Maddy Foley
October 9, 2012
AP Biology Review
Hafner, Katie. "Redefining Medicine With Apps and IPads - The Digital Doctor." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/science/redefining-medicine-with-apps-and-ipads-the-digital-doctor.html>.
I read the article “Redefining Medicine with Apps and Ipads.” In this article, the author Katie Hafner presents the recent contributions to science made by the developments in technology. These technological developments involve the use of websites, apps and gadgets to provide medical symptoms and treatments that would have been supplied by a medicine handbook if this was twenty years ago. Some of these apps include MedCalc, a clinical calculator, ePocrates, an app for looking up drug dosages and interactions, and Qx Calculate, an app that creates risk profiles for their patients. There is even an electronic stethoscope that amplifies heart sounds while cancelling outside noise. Furthermore, all medical students at John Hopkins and University of Chicago are provided with Ipads through which they can easily access medical records, and rather than writing notes on paper, physicians jot down information on tablets. The article also provided the opinions of two doctors on the use of technology in medicine, as well as contained quotes from a patient.
With these new developments has come conflicts over the medicinal profession and the effects of these technologies. While Dr. Rajkomar, a 28 year old resident doctor at San Francisco V.A. Medical Center is a fervent user of these technologies and promotes the efficiency and accuracy of these processes, his coworker Dr. Heineken, who is 38 years his senior argues the importance of learning to preform without the assistance of a computer, IPad, or even CT Scan, MRI or ultrasound. Dr. Heineken, the elderly and more experienced doctor, worries about the loss of the human connection that exists at the base of the practice. Many older generations of physicians promote the personal interaction between patients and doctors, a process that is only hindered by the use of technology. As Dr. Paul C. Tang, chief innovation and technology officer at Palo Alto Medical Foundation in Palo Alto, Calif., puts it “Just adding an app won’t necessarily make people better doctors or more caring clinicians.” However, the new apps, do provide a new important level of efficiency and accuracy. Through the use of MedCalc for example, Dr. Rajkomer was able to find the exact measure and rate of saline required to treat a sodium deficiency in a particular patient. This article helps to generate thought on finding a happy medium between the past and present. The information presented in this article is important to all current and future patients in today’s evolving world of medicine, helping to provide an understanding of the new medical processes.
I think this article provided a good explanation of the new technological methods as well as insight into the duel opinions on the developments. By providing real life situations from two physicians who differed in opinion, the reader had a better understanding of the pros and cons of technology in medicine. I would have liked to see other opinions however, from an array of young and old doctors to further develop both sides of the debate. I also think the article could have provided a clearer picture in exactly how the apps and Ipads are used in medicine and supplied more statistical information on whether these technologies are actually found to be more effective, though one study from the University of Chicago was provided, which supported the effectiveness of the technologies.
Marika Chrisanthopoulos
ReplyDeleteAP Biology Commentary
October 10, 2012
Commentary on Maddy Foley’s Review of "Redefining Medicine With Apps and IPads - The Digital Doctor" by Katie Hafner from The New York Times
In the article that Maddy reviewed, the topic of new technology for the common citizen on smartphones, computers, iPads, and more has branched out to not only include applications to make daily life easier, but also to improve scientific discoveries and help scientists and doctors keep track of their work as well. The article talks about how these new technologies are being implanted into hospitals and general practices, and how they are taking the place of doctors using their own skills and talents to make decisions and diagnose their patients. One thing that Maddy does well is describe a few of the applications that are being put into effect, including one that looks up drug dosages and another that even amplifies the sound of a heart beating under a stethescope. These new applications are making it easier for doctors to diagnose patients, but this doesn’t mean that the doctors are necessarily better because of these technologies. Another thing that Maddy does well is that she discusses the views and opinions of various doctors about these applications, and what they think about them in regards to their own practices. She describes the varying views of multiple doctors, including some that believe that the technology is very beneficial, and others that support the use of more classical methods. Another thing that she does well in her review is that in the end, she critiques the review and adds that she would have liked to see more opinions of different doctors, since there are probably many more to be heard.
One thing that Maddy could have improved on is that she could have talked about the accessibility and the costs of these applications; who are they available to? Everyone, or do they have to be specially ordered? Are they expensive or cheap? Another thing that Maddy could have included in her review is how many people are currently utilizing these applications, and if this number is expected to go up or down with the new iPhone 5. Through Maddy’s review of this interesting article, I learned that through common technologies, the advancement of science is being integrated by doctors and scientists at every moment. The invention of these new applications, available on iPads and through websites on computers, are now taking over the scientific world, providing benefits as well as easier accessibility and performance of work.
