One of the few times a thin client with a virtual desktop (like Citrix and such) is actually useful, as you can keep working after moving.
However for doctors there may be another option aside from VDI, which is RDS or similar where a single Windows Server instance handles multiple remote desktops. Sort of like multiple users using SSH to connect into a shared Linux server. Unlike devs they can rely on a fixed image and don't need to make global changes, making a shared instance viable. This would allow the users to make better use of the compute resources on the server.
You are underestimating the abilities of “efficiencies”-driven I.T. management.
A common selling point of Citrix and similar solutions to the CEO is that by centralizing and sharing resources (CPU, RAM, etc.), we can save money on redundant, unused capacity - on most user workstations, the process which clocks the most CPU time is 'Idle', after all!
You can guess the rest of that story.
The top issues with VDI are memory availability and profile management. As CPU improvements stopped, apps are memory hogs. With a modern Microsoft stack, even basic users run Outlook, Teams and Chrome. Outlook is usually caching too much, so your virtual desktop with OST stored on a shitty NAS somewhere is essentially a really really awful single user Exchange server.
What is that in response to? You're saying VDI isn't slow and underresourced for many people? Perhaps that's not your experience, but does that mean it's not the experience of others? Are you saying that VDIs aren't sold that way to CEOs? I've seen it and the underresourced results multiple times.
As a bonus, you get to interact with a slow, remote desktop all day.
Or the real kicker - the hardware gets over provisioned because the incentive is to cut costs. You try to log in, get on a bum vm, then have to log out and try again and hope to get a good vm.
Makes for a very productive workforce.