
By: David Ahn, MD
Health care workers throughout the country daily face the growing pains of the transition from paper charts to electronic medical systems. Not only are there frustrations within each system, every hospital seems to have selected a different EMR. When I was a medical student at UCSD, I was exposed to 4 separate EMR’s (Epic, PCIS, CPRS, Centricity, etc) during my rotations at various San Diego hospitals.
In this Wild West era of electronic health systems, here are 5 reasons how the health care field could benefit if a company followed Apple’s Paradigm.
1. Apple Solidifies Emerging Markets
The iPod was not the first MP3 player on the market, and it wasn’t the last. The iPhone wasn’t the first smart phone, and it wasn’t the last. The iPad is not the first touch-screen tablet computer, and it won’t be the last. However, each of those 3 devices took niche and naive markets, made them mainstream and appealing to the general consumer, and became the standard in each market.
In this time of the dawning of electronic medical record systems, there are plenty of systems that exist, some more successful than others, but not one that has emerged as the de facto standard. Each system looks and handles vastly different than the next, and many take a good deal of training and education to learn. This is an ideal field for a company to design a novel approach that “just makes sense” – as Apple has done.
2. Apple Specializes in Intuitive and Friendly User Interfaces
The iPod had the click wheel to navigate thousands of songs, and the iPhone incorporated the touch screen keyboard into a new OS designed from the ground-up for touch interaction. These designs are intuitive and user-friendly. One of the primary difficulties with adopting EMR’s is non-tech savvy physicians are hesitant to shift their practice habits. Furthermore, current EMR’s continue to frustrate users with complex and confusing user interfaces. A fresh and intuitive Apple-esque design for managing health records and clinical encounters could appeal to users of all expertise. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel, rather, look at existing interfaces that are aesthetically appealing and go from there.
3. Apple Makes Hardware and Software
Apple designs two operating systems (iOS and Mac OSX), which power the iPhone, iPod, iPad, Macbooks, Mac Pro’s, iMac, and Mac Mini. This impressive arsenal of handheld devices, notebooks, and small and large desktops cover nearly every possible use of hospital: powerful Mac Pro desktop machines for radiologists, iMac’s for nursing stations, Macbook’s-on-wheels for rounding medical teams, and iPod touches for nurses and doctors.
There are two primary advantages to being involved in both hardware and software. The first benefit is increased support for older systems and less opportunity for unforeseen bugs and incompatibility glitches, as there are only a limited number of configurations to support. The other primary advantage is the ability to custom-design hardware and/or software specific for the needs of medical professionals.
For example, the previously mentioned iPod Touch could be equipped with barcode scanners for nurses to help log their medication administrations. It’s often ironic when electronic health record systems don’t take into account the user interfaces they are designed for.
In the evolving world of medicine, where the transition to mobile is happening quickly, the disconnect between software and hardware could not be more apparent. While it might seem impractical for a vendor to produce the hardware, a closer partnership between vendor and hardware is necessary, yet rarely occurs.
4. Apple Specializes in Uniformity and Simplicity
Apple’s critics accuse the company of sacrificing customizability and certain higher-level functionality in exchange for uniformity and simplicity. In this way, such people use the condescending term “walled garden” to describe Apple products because they excel beautifully in what they do well, but with a degree of limitations.
Whether or not you agree with this, such a “walled garden” approach is surprisingly appropriate in the health care industry. Electronic medical records are, by definition, very tightly controlled and limited in terms of customizability as they must accommodate employees of various technological expertise throughout an entire health care system and protect the privacy of patient data.
5. Maybe Apple itself should jump into health information technology
EMR’s and medical computing is a billion dollar industry. For any corporation, the potential profit must be massive in order for it to fund the research and development required to produce a highly-polished product. Hot off the heels of the success of the iDevices, Apple’s profits are at an all-time high, and experts postulate whether the company can continue its exponential rise.
