Tech is supposed to help us do what we do better, not define how we do what we do.
I watch over and over how tech design defines clinical processes, instead of clinical or system processes defining tech design.
When I was at San Quentin, the entire intake process for Reception changed overnight with a new Electronic Medical Record. The entire scheduling system for new arrival intakes changed overnight, too.
How I wrote, processed, conducted clinical assessment, evaluation, and treatment, and then documented my work changed according to how the Electronic Medical Record was designed.
Maybe some of this change ended up having a positive impact.
There’s no doubt that re-engineering the systems for ensuring timely and quality clinical assessment, evaluation, and treatment in public institutions could benefit from examination.
Clinical processes and systems shouldn’t be driven by technology that is designed and created by people who have no therapeutic clinical domain expertise. But it is.
It’s backwards. The cart (tech) is driving the horse (clinical processes), not the horse pulling the cart.
As clinicians who care about the human collateral damage potential caused by poor tech design, we have to find ways to bridge the divide between tech and treatment.
We have to insert ourselves in the conversation between the tech companies that design and the clients who we serve.