Objectives: To identify the perceptions of community hospital physicians on computerized physician order entry. Design: Multi-method approach consisting of a mail survey of 659 community hospital physicians with active admitting privileges at three PeaceHealth, Inc., along with follow-up personal interviews with stratified random selection from completed survey. Measurements: Perceptions were assessed by means of a mail survey that asked physicians to rank themselves on a scale that represented the five adopter categories contained in the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) change theory, along with several questions regarding computer use and attitudes toward potential effects of computers and CPOE on medicine and healthcare. Physicians representing four of the five adopter categories were interviewed to assess general perceptions and perceived attributes of innovations, an another construct within the DOI theory. Results: The response rate was 41%. Medical specialty, years in practice, and gender were found not to influence attitudes toward use of computers or, more specifically CPOE in medicine and healthcare. However, more medical specialists favor CPOE implementation at PeaceHealth than expected. Self-ranking on the DOI five adopter categories appears to influence attitudes toward use of computers in medicine and healthcare with positive trends in improving quality, rapport, and patient satisfaction mainly in the Innovator, Early Adopter, and Early Majority categories. A positive trend was seen in the relationship between CPOE's potential effects on improving patient care, not interfering with communication, and improving patient satisfaction with negative relationships with impact on physician workflow and enjoyment of medical practice. A relationship is seen between the five adopter categories and favoring CPOE implementation at PeaceHealth. The perceived attributes of innovations of Ease of Use, Result Demonstrability, and Visibility were supported by interview responses. Relative Advantage seemed to be supported by other questions. The concept of Compatibility was also supported. No steps of the processes of change construct within the Transtheoretical Model were identified during the interviews. Conclusions: This study appears to refute the suggestion that there might be a difference between medical specialists and surgical specialists, age, or gender in their support of computers and specifically CPOE. These data appear to support the Diffusion of Innovation theory is appropriate to consider in investigating CPOE and its diffusion among community hospital physicians. Implementing CPOE according to adopter categories would provide the option for interested physicians to use CPOE, to use CPOE on certain hospital units or patients, and to expand its use before making mandatory. Communication should be targeted toward the adopter categories rather than mass media and emphasize the perceived attributes of innovation. / Graduation date: 2004

En partant d’une description des nombreux changements de la pratique médicale depuis quelques décennies, la thèse étudie divers aspects constitutifs du malaise du médecin. L’accroissement de la puissance médicale qu’a permis la technoscience est analysée et remise dans un contexte plus large où les technologies de l’information ont une grande place. L’augmentation considérable des connaissances pose un problème de maîtrise de la science médicale. La multiplicité des observations fait qu’il y a discordance de certaines d’entre elles avec les théories médicales largement acceptées. De cette manière, le gain d’efficacité est associé à une perte de la cohérence du discours médical. Le rôle du médecin disparaît derrière la technique, qui semble pouvoir, seule, rendre tous les progrès accessibles. Le médecin devient alors un simple distributeur de services et, à ce titre, développe parfois des offres de pratiques sans fondement, voire dangereuses.<p>Le pouvoir du médecin est évoqué, et se ramène in fine à la fourniture d’un diagnostic et d’une explication de