In response, Apple has fixed its sight on expanding its market from the consumer to the business world, with increased focus on security, stability, and allowing companies to produce their own in-house apps. Health care is a billion dollar industry, and making a significant entry into the EMR field could prove to be immensely profitable, even when compared with Apple’s already staggering success.
Conclusion
The thought of an “Apple designed” EMR and computer setup is incredibly intriguing. Next time you walk into your local Apple store, observe the well-designed workflow of greeters, roaming salespeople with modified credit-card swiping iPod touches, “geniuses” taking care of and fixing pc’s through walk-in and scheduled appointments, and educators leading training sessions. Does it require much imagination to visualize a similar “Apple-designed” medical workflow with corresponding software and technology?
Iltifat Husain contributed to this post

















While I agree with your points about UI, usability, hardware/software integration; Apple’s inability to admit mistakes and fix them immediately (see “You’re holding it wrong.” iPhone 4 Antennagate) takes them out of the running for any Medical Device/EHR product as far as I’m concerned.
Yea, while Antennagate was definitely a huge blunder and mishandled, the focus of the article isn’t on Apple joining the health information technology ecosystem – rather taking the Apple approach to hardware/software integration and the other things you mentioned you agree with.
On another note though, Apple might have Antennagate, but other medical device/EHR companies have had their own huge blunders – although they make you sign clauses that prevent you from reporting those mistakes! Refer to this article: /20…
Apple’s ability to upset the status quo and ‘change the game’ is precisely the breathe of fresh air Healthcare IT has needed for a long time.
I do believe that Apple Inc. itself will stay a consumer-focused organization, but their products will certainly be the catalyst for the next-generation of medical workflow-enabling technologies.
Thanks for the post!
http://www.carecloud.com
You’re being a bit modest about care cloud as well Mike – If anything carecloud is one of the EHR vendors that actually does do a fantastic job with the user interface and work flow issues that plague other vendors.
Even though I agree that Apple has its successes, I don’t believe that the solution should necessarily be the Apple approach. I believe the main issue here is standardization. Problems of uniformity and simplicity can be addressed in under standardization.
Since we are talking about the health-care industry, I think it is appropriate that there should be an industry standard, rather than letting various companies have a go at it. This way things become more centralized and breeds competition, which in turn drives innovation.
It should be noted that the issue at hand is not one solely about devices and interfaces but more about databases, which is not one of Apple’s stronger areas, it is more likely that a company like Oracle will play a bigger part in this quest than Apple. Also
Pros of this approach:
1.) The industry has more of an input in what goes into the standardized format. They (Doctors, Nurses and other health-care professionals) will be able to address what they need and what their pains are better.
2.) As previously highlighted, different manufactures, software makers and OEMs will be able to implement this standard, creating choices and competition which should lead to cheaper solutions for everyone (think about those chaps in Africa and other developing regions, they are more likely to go for a cheap, functional/usable, unaesthetic product than pay an overpriced premium for the luxury of aesthetics that arguably adds nothing to functionality). It is also good to note that not everybody will be comfortable with the “Apple approach.”
3.) The standardization will address interoperability issues with different manufactures, which addresses record transfers, within and outside a hospital.
You bring up some great points. Standardization is definitely key, and its something the British have been able to do in regards to health information technology. But the reason they have been able to do it is because they have a government set up where it’s easy to enforce one standard. It’s impossible to have a standardized system as you mention in our current healthcare model.
Apple does not do customized or turnkey implementations of anything. Unfortunately, most EMR implementations require a lot of handholding. What Apple is good at, though, is making hardware and software interfaces that are compelling to a lot of users. If the EMR system can be efficiently accessed with an iPad, iPhone, iPod, Apple TV, or a MacBook then that would go a long way towards making the EMR more user-friendly.
In fact, it’s hard to imagine that EMRs will not be going this way, eventually – a local system accessed by user-specific hardware.