Maddy’s review of the article, “Redefining Medicine With Apps and iPads - The Digital Doctor" from The New York Times was very well written. It was a very appropriate article to chose, for as Maddy says, “This article is important to all current and future patients in today’s evolving world of medicine.” Our world is becoming more technologically based, so it is important for us to understand the pros and cons of this new system. I probably appreciated this article choice even more, since my father is a doctor. Being an anesthesiologist, he often has to calculate the right doses of medication for patience rather quickly and I also understand how tiring a 24-hour shift can be. I still though, appreciate the importance of that human connection. Another example of the review being well presented was when Maddy explained some of the apps available to doctors. This enables the reader to have a better understanding of how technology is changing medicine, so the reader can determine truly how significant this change is, and therefore, how big of a role it will play in our lives. Lastly, I thought that Maddy’s own review of the article was very well done. Statistical information and a larger pool of interviewed subjects definitely would have made the article more powerful. Having been given only the opinions of two doctors, the reader is left to wonder what other doctor’s opinions are.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this review could have been even better had Maddy expressed her own view of the importance technology. Although reviewers should normally avoid imposing a bias in their writing, it may have been interesting to hear what she believed was the appropriate path for doctor’s to take. Also the article may have been even better had Maddy analyzed Dr. Rajkomar statement, “Every time you looked something up you’d get scolded. At that point, people believed that if you had your phone out you weren’t working.” This social perception does create a conundrum. Many patients may feel neglected were their doctor constantly on the phone, so it would be interesting to see more patient’s views of the matter.
I found it very interesting that medical schools such as John Hopkins and The University of Chicago are supplying iPads to their students. This statistic did make the article much more interesting, since, clearly, learning institutions are training future doctors to rely more on technology. This shows that technology is starting to dominate the field of medicine.
Maddy Foley’s review of “Redefining Medicine With Apps and IPads - The Digital Doctor.” was an excellently written review. One thing I think Maddy did very well was explaining the different types of technologies and apps that doctors are using today. One doctor uses an electronic stethoscope that cancels out noise and amplifies a patient’s heartbeat. Other apps can determine how certain drugs will interact with each other. Another aspect of Maddy’s review that was done well was her explanation of how different doctors perceive these advancements in technology. She explained how older doctors tend to feel that the technologies hinder face to face communication with patients. However, younger doctors think that it is great to have easy access to information that can help patients. A third and final thing Maddy did well was summarizing the article. This article was about two pages long and took a few minutes to read. But Maddy’s review put in all the key information and you could understand what the article was about even if you didn’t read it.
ReplyDeleteWhile Maddy did a great job on her review there are two areas where she could have improved it. She could have included some of Mr. Conrad’s impressions of his doctor, Dr. Heineken, who does not use technology as much. Mr. Conrad said “I love hime to death”. This shows that Dr. Heineken’s approach of more face to face time and less technology is a beneficial approach. Another thing Maddy could have done was include some of the negatives of using the new technologies. For example, they encourage a “cut and paste approach” which doesn’t take into account how the patient is doing.
I found it interesting that doctors are now using technology more often. I thought that it would be more important for the doctors to know what to do in emergency situations. For example, Dr. Rajkomar did not know how much saline to give a patient. So he looked up the information on his iPhone. I thought doctors would need to know information like this.
Maddy’s review does a fantastic job of analyzing where we are today, medically, as a result of innovations such as the ipad. She puts it into perspective, making it understandable how much new technology has changed the way we approach medical affairs. A specific quote that impressed me was when she exclaims; “These technological developments…provide medical symptoms and treatments that would have been supplied by a medicine handbook if this was twenty years ago.” It may seem obvious, but it is truly amazing how technology shapes our own lives and changes the faces of generations. The article review also clearly synthesizes the contrasting views amongst active doctors. It seems natural that older doctors have less affection for the use of ipads since they have been practicing their profession without such technology for years.
ReplyDeleteMs. Foley’s article review contains far more pros than cons. However, there is always room for improvement. One thing I think Maddy could have included to furthermore enhance her summary of the article, is where apps such as, MedCalc, are specifically used in the daily life of a given doctor. For example, one question I have is, when do they use these apps and how often? Secondly, Maddy could have gone into more depth, describing the consequences of using technologies such as ipads that result in a lack of human connection in the practice.
