Advantages of using computers to monitor the health of patients rather than nurses?

Answer 1

At this time, computerized machines can only monitor select problems with patients, but the machines still need nurses and doctors to *interpret* what the machines record. For example, a patient may be continually monitored by EKG to record heart function. Machines can be set to alarm when the heart reading go out of normal limits (example tachycardia, too rapid / too high heart rate). But the machine still needs trained humans to decide whether the patient is going into heart failure or having an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).

One new trend is to do bedside charting with computers. Different groups and professionals--and even patients--disagree whether computers should be used at all. Some groups say it is good because nurses will have more time to devote to the sickest patients. But groups against computer charting cite privacy concerns and say that patients need the observational skills of trained professional nurses. My guess is that some institutions will try "computerized" charting or recordings, identify the negatives, and eventually will decide that both computers and nurses have specific jobs each does better, but that overall, nothing will replace the need for professional nurses.

The privacy concerns with computers in medicine, nursing, and pharmacology are very real. The State of Ohio has already had 2 incidents of breaches of privacy when 2 laptops used to store Medicaid information were stolen. As doctors, hospitals, etc. begin to use computers more, the risk for stolen or compromised personal information will grow. Eventually, the public--society--will have to make our opinions known so that our private info and medical info is kept protected.