The following story asks the question, should you pick your
doctor by the measure of their computer literacy or usage?
 
On the parkinsn list, several doctors, researchers and their
surrogates lurk in our midst. Please send a copy of your thoughts
to the author: [log in to unmask] as well as the list.
 
Picking a doctor? Look at his computer
 
Copyright 1996 Nando.net
 
(Jan 3, 1996 7:10 p.m. EST) -- Patients often look for ways
to judge whether their personal physician, dentist or other
health care provider keeps up to date with new scientific
developments.
 
Is this woman, this man, with it? Is she ready to apply new
research findings in her practice? Is his inquisitive,
questioning, nature attuned to 1996 technology?
 
Everybody wants a physician whose scientific life is alive
and vital and hasn't withered since medical school or
residency. Doctors must keep learning and embrace new ways
of staying in touch with the blistering pace of medical
advancements.
 
Evidence, however, suggests that physicians are slow to adopt
new research findings and recommendations of expert panels.
Patients sometimes don't benefit immediately from new
medications, new diagnostic tests, new ways of preventing
disease.
 
Grading your doctor's scientific life and continuing education
is difficult. Sure, many medical professionals must complete
formal continuing education courses to keep practicing. But
you want a physician who goes beyond the minimum formalities.
 
Here is one possible indicator of whether your doctor is with-it,
scientifically and technologically:
 
Check out the doctor's desk for a personal computer terminal,
a machine the doctor uses to tap medical information available
on CD-ROMs, the Internet and electronic data banks.
 
Wait a minute, readers! Don't turn the page. I'm not going to
drown you in the technical jargon that turns-off so many
computer novices. I know the jargon and niceties like the
difference between CISC and RISC microprocessor architecture.
Yet I hate it when people use computer jargon like
aristocrats once salted their conversation with French to
flaunt their supposed intellectual superiority.
 
Many people who jabber about "surfing the net" purposefully
make computers seem difficult to enhance their own importance.
The jargon intimidates people, and discourages people from using
machines that fundamentally simple.
 
For medical people, the Internet and other new approaches to
finding information are a new gateway to scientific knowledge.
 
A friend at a university medical center may overstate the case
for a computer on every doctor's desk. She argues that the
physician who is not computer-literate today is like the frontier
doctors of 200 years ago who were illiterate. Yes, like the
doctors who thought it wasn't necessary to know how to read.
 
Are computers any use to physicians in the everyday practice of
medicine? Can a computer-literate doctor use data from the
Internet, the global computer network, to provide better care
for you and your family?
 
To medical school physicians who practice in university medical
centers -- and pride themselves on being at the forefront of
medicine -- computers are a mainstay. They've long been a basic
research and communication tool.
 
But computers, and computer-literate physicians, are less common
in office-based medicine where most Americans get day-to-day-care.
 
A computer-literate physician can search all the articles published
in more than 4,000 medical journals during the last decade for
help diagnosing and treating a patient. He or she can do it in
minutes, from any desktop computer, for a few cents.
 
I'm holding a single CD-ROM -- a shiny plastic disc like those
used for music. It contains the complete text of every article
published for an entire year in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, the Archives of Internal Medicine, the Archives of
Family Medicine, the Archives of Surgery, the Archives of
Neurology and several other medical journals.
 
With a few keystrokes or clicks of a mouse you can search
thousands of pages of text for the latest information about
hundreds of diseases.
 
It could be handy if a doctor wanted to check his recollection
of an article describing the best treatment for your disease.
The disc costs $9.95.
 
Scores of other journals, textbooks, guides to drug dosages and
effects, and other information are available on CD-ROMs.
 
Is a computer-literate doctor a better doctor? Why don't more
physicians know how to use electronic information resources?
I'll watch my E-mail ([log in to unmask]) for comments.