Avery interesting article from Fast Company, about the Doctor of the Future. It really should be titled Healthcare of the Future, because it includes everyone working in the system. Electronic health records, robotic surgery, virtual office visits–these applications are available now, but we are lagging far behind.

While this new technology may be expensive to implement, and overcoming resistance to change is a matter all its own, it really will help streamline care, cut costs, and reduce errors. No, I do not believe that technology alone is the cure all, but embracing the aspects of it that we know can work better than what we have now is a start. Why should nurses have to continually try to decipher physician handwriting, for starters? Its a waste of time, and many nurses are either too rushed or too timid or too intimidated to pick up the phone and call the doctor and ask for a translation. This ultimately can lead to a medical error.

But some physicians and surgeons have been quietly rethinking and reinventing medicine for the 21st century. Often collaborating with innovative companies, these pioneers are experimenting with cutting-edge technologies, from software to robots, that have the power to revolutionize the medical landscape — producing better outcomes, lower costs, broader access, and greater convenience. And advances on a far greater scale could emerge from the stimulus package and the $634 billion the Obama administration proposes to invest in health-care reform; the much-discussed expansion of electronic medical records (see Why Electronic Health Records Are Worth the Hype–and the Price) is just the beginning. As these breakthroughs come together, they will change the world for patients, doctors, insurers, regulators — all of us.

The doctor of the future will see you. Now.

Most renditions of healthcare on television are fairly pathetic. Even simple things that could be done correctly, without any added cost or airtime, are messed up. Do the medical advisers who are supposedly advising just not advising, or are the powers that be just not listening? Or both?

A survey from Medpage.com had some interesting results and responses. Nearly all respondents said that prime time medical TV shows have an impact on the doctor-patient relationship, for better or worse.  While they didn’t give a break-down of which were best shows vs. worst shows, they did offer varying comments. It would be interesting to see a large survey from healthcare workers, which gives an actual breakdwon on which shows they think are the worst, the best, the most unrealistic, etc.

But some of the Medpage comments were as follows:

• “Scrubs has the best portrayal of nurses. Also, the only show that gets it right on type 2 diabetes.”
• “As a medical technologist, I am very disappointed that the laboratory is ignored in most medical shows. In real life, most doctors wouldn’t know the first thing about how to crossmatch a unit or do a CBC or lipid profile.”
• “Frazier was the best show with the worst portrayal of psychiatry ever. I once had a patient ask me during an initial eval if I, or anyone else in my practice, did ‘ . . . what Dr. Phil does.’ I think that about says it all.”
• “I think a show like St. Elsewhere gave an inkling of what a city hospital is like as a reality check.”
• “I don’t know who teaches these actors how to play the role of a doctor but they do a horrible job.”

I agree with most of it (haven’t seen Scrubs so can’t comment). But really, most of these shows portray the physician as also being nurse, lab tech, ultrasound tech, radiology tech, housekeeper, and as having all the time in the world to sit and chitchat and solve a life time of issues with the patient.

I really did like St. Elsewhere. Yeah, there was the usual romance and the nasty stereotype big shot doc, but the show was realistic in many ways.  Better than most.