A superb, well-researched, and I believe watershed position paper in JAMIA was just published that I will write more about in a future post due to current time limitations (I have an elderly health IT-injured mother to tend to). However I did want to make readers aware of the paper.
The paper nukes the health IT industry myths, memes and cavalier business practices that I find so disappointing.
The article organizes many of the themes around HIT myths, irrational exuberances and marketing memes into one coherent position paper (unfortunately, free fulltext is not yet available online that I can locate, but if you can obtain the article, it is a must-read):
The article presents a series of HIT 'fallacies' akin to the logical fallacies lists often referenced at this blog including:
I will write more about the paper in a future posting. However, readers of this blog, where I've covered these issues, can probably ascertain the meanings of these fallacies regarding health IT without further explanation.
If you have access to JAMIA via a library, I recommend downloading the article and reading it.
The paper nukes the health IT industry myths, memes and cavalier business practices that I find so disappointing.
The article organizes many of the themes around HIT myths, irrational exuberances and marketing memes into one coherent position paper (unfortunately, free fulltext is not yet available online that I can locate, but if you can obtain the article, it is a must-read):
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Nov 1;17(6):617-23.
Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities (link)
Karsh BT, Weinger MB, Abbott PA, Wears RL.
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
Current research suggests that the rate of adoption of health information technology (HIT) is low, and that HIT may not have the touted beneficial effects on quality of care or costs. The twin issues of the failure of HIT adoption and of HIT efficacy stem primarily from a series of fallacies about HIT. [Not discussed are the origins and maintenance vectors of those fallacies, a topic for significant research itself - ed.] We discuss 12 HIT fallacies and their implications for design and implementation. These fallacies must be understood and addressed for HIT to yield better results. Foundational cognitive and human factors engineering research and development are essential to better inform HIT development, deployment, and use.
PMID: 20962121 [PubMed - in process]
The article presents a series of HIT 'fallacies' akin to the logical fallacies lists often referenced at this blog including:
THE ‘RISK FREE HIT’ FALLACY
THE ‘HIT IS NOT A DEVICE’ FALLACY
THE ‘LEARNED INTERMEDIARY’ FALLACY
THE ‘BAD APPLE’ FALLACY'
THE ‘USE EQUALS SUCCESS’ FALLACY
THE ‘MESSY DESK’ FALLACY (i.e., the fallacy that medicine is neat and linear)
THE ‘FATHER KNOWS BEST’ FALLACY
THE ‘FIELD OF DREAMS’ FALLACY
THE ‘ONE SIZE FITS ALL’ FALLACY
THE ‘WE COMPUTERIZED THE PAPER, SO WE CAN GO PAPERLESS’ FALLACY
I will write more about the paper in a future posting. However, readers of this blog, where I've covered these issues, can probably ascertain the meanings of these fallacies regarding health IT without further explanation.
If you have access to JAMIA via a library, I recommend downloading the article and reading it.
What will be interesting is the healthcare IT industry and government response, and the response of those with financial interests in pushing for rapid HIT diffusion along HITECH timelines (the 'Bullet train out of the station with only a quarter mile of track' fallacy...)
-- SS