I am very impressed by Maddy’s input of her own opinion in her final paragraph. I believe she did a phenomenal job in explaining the two sides and their respective reasoning. I also love the article choice, which is without a doubt, relevant, and provides input on present day news I was completely unaware of.
AP Biology comment
ReplyDeleteOctober 11, 2012
The article “Redefining Medicine with Apps and Ipads” presented my Maddy was a very interesting review on technologies that are used in medical fields. I though this review was very interesting because technology can now be used by medical professionals as a faster and more efficient way of treatment. I was very interested to know that these technologies involve the use of websites, apps and different gadgets to provide medical symptoms and find treatments that years ago would be done with a medical handbook. These apps include Medcalc, a clinical calculator, ePocrates, an app for looking up drug interactions and dosages, and Qx calculate an app that gives risk information for patients. An even more interesting technology is an electronic stethoscope that helps to strengthen heart sounds while decreasing outside noises.
The review could have been improved by describing how these technologies are used daily in the medical fields. Maybe get more insights on the patient’s perspective and other medical fields that use these technologies. Another improvement can be learning more about how these technologies can be ineffective to the medical field. What if any errors occur with these technologies who would be to blame? I think the idea of technology in the medical field should be explored more and go through trials in the different medical fields.
I was impressed with the idea that apps can help medical
professionals to determine treatment and medications to give to patients. I thought bringing technology into medicine is a good idea and I think that new medical professionals would benefit and like the idea of technology to play a role in their practice.
--Nastaran Soroori
Samantha Past
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
October 10, 2012
The review of the article headlined, “Redefining Medicine with Apps and Ipads,” by Katie Hafner, reviewed by Maddy, includes a good, basic evaluation of the article. The review begins with a simplified summary, emphasizing the basic idea of the entire article. (Pertaining to the main subject of the article; how the recent developments in technology are affecting the medical world.) The beginning of the review is very informative, as well as, easy to read. Likewise, in the review I found a very important aspect to be how Maddy included specific technologies discussed in the article. For example, Maddy chose to include the apps such as MedCalc, ePocrates, and Qx. These technologies are those, Katie Hafner, was referring to when regarding the new developments in the medical world within her article. Not only did Maddy include these specific technologies, but she also provided information pertaining to what the purpose of each app is, and therefore how it may help those in the medical profession. Another aspect of the review I found particularly well presented was when discussing the differing opinions between Dr. Heineken and Dr. Rajkomar, Maddy included a quote from the article, stated by a fellow doctor, Dr. Paul C. Tang. Dr. Tang’s quote displays his concern with the new apps in the medical world, as they “won’t necessarily make people better doctors or more caring clinicians.” However, in order to counterbalance the quote Maddy describes how the new apps do provide an improved level of efficiency and accuracy, as she specifically describes a scenario that occurred with Dr. Rajkomar.
Although, this review includes information regarding both doctors included in the article, perhaps if the review had a little more detail pertaining to Dr. Heineken and Dr. Rajkomar, it could be even better. In the article, Katie Hafner describes two very different doctors, as they choose to practice medicine in two different ways. Ms. Hafner includes background information about the men, how the men prefer to use or not use technology, their preferences on how to teach others about medicine, and overall their individual perspective on the new technological developments in the medical world. If more information regarding the two doctors was included in the review, I think it would’ve really enhanced the review, allowing the reader not only to see a simplified version of the main idea of the article, but also a specific comparison between two doctors, regarding their views on the new developments. Also, if the review included information regarding how patients reacted to both doctors, as the article presents, readers could see how patients, not only doctors, are being affected by the new technologies. For example, Maddy could’ve possibly included the example in the article pertaining Dr. Heineken’s patient, a man off 65 years, who Dr. Heineken has taken care of since 1993. In the article, the relationship between Dr. Heineken and this patient, Eric Conrad, displays how Dr. Heineken’s older ways pertaining to his medical profession have influenced a patient who is very appreciative, and has developed a personal relationship with his physician, a man who shows extreme concern in his patients, one who is not preoccupied by technological developments.
One thing I really enjoyed, regarding the review of the article, was how Maddy included why such an article was important. Maddy briefly described how the information provided in the article is both important for those within the medical industry, as well as current and future patients because it allows us to better understand medical processes. I found this insight to be a great way to tie her whole review together, and really give a purpose to the information included.
