The First State's Deadest (Deadliest?) Duck - Is This ED EHR Harming or Killing Anyone in NSW?

Nobody seems to be asking this simple question:

Is This ED EHR harming or killing anyone in NSW?

It cannot be "not compromising patient care" on first principles.

This type of practical and ethical question seems to never get asked, while what appears to be a tit-for-tat political kerfuffle goes on.

This is due in part to the baffling special accommodations afforded worldwide towards an extremely profitable but potentially extremely dangerous medical device, as well as due to the issues I described in my post about reckless technophilia and the accompanying disregard for rights of others here.

The Register

NSW government accused of dodgy software cover-up

FirstNet: the First State's deadest duck [or "deadliest duck?" - ed.]

By Richard Chirgwin

Posted in Business, 12th February 2012 22:00 GMT

The buggy FirstNet emergency department software has become the subject of a political argument in NSW. [What about a clinical and ethical argument? - ed.]

In one of those paradoxes of democracy, an opposition which, in government, was responsible for a now-despised implementation is now using the IT project as a stick to beat a government which was in opposition when the system was chosen.

Last week, the Sydney Morning Herald obtained a report into the system by Deloitte, under a freedom of information request. It says [1] the Deloitte report criticises FirstNet because it is:

- Is chronically under-funded;

- Produces inadequate records;

- Was unreliable in delivering messages, and did not provide alerts when messages failed to reach their destination; and

- Demanded excessive amounts of screen time from clinicians.

[But is it harming or killing anyone? Are those statistics being collected robustly and scientifically, or are self-serving statements by hospital executives that "care was never compromised, and nobody was injured" simply being taken at face value?

Further, the obvious increased risk of harm due to deficient IT currently in operation is being cavalierly ignored. This is alien to medicine, and could cause career termination or land people in jail in fields such as aviation if planes with known potentially-dangerous avionics software or other defects are kept flying - ed.]

In spite of its inadequacies, the Deloitte report seen by the SMH said the $AU100-plus million Cerner FirstNet system is too entrenched to abandon.

[I'm quite sure dead or injured patents would not appreciate that explanation - ed.]

Over the weekend, opposition health spokesperson Dr Andrew McDonald issued a statement accusing NSW health minister Jillian Skinner of covering up the report since August 2011.

However, other published studies into FirstNet, such as a detailed investigation by Sydney University e-health expert Professor Jon Patrick here [2], identify problems similar to those apparently cited by Deloitte. This study was undertaken to investigate issues with FirstNet outlined in November 2008 in a special commission of review, conducted by Peter Garling,

While noting that FirstNet represented an improvement on some aspects of its predecessor, Garling said the system attracted complaints that it was unfriendly to users, that the vendor and Health Department did not respond to complaints about the software, and that emergency department patients were being held in triage for excessive times, while clinical staff fought with the software.

[What sane patient would want such a system used in their care? - ed.]

Deloitte, on the other hand, was far less critical of FirstNet in 2008, when in a review [3] of triage benchmarks it managed to turn up a downtime issue, difficulty in uploading triage data to the Health Department, and the identification of the wrong doctor or nurse with a patient’s records.

Links

1. http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/hospital-computer-system-found-lacking-20120210-1so7j.html
2. http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/it/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146
3. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/resources/news/pdf/triage-bench-rev.pdf

Stunning.

On the argument that "the older system was worse", or the corollary argument that "paper harms and kills too", I suggest anyone who proffers that argument should realize VIOXX (refoxicib) helped far more people than it harmed in reducing pain while sparing them from GI side effects compared to "older" drugs.

Over 84 million people were prescribed rofecoxib at some time and only mere thousands, or tens of thousands, are presumed to have been injured or died.

Therefore, following their own illogic and ethical (dis)orientation, they should put all their family members on the drug - especially the elderly with cardiovascular disease - to benefit from pain relief and VIOXX's other miraculous effect, suppression of colonic polyps.

Surely those benefits outweigh the risks, and therefore it is ethical to do so, no?

Of course not.

Health IT, as I've written in many posts on this blog, has a magnitude of harms that is admittedly unknown. Health IT needs significant further study and improvement, certainly before national rollouts, and before decisions are made that particular systems are "too entrenched to abandon."

-- SS

Health IT Ddulites and Disregard for the Rights of Others

At my Feb. 8, 2012 post "Health IT: Ddulites and Irrational Exuberance " I defined a "Ddulite" (Luddite with the first four characters reversed) as the opposite of a Luddite, specifically:

Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

An astute reader points out that "opposite" may be an incomplete description, as the Luddites:

"were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest."

In other words, they were merely trying to save their jobs, and their actions did not cause life-threatening adverse events, such as death by freezing due to lack of warm garments.

Ddulites, on the other hand, ignore the downsides (patient harms) of health IT.

This is despite being already aware of, or informed of patient harms, even by reputable sources such as FDA (Internal FDA memo on H-IT risks), The Joint Commission (Sentinel Events Alert on health IT), the NHS (Examples of potential harm presented by health software - Annex A starting at p. 38), and the ECRI Institute (Top ten healthcare technology risks), to name just a few.

In fact, the hyper-enthusiastic health IT technophiles will go out of their way to incorrectly dismiss risk management-valuable case reports as "anecdotes" not worthy of consideration (see "Anecdotes and medicine" essay at this link).

They will also make unsubstantiated, often hysterical-sounding claims that health IT systems are necessary to, or simply will "transform" (into what, exactly, is usually left a mystery) or even "revolutionize" medicine (whatever that means).

This is despite the fact that many of this mindset are medical and/or Medical Informatics professionals who know better. They also ignore the draining waste of resources of failed or ineffectual IT ("bad health IT"), potentially depriving patients of the best healthcare possible.

Thus, as the reader pointed out, there could be an element of psychopathy or, at best, reckless disregard for rights of others in their thinking.

Reckless disregard: An act of proceeding to do something with a conscious awareness of danger, while ignoring any potential consequences of so doing. Reckless disregard, while not necessarily suggesting an intent to cause harm, is a harsher condition than ordinary negligence.

In my opinion, at a time of mass funding and pressure for rapid rollout of health IT in its present state of experimental development, this is not an observation that should be casually dismissed.

-- SS