The idea is to have a rendered 3D representation of the anatomy of the patient, and to use that as a basis for the record. This is reported in IEEE Spectrum.
Visualizing Electronic Health Records With "Google-Earth for the Body"
By Robert N. Charette
January 2008
Andre Elisseeff leads a research team at IBM’s Zurich Research Lab that in September demonstrated a prototype system that will allow doctors to view their patients’ electronic health record (eHR) using three-dimensional images of the human body. Called the Anatomic and Symbolic Mapper Engine, the system maps the information in a patient’s eHR to a 3-D image of the human body. A doctor first clicks the computer mouse on a particular part of the image, which triggers a search of the patient’s eHR to retrieve the relevant information. The patient’s information corresponding to that part of the image is then displayed, including text entries, lab results, and medical images, such as magnetic resource imaging.
My first reaction was to think this is really cool. My second reaction was to doubt that it would be useful. My third reaction, as with pretty much everything, is that I'd have to try it for a while to decide whether it had any utility.
In psychiatry, it would not make much sense to map the medical record to an anatomical representation. It the rest of medicine, it might be useful. The developers view it in a way that was not immediately apparent to me. They see it as a tool to enhance communication with patients:
Elisseeff hopes that by “opening the computer screen to the patient, better communication between doctor and patient can occur.” He also believes that by changing the computer’s role from a physical barrier to a conversation starter that the acceptance of eHRs will increase.
My experience with using computers to teach people, is that the person generally nods a lot and makes socially appropriate noises. Computers are good for making things seem simpler than they really are, and for making people act like they understand things that they really don't.
Even so, some patients probably would understand, and find it helpful. That would be good. Different people have different styles of learning.
Likewise, different doctors have different ways of conceptualizing and organizing information. I suspect that some physicians would take to this naturally, whereas others would find it cumbersome. In order to be successful, it would have to have a flexible interface: it would have to be possible to use it without relying on the 3D model.
One of the barriers to the adoption of EMR is that there are many different systems, and they all require training to use to maximum effect. If the interface is too complex, it will be difficult for it to become widely used.
Technology
Medicine & Health
Comments
wow that's a great medical diagnostic tool
Posted by: Melatonin | January 22, 2008 8:24 AM
My first reaction was to think this is really cool. My second reaction was to doubt that it would be useful. My third reaction, as with pretty much everything, is that I'd have to try it for a while to decide whether it had any utility.
My first reaction, ( I'm just going to stay on that, LOL!), is that it seems it has the potential to be, one small step for mankind! They can figure out the niches later. For now it seems really cool.
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 22, 2008 5:59 PM