A doctor’s review of rounds with an iPad
medcitynews.com
medcitynews.com
However, I'd also be interested in hearing from doctors that might not happen to be "chief information officer and dean for technology" and see how easily and effectively they can use the device.
I also think authentication will need to get lighter and more responsive. I think thumbprint detectors in the margin would be ideal. Pick it up and login. Logout if it sits without input for 2 minutes. If someone else picks it up, immediately log me out and log them in.
Along with authentication, most hospitals use Citrix clients, but not all Citrix servers seem to be configured for various clients. I have never been able to access our Citrix server via iPhone, but the BlackBerry folks can.
As for electronic notes, the "eCare" system at Sentara hospitals here in Virginia is overall faster than the paper notes at the naval hospital, but not as coherent. Designers need to come in, look at hand-written notes, and figure out how to lay that out in electronic notes. Tables upon tables of (value, high/low marker, units, normal range) for all 30 or so elements of a CBC is unnecessary when all I want is
\ 13 /
7.2 ---- 335 84 N / 35 \
and that should fit on two lines, and the BMP should fit next to it, and the calcium-mag-phos should fit next to that, and the LFTs, and the coags . . . it should take all of 2-3 lines on the note, because that way it all stays in your field of view and you can think about it without having to scroll back and forth past gobs of data you're not interested in. Same with radiology: echo the impression, not the whole report. Vitals: always, always, always Tmax, Tcurrent, HR, BP, RR, SpO2, unless you're in a critical care setting, where you want the same order, but with ranges.It's all really fairly straight forward, but someone who knows CSS needs to sit down and figure it out.
Also, our hospital also uses Citrix. It sucks. I cannot think of any reason why this approach would be preferable, from a user's point of view. But then, nobody who buys this stuff actually has to use it, which is the crux of the problem.
There's a third optimization at work, for small size, both for its own sake and as a byproduct of optimizing for writing speed. Less ink tends to be faster.
Tufte frequently mentions the importance of saving ink when drawing charts, going as far as the rule of thumb that if any line can be erased without changing the meaning of the chart, the chart is better after doing so. But of course, it's not really about saving ink itself, it's just that total ink is a good proxy for the presence of distractions that impair clarity (chartjunk).
Similarly, fast-to-write notes like the fishbone also tend to be fast for trained practitioners to read at a glance. Though they may not be exactly what we'd come up with if starting from scratch with reading speed as the sole criterion, they get much closer than the typical lab results report.
Current electronic alternatives tend to be optimized for something else entirely: ease of printing on a fixed-pitch line printer. We can improve readability greatly by broadening the formatting options beyond that, to include options previously only possible with freeform pen and paper.
An ideal layout optimized for readers and free from obsolete constraints (such as writing speed and legacy print engines) would probably abbreviate fewer words compared to handwritten notes, because unusual abbreviations slow down the reader. At the same time, it would get rid of common words that ended up being frequently repeated on computer reports (medjunk). It could include better graphical and formatting cues (selective boldfacing, symbols, sparklines, spatial layouts like fishbones, etc.)
We can also take advantage of handheld devices like the iPad to allow trends and ranges to be brought up by tapping on a result, instead of trying to display everything all at once.
The fishbones won in the wild against all competitors over a long period of time (decades), and in times when the data-ink ratio was at a premium (because it came from a pen, pushed by a doctor's fist). Now ink (computer printing) is cheap, but that is no reason at all to start reducing the data-ink ratio. It is a reason to look even harder at the practices of the past that used ink most efficiently. Mainly because that efficient use of ink almost universally leads to more data in the eye-span, which inherently leads to better thinking.
Maintaining a high data-ink ratio is probably Tufte's greatest explicit contribution to design. One of his great implicit lessons is to look to the past for examples of great use of ink: the more valuable ink was, the smarter it was used it.
And caliber of thought is the primary concern. Always.
Different services use their own shorthand and prefer different levels of detail on reference printouts. An entire Surgery patient census with demographics, labs, meds, and notes is designed to fit on a single page. (Even at 2-3 lines per patient, the print had to be quite small, but surgeons seem to like that.)
I hear that this type of system isn't common, apparently because not many vendors go to the effort. Displaying the fields as they appear in the database also complies with the specification and serves the purpose, just not quite as well.
Onscreen, the web application has fewer space constraints and also supports progressive disclosure. For example, abnormal lab results are highlighted on the printout, but their trends and normal ranges are only available by clicking or hovering over the result. Fitting everything onto a single page also becomes less of an issue because you can always jump from patient to patient via a table of contents, without shuffling paper.
An iPad or high-resolution device like an iPhone 4 could marry some of the best features of paper and screen: portability, navigation, progressive disclosure, and the ability to edit.
PatientKeeper (full disclosure, I'm a cofounder) has been doing this since '01:
http://www.nanzando.com/m-palm/figs/fig10-2.gif
http://www.carrollsearch.com/newsletter/images/mcb0508_pkhh....
and more recently
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/PatientKeeper-Ports-Free...
And if you want to stick to a pen, take a look at what's been done by PK's founder:
or maybe clipboards aren't really that common?
Carry a clipboard with patient names and diagnoses on it, OK, you're pretty much kosher. Carry a tablet which accesses patient names and diagnoses over a wireless connection and you probably just bought six or seven figures in infrastructure and auditing requirements.
HIPAA: Comply Diligently, Or Get Intimate Domain Knowledge About Emergency Room Operation.
This has already been paid. Citrix is already deployed at most hospitals, and doctors routinely access it over wifi and 3g from laptops, the "COWs" the author refers to, and even their home computers. And Citrix has an iPhone client, a Linux client, and a BlackBerry client, all free.
Please, don't even ask that question. It's the wrong question. They are a temporary placeholder until tablets come along. The clipboard metaphor is what you want.
And we never thought thin clients would catch on...
Both the iPhone 4G and the HTC Evo are plays for doctor's money. The larger or more detailed screens of these devices can still fit in coat pockets.
edit: which is not a criticism of the article, merely an observation that it applies to more than one device.
One place mentioned in the article where the iPad wins over netbooks is ease of cleaning, having way fewer crevices than a device with a keyboard. Not an impossible problem, but I imagine it's nice not to have to worry about it.
Netbooks have half the screen and a fraction of the navigation and presentation usability for this particular scenario.
As owner of both types of devices, I'd venture that the on screen keyboard on the iPad is at least as touch-type-able as the miniature netbook keyboards.
Also, Penultimate with its wrist rest detection suggests what domain specific charting software could be like.
THAT doesn't sound HIPAA compliant....
I'd say none.