The review of “Redefining Medicine with Apps and iPads – The Digital Doctor,” was detailed and well written. Technology is becoming an important part of the lives of medical professionals today. A good point the reviewer presented was examples of new developments in technology, such as applications for iPhones, used by doctors in their daily lives. She goes on to explain the types of these applications, which included MedCalc, a clinical calculator, and ePocrates, an application that looks up drug dosages and interactions.
ReplyDeleteThe reviewer also includes the pros and cons of technology usage while working by stating some opinions of two doctors. She explains how a young resident doctor promotes the usage of new technologies while his coworker, appreciates the use of technology, but believes that human connections between doctor and patient are being lost by the overuse of technology. A point that was well represented was that through the use of an application, a doctor was able to find an exact measurement of saline to treat a patient. Without this exact measurement of saline, the patient could have gotten an overdose that in some cases could lead to death.
Although this article was abundant with detail and examples, a point that could have been mentioned was that even though these new methods of technology are benefiting the medical field, “old fashioned” ways of doctoring are still just as important. As doctor Heineken had stated, “Don’t go to a computer; go back to the room, sit down and listen to them.” Sometimes, learning about the patient’s needs and problems first is more effective than what an x-ray can tell you. Also, it would have been beneficial to provide an example of an old way of doctoring like using hand written notes or examining an enlarged heart in a physical exam.
I was really impressed by learning of the advances in technology that are helping to save peoples’ lives. The fast-growing pace of technology is beneficial in the lives of medical professionals.
ReplyDeleteThe review of “Redefining Medicine with Apps and Ipads” was very well written. The review explained all the key points in the article and the main conflict of whether or not new technologies are assisting medical practice or making doctors more dependent on technology and not interacting enough with the patient’s response to the actual treatment.
One good point was the conflict that arose with two particular doctors, Rajkomar and Heineken. Rajkomar is a young doctor who is very computer savvy and believes that these new iphone apps and other technologies really assist in the medical field, while his coworker Heineken, 38 years older than Rajkomar, believes in the strong connection of patient and doctor that exists at the base of the practice and argues the importance of this new technology. Many older generations of physicians promote the personal interaction between patients and doctors, while the younger generation believes in the new technology.
The review also explained the types of apps used in the practice such as edCalc, a clinical calculator, ePocrates, an app that assists in finding drug dosages, Qx Calculate, an app that creates risk profiles for their patients and electronic stethoscope that intensifies heart sounds while blocking out excess noise.
Another good point was the adding the view of Dr. Paul C. Tang who said “Just adding an app won’t necessarily make people better doctors or more caring clinicians.” But the article also pointed out how the new apps, do provide a new important level of efficiency and accuracy.
The article was really descriptive, however something to be noted is the success rate, which idea proved more successful? The answer to this would really help the conflict between doctors; technology or old ideas? Another thing to be added was what are the consequences of this new technology? What would happen if one of these apps gave the wrong information or wrong dosage of a chemical? That could be fatal to the patient and it may have been avoided if there was no app used and the doctor figured it out for him/herself.
One thing I found particularly interesting was how cool these apps were in the medical field specifically, the app used to enhance the sound of heart rate and take out excess noises. This is definitely a helpful creation and assist in the medical field.
Maddy Foley’s review of “Redefining Medicine With Apps and iPads - The Digital Doctor.” was a very well written review. In her review, she included a lot of information about the various types of technologies and applications that doctors are utilizing during their practice to make their work more efficient. She does a great job explaining the different technologies and how they are useful to the doctors. A second thing that Maddy does well is explaining the different opinions surrounding the new technology. She captures the two viewpoints very clearly and presents both opinions in an unbiased manner. Additionally, Maddy did well on summarizing the article and avoiding clutter and too much detail. Her review encompassed the entire article yet she presented the information in a much more concise form.
ReplyDeleteAlthough these were several positive components to her review, there were a few things that I thought were missing from her article review. I think she could have showed more information about the “happy medium” that can be developed by considering both points of view surrounding the use of technology in medicine. She only mentioned this once, but I feel as if this compromise is necessary to find balance between enough patient contact and efficient use of technologies. I also think that Maddy could improve her summary by including information on how effective these technologies are during practice. She only gives one example of when technology was used to enhance a patient’s care (using MedCalc), and I am interested in finding out more about the other developments as well. Factors such as cost and accessibility to these resources could play a role in how they are used and how worthwhile they are in the clinical environment.
I learned a lot from reading Maddy’s review, and found it very interesting. I was surprised to find out that Johns Hopkins was providing iPads to their medical students. This shows how leading schools in the field of medicine are pushing their students towards technological dependency.