The technological advancements in healthcare over the last couple of decades have proven life-altering for millions of people, but with the good comes the bad. While most would insist that technology has improved the health of so many, and of course it has, it is simultaneously the boon and the bane for the healthcare industry and medical profession. In order to get more insight into how this dynamic plays out, we talked with two students in this field - one currently in the public health sector and the other a recent graduate. Let’s examine.
When discussing how technology integrates with healthcare, there are two categories of approach: medical information technology and biotechnology. Electronic medical records fall into the first, and instruments of treatment and diagnosis fall into the second. EMRs allow medical staff to process confidential medical information across departments and from hospital to hospital, although there are many security concerns relating to fax compliance issues that healthcare organizations must be aware of addressing. EMR technology has progressed so much so that they will play a huge role in the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.
A public health activist and graduate student at Columbia University who wished to remain anonymous revealed in an interview that she believes the use of EMRs will help public health professionals better track and evaluate system usage, disease progression, and best practices for treatment, but the caveat is how EMRs themselves will help with developing best practices for prevention, which is her first priority as a student of public health. In a forward-looking manner, she is suspect of how insurance companies will use electronic medical information to their own advantages, but recognizes how useful EMRs are for insurance and business use.
This dilemma sheds light on the notion that medical students today have the opportunity to leverage technology unlike their forebears. She stated, “Some organizations and health departments have been experimenting with text messaging services to get health information out. For example, some Planned Parenthoods have programs where you can text a question and get a response. Others have weekly ‘text’ blasts with health info. I think these need to be perfected, but have the potential to be really great.”
The development of mobile technology for the health industry is certainly not to be overlooked, as she says, but with this generational opportunity to leverage technology in healthcare comes challenges presented on the application side, or the treatment side. The quandary now presented to students of medicine is one of adjusting to an industry whose tried-and-true practices are thrown into question with the advancements of technology.
Robert Storck, a recent graduate of Washington College with a degree in Neurology and a current EMT in Wilton, CT described how the role of technology in medicine has some pitfalls. One relates to the growing need for students of medicine to become specialized in a technology in a chosen field. “This is really a criticism of the entire medical field, but in the course of undergraduate study, those who are expected to go into the medical field are expected to specialize. Most medical students, when they apply to medical school already have the field that they would like to work in picked out. Medical schools try to curb this by having all students do rotations in different wards, yet most students do not change their minds. Specialization occurs because technology has become so vast in many fields that unless you are trained in one specific area you will not be able to make the correct recommendation to a patient,” he said.
But in a long-term perspective, patients and doctors look to technology as the answer for all ailments, as opposed to relying on the doctor’s judgment. (This tendency also leads to less preventative care as that section of the industry has yet to be automated.) The trust in the actual health professional is devalued when diagnosis can simply be made through an automated test.
“In undergraduate courses you are taught that there are new machines that can tell you what to do or what is wrong with a person (for example, Watson from IBM was originally designed for the purpose - plug in symptoms, get a diagnosis),” continued Storck. “If students in medical school went back and learned the basics of diagnosing, they would be better off. Costs would be cut because there would be fewer wasted tests, diagnosis would be faster, and patients would be safer since they would not be exposed to teratogens such as radiation.”
Yet, it is undeniable how the progression of health-related technologies, whether inside the hospital, insurance office, ambulance or nursing station has made the communication of those working in the field more streamlined.
But perhaps this paradox is simply one of how our culture integrates technology into most things. It behooves us, but it sets us behind in some ways. No one would forsake the progress the modern medical world has made with the advancement of health-related technologies. (Storck acquiesced that the two naturally advance together, but ironically the ‘old world’ blood-letting is still a treatment for hemocretosis.) Perhaps our ultimate concern should be to stay cognizant of how much we rely on technology to address prevention and care-giving, even if it means returning to the drawing board every once in a while.
Edited by
Rachel Ramsey
