Si encara hi ha algú que té un dubte sobre perquè costa introduir la història clínica informatitzada, ha de llegir aquest article de Social Science and Medicine. L'argument és clar:
The EMR is powerful, this paper argues, not only because of its technical efficiency but also because of its ideological effects, as it changes doctors’ relationship to medical knowledge in such a way that doctors’ understandings of their professional roles become consistent with their subordination to bureaucratic authority.Es tracta d'un treball qualitatiu suggerent i alhora pot generar controvèrsia. L'autor s'en va anar a una Accountable Care Organization, CalcuCare, va entrevistar metges i va veure què passava amb la història clínica. Per exemple, a l'article explica l'impacte en els protocols-GPC:
While protocols have been an integral part of medical practice for decades (see Berg, 1997), the EMR enhanced their effects in at least three ways. First, protocols were structured into physicians’ interaction with the EMR systemdfor example, once a doctor diagnosed a patient with a certain condition, a particular set of orders was generated automatically (under most circumstances the physician could change the orders, but only after consciously rejecting the protocol). Second, the EMR system allowed physician administrators to easily see which doctors were deviating from the protocols most often. Finally, since the EMR allowed for systemwide comparisons of physician practice and patient outcomes, it was able to combine medical treatment with real-time research in ways that facilitated the ongoing development of new protocols and evaluation of existing ones.I cap al final diu:
Doctors may continue to feel in control of their profession as professionalism itself becomes more technocratic. Light (2010) discusses this as a transition toward a “new professionalism” based on accountability and value.Reflexió interessant a tenir en compte.
Wordle del proper article
