Are tech-cautious doctors a "travesty"?

From CNET's blog:

The medical industry has long been considered a major frontier for information technology growth, a notion reinforced by Intel this week with an array of prototypes for physicians, nurses and administrators. So promising is the business that even foreign companies are moving into the arena, recognizing the logical win-win synergy between what medical professionals need and what computers can provide.

But one thing needs to happen before this technology fulfills its potential: Doctors have to use it--something that, historically, has proven much easier said than done. For some reason, despite all the obvious benefits, many physicians have shown reluctance--sometimes even phobia--toward PCs and PDAs, even though they regularly use some of the world's most sophisticated technological equipment in treating their patients.

And until they get over it, we may all lose out.

Link: The travesty of techno-phobic doctors | News.blog | CNET News.com.

Why are medical practitioners cautious about new technologies?  Um, perhaps it's because people's lives are at stake?  Indeed they do use some of the "world's most sophisticated technological equipment" -- but not before it's been proven safe and effective.  In few other professions is it so crucial to analyze the risks before adopting new techniques.  It shouldn't be any other way.

Comments

[Mark Sicignano]

So any doctor that chooses not to jump on the latest fad that's marketed to them by the tech industry is labeled as reluctant or phobic?

Via a halo effect, most people believe that computers and the latest technology will benefit everybody, everywhere, all the time. They ignore the downsides.

Mr. Yamamoto believes that doctors are ignoring the "obvious benefits". Maybe the doctors see the benefits afterall, but they also see some of the less obvious pitfalls that Mr. Yamamoto isn't seeing.

Would a tablet PC result in less attention paid to the patient and more to navigating through the screens? Is the hardware and software reliable and usable enough for prime-time? Could the time that doctors and others in the office will need to spend on learning and using this technology be better spent on other things that improve the quality of care?