> I’m not saying it’s a good thing and I’m not saying I’m happy about it.
> Just that it is so,
> So what’s the fuss?
This sort of attitude would make the world never progress. The fuss is a highly trained specialist who is constantly in short supply is spending a quarter of their time doing work not entirely connected with their speciality. In an efficient system there should be a division of labour to another lower paid specialist, a scribe, but medical systems can't afford that for every single doctor, especially tax payer supported ones.
Automating that secondary role for every doctor benefits all of us if it means we give doctors more time.
Not to mention the documentation itself is almost always at least 25% excessive and duplicative, and computers+good UIs help eliminate that.
The scribe adds communication and interpretation overhead, they also can make mistakes, etc., so it's not at all clear it would improve overall outcomes per dollar spent.
> Just that it is so,
> So what’s the fuss?
This sort of attitude would make the world never progress. The fuss is a highly trained specialist who is constantly in short supply is spending a quarter of their time doing work not entirely connected with their speciality. In an efficient system there should be a division of labour to another lower paid specialist, a scribe, but medical systems can't afford that for every single doctor, especially tax payer supported ones.
Automating that secondary role for every doctor benefits all of us if it means we give doctors more time.
Not to mention the documentation itself is almost always at least 25% excessive and duplicative, and computers+good UIs help eliminate that.