UEwVGERAmG5AJ9tpyxjvPauN063Q1fe5P0zsEYp9gCdFaXG 5MFWXf+m4dZllhcfhQZL5M0= =GHE/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
