Just when you think you’ve gotten over the never-ending promises from politicians wanting your vote, the Victorians are getting ready to head to the polls at the end of this month. As part of their proposed health policy, the Brumby government is promising a $1.5 billion health package, which – according to The Age – includes “iPads for every doctor working in a public hospital”.
While there’s little debate about the cost effectiveness of an iPad over a ruggedised tablet from the likes of Panasonic, there are also a few issues with using an iPad in a hospital environment. For a start, they’re hardly designed for the rough and tumble of a working hospital, and there’s the issue of keeping them sterile.
But then again – free iPads!
[The Age]
Kim Zhou
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 4:44 PMkeeping them sterile? thats a non issue. nothing besides sterile fields need to be sterile in a hospital. to be in a sterile field you need to be sterile. if you’re sterile you dont want to be using a tablet anyway
Other
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 8:49 PMNot quite. What they mean is clean, not necessarily sterile – hospitals are places where diseases spread very quickly, often by doctor-patient contact (hence all the hand gels and washing stations you see). If the ipad is always with the doctor, the doctor needs to keep it clean or risk spreading diseases.
Daniel Timmons
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 12:02 AMIn theory yeah sure.. In actual practice, just about every doctor I see walks straight on into rooms where staff are supposed to have additional precautions for infection control without gowns and gloves. Bringing the patients notes in and all. The introduction of an Ipad to these situations where its already happening with the doctors own stethoscopes and pens etc is not going to make a difference..
Not that I support doctors getting these at all, its just plain stupid. If they want one they can buy it themselves like the rest of us!
Ben
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 11:07 AMI’m a doctor.This plan is ridiculous in the extreme.
If they are going to spend money on health, please put it somewhere needed. I agree with the above comment – if we want one, we’ll get one ourselves.
Davey David von Davidson
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 5:22 PMSo the Victorian government is vote-mongering by handing out perks to a generally more affluent socioeconomic demographic?
Makes complete sense.
Water Bear
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 5:46 PMHas this been researched in any meaningful way? I bet it was heard that they could be used in medicine, with no follow up on systems or applications to allow any real use of the devices in an appropriate application.
They’ll just end up being used to play angry birds at tea time.
Seems ill-concieved to me.
poedgirl
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 6:09 PMI’m sure they could get cases for them which will allow them to survive the hospital environment. It’s not like there’s any moving parts in them so they just need to protect the exterior.
matt
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 6:43 PMgreat…
why?
Stuart
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 7:00 PMMy hospital is full of computers. Trouble is, medical software is utterly crap, uber expensive, and the civil libertarians are going to go nuts about the idea of portable portals being left around for anyone to grab and read about Jo Bloggs’ medical history. Plus the junkies are going to steal and sell them for drugs.
Cameron
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 8:31 PMWith all the problems with the health system, you know like 200,000 in waiting lists and all, you think there are a few more pressing problems then if Doctors have iPads?????
There are some things that go in the need to have category, like Doctors, Nurses, Beds, Medicine, and then there are things that go in the nice to have, like 1 bed per room, specialist surgeons at each hospital, specialist wards, then there are things that are so far into the nice to have category that they shouldn’t even be thought of until the government is given a f’ing Nobel prize for their work in setting up a hospital system. iPads would probably fall into the later category right now.
KerFern Tan
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 8:52 PMyea agreed. sounds like kim works in the hospital like i do.
Other thing to think about is they have to wifi everything up for connectivity. and i dun see that happening very soon.
Steve
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 10:07 PMMedical intern chiming in…
-Durability: Paper and binders with plastic cases are tough and cheap. It’s not a $600+ device that will potentially break if you drop it, or be stolen if you leave it around.
-Upgrades: iPads, as with any gadget will always be rendered less relevant with every passing product cycle. Paper is timeless and a folder has endless upgradeability with additional information, pages and stats.
-Idiot-proof: Anyone can flip open a folder and see everything they need. There is no requirement for training courses. And considering a huge percentage of nurses and hospital staff are 50+, it’ll be hard teaching old dogs new tricks.
Medical documentation is legally-binding which is why it is signed off every time to identify and hold accountable any malpractice. Does an iPad have this? There is also the chance of error through inexperience, which may have fatal consequences.
-Cost. Paper, folders, ink etc is dirt-cheap in bulk and is practically disposable. iPads are not.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against a ‘digital work space’ and highly support an inter-connected medical system but using iPads in hospitals is just impractical and ridiculous. It just sounds gimmicky as hell, cashing into the newest vogue gadget to prove how relevant and in-touch your institution is.
Why the Victorian government thinks buying thousands of iPads at several hundred dollars a pop instead of the tried-and-true system in place, is beyond me. I’d rather put that money into getting some more beds. Or upgrading the imaging equipment. Or training more doctors. Or making the state more attractive to outside talent. Or research. Or the millions of other, more worthy causes that need money.
Francis Mullane
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 11:11 PMmmm giant waste of money.
Only apps can run on the ipad so aside from some generic anatomy apps ( e.g. show a heart spinning) for doctor show and tell the vast majority of Medical Software Applications won’t run on it. Web interfaces might but they tend to be cut down versions of the equivalent thick client application ( right click anyone…).
Also if you factor in that it doesn’t meet the display minimum requirements for diagnostic use of Medical Imaging (it’s below minimum spec for CR and Mammo) exactly what use is this device again ?
Charles
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 12:04 AMI think we can all wholeheartedly say that this is probably the stupidest idea. I mean… if it’s a vote grabbing scheme I don’t see how it would work.
horatio
Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 2:28 PMI’m a Liberal voter, but this one has won me over
I thinks it’s a great idea.
and it will certainly reduce waiting lists
open up more beds
and allow more reliable diagnosis and better patient management.
The doctors will now have better access to the patient and their history and fast-track any unforeseen emergency.
And when not used as a diagnostic aide, by the doctor
the patient can use them to play music and watch movies.
Steve
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 2:46 PMSorry, this is incredibly naive. All of the things you described are not going to be improved by introducing the iPad in any way, and are already being fulfilled quite adequately with current systems.
iPads aren’t going to free up waiting lists and beds. The lack of beds is just that… A lack of beds and physical equipment, it’s not a clerical problem. Unless the iPad can can grant you 3 wishes: all of them beds, this is not going to improve the situation one iota. It’s just going to be a waste of taxpayer’s money for a device with 0 institutional support and rendered less relevant with the next iteration.
As you don’t seem to be speaking from the field. I guarantee these iPads will not be used by patients. Another gullible voter it seems.