Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:03:49.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The Cure Is in Hand”? The Brave New World of Handheld Computers in Medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

KENNETH DE VILLE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to a 2001 market report, titled “The Cure Is in Hand,” handheld computers, or personal digital assistants (PDAs), will “dramatically change the way that physicians practice medicine.” Such enthusiasm has resulted in an extraordinarily rapid diffusion of PDAs into a wide range of clinical settings. One report states that 47% of internists use PDAs once a day with rates of daily usage reaching 70% for resident physicians. Another study found clinical usage as high as 85% in teaching hospitals. The rapidly expanding employment of PDAs, however, has been uneven. Some clinicians have explored the devices’ benefits more thoroughly than their colleagues. Similarly, a number of potentially valuable uses of the handheld computer have been ignored or remain insufficiently developed by the medical community and the health delivery system at large.

Type
Special Section: The Newest Frontier: Ethical Landscapes in Electronic Healthcare
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 385 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fisher J, Wang R. The Cure Is in Hand (market report from WR Hambrecht + Co.), Oct. 2000:4. Available at http://www.medicalwindows.com/research/TheCure.pdf (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

2 Parekh S, McKay SP, Nace S. MD Net Guide: Physician's Forum; available at http://www.mdnetguide.com/departments/may_june2003/pfourm.htm (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

3 Dee CR, Teolis M, Todd AD. Physicians’ use of the personal digital assistant (PDA) in clinical decision making. Journal of Medical Library Association 2005;93(4):480–6.

4 Miller RA, Schaffner KF, Meisel A. Ethical and legal issues related to the use of computer programs in clinical medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 1985;102:529–37.

5 De Ville KA. The ethical and legal implications of handheld medical computers. The Journal of Legal Medicine 2001;22:447–66.

6 Rosoff AJ. Symposium: On being a physician in the electronic age: Peering into the mists at point-&-click medicine. Saint Louis University Law Journal 2002;46:111–48 at 121.

7 De Ville KA. Medical malpractice in twentieth century U.S.: The interaction of technology, law and culture. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998;14(2):97–211.

8 Feature: Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, available at http:www.pdaMD.com/features/cs/nmpeprise.xml (accessed 27 Apr 2006).

9 See note 1, Fisher, Wang 2000:32–3, 43–5.

10 Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Lewontin JP. Administrative costs in U.S. hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;329(6):400–3.

11 Chesanow N. Colleagues rate the leading software. Medical Economics 2000;77:105–8, 113–4, 117–9.

12 Reiser SJ. Medicine and the Reign of Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1978:204–5.

13 Goodman K. Bioethics and health informatics. In: Goodman K. ed. Informatics, Ethics Computing, and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998:2.

14 Jeansonne H. Feature—In my opinion: ePocrates qRx 4.0, available at http://www.pdamd.com/features/epocratesopinion.xml (accessed 27 Apr 2006).

15 Institute of Medicine. To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2000:9, 40.

16 Duke University to provide ePocrates handheld medical software to affiliated physicians, available at http://image.epocrates.com/headlines/story/10063.html (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

17 Handheld guide aids in appropriate antibiotic treatment selection; 7 Feb 2001, available at http://www.ePocrates.com/headlines/story.cfm?story+10063 (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

18 Hamblen M. Handhelds can help catch medical errors. Computerworld; 24 Apr 2000, available at http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/manufacturing/story/0,10801,44530,00.html (accessed 25 Apr 2006).

19 See note 11, Chesanow 2000:105–8.

20 Goldblum OM. Electronic prescribing: Criteria for evaluating handheld prescribing systems and an evaluation of a new, handheld, wireless wide area network (WWAN) prescribing system. Dermatology Online 2000;7:1, available at http://dermatology.cdlib.org/DOJvol7num1/media_review/ephysician/goldblum.html (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

21 Institute for Safe Medication. A call to action: Eliminate handwritten prescriptions within three years! Available at http://www.ismp.org/msaarticles/whitepaper1.html (accessed 27 Apr 2006).

22 See note 21, Institute for Safe Medication 2006; Cited in Sokol AJ, Molzen CJ. The changing standard of care in medicine: E-health, medical errors, and technology add new obstacles. Journal of Legal Medicine 2002;23:449–90 at 468.

23 See note 22, Sokol, Molzen 2002:461.

24 See note 21, Institute for Safe Medication 2006.

25 Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998;280:1311.

26 Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Orme JF Jr, et al. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other anti-infective agents. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;338:232–8.

27 Samore MH, Bateman K, Alder SC, Hannah E, Donnelly S, Stoddard GJ, et al. Clinical decision support and appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing: A randomized trial. JAMA 2005;294(18):2305–14.

28 See note 22, Sokol, Malzen 2002:467.

29 See note 21, Institute for Safe Medication 2006.

30 See note 2, Parekh et al. 2000.

31 Ebel MH, Gaspar DL, Khurana S. Family physicians’ preferences for computerized decision-support hardware and software. Journal of Family Practice 1997;45:137–41.

32 See note 11, Chesanow 2000:105, 122.

33 Roth AC, Leon MA, Milner SM, Herting RL Jr, Hahn AW. A personal digital assistant for determination of fluid needs for burn patients. Biomedical Science Instrumentation 1997;34:186–90.

34 Mitchell M. Handhelds help with heart attacks at hospital. CNN; 3 Sep 1999, available at http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/hospital.idg/index.html (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

35 Campbell R, Ash J. An evaluation of five bedside information products using a user-centered, task-oriented approach. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(4):435–41.

36 Cowley G, Underwood A. Finding the right Rx. Newsweek 1999;134:66–8.

37 Yu VL. Conceptual obstacles in computerized medical diagnosis. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1983;8:67–75.

38 Miller RA. Why the standard view is standard: People, not machines, understand patients’ problems. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1990;15:581–91 at 584.

39 See note 38, Miller 1990:584.

40 See note 37, Yu 1983:73; see note 5, De Ville 2001:457–60.

41 Miller RA, Goodman KW. Ethical challenges in the use of decision-support software in clinical practice. In: Goodman K, ed. Ethics, Computing and Medicine. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998:102.

42 Whitbeck C, Brooks R. Criteria for evaluating a computer aid to clinical reasoning. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1983;8:51–65.

43 See note 38, Miller 1990:582.

44 Thompson J. 5 Minute Clinical Consultant, available at http://www.pdamd.com/reviews/review-6.xml (accessed 30 Apr 2006).

45 See note 44, Thompson 2006.

46 Crelinsten GL. The intern's palmomental reflex. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350(10):1059.

47 See note 42, Miller, Goodman 1998:110.

48 Douthwaite G. Jury Instructions on Medical Issues, 4th ed. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Co.; 1992:121.

49 See note 6, Rosoff 2002:126–7.

50 See note 6, Rosoff 2002:128.

51 Green M. On determining negligence in computer error and injury: Technical analysis. ERGO/GERO: Human Factors Science. Available at http://expertpages.com/news/computer_error.htm (accessed 27 Apr 2006).

52 See note 4, Miller et al. 1985:529.

53 See note 22, Sokol, Molzen 2002:471.

54 Helling v. Carey (1974). 519 P.2d 981 (Wash. 1974).

55 Curran WJ. The unwanted suitor: Law and the use of health care technology. In: Reiser SJ, Anbar M, eds. The Machine at the Bedside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:119–34.

56 Kacmar DE. The impact of computerized medical literature databases on medical malpractice litigation: Time for another Helling v. Carey wake-up call? Ohio State Law Journal 1997;58:617–54.

57 Silver T. One hundred years of harmful error: The historical jurisprudence of medical malpractice. Wisconsin Law Review 1992:July;1193–274.

58 Rich BA. Medical custom and medical ethics: Rethinking the standard of care. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2005;14,27–39.

59 Toth v. Community Hospital at Glen Cove, 239 N.E.2d 368, 373 (N.Y. 1968). Quoted in Rich; see note 58, Rich 2005:30.

60 Toth v. Community Hospital at Glen Cove, 239 N.E.2d 368, 373 (N.Y. 1968). Quoted in Rich; see note 58, Rich 2005:30.

61 United Blood Services v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 525–6 (Colo. 1992). Quoted in Rich; see note 58, Rich 2005:32–3.

62 Nowatske v. Osterloh, 543 N.W. 2d 265, 271–72 (Wisc. 1996). Quoted in Rich; see note 58, Rich 2005:32–3.

63 Peters PG Jr. The quiet demise of deference to medical custom: Medical malpractice law at the millennium. Washington & Lee Law Review 2000;57:163–205.

64 See note 56, Kacmar 1997:629.

65 See note 22, Sokol, Molzen 2002:478–9.

66 Scarpelli S, Petras DD. Computers, medical malpractice and the ghost of T.J. Hooper. Rutgers Journal of Computers Technology and Law 15 (1975) cited in Sokol and Molzen, see note 23, Sokol, Molzen 2002:480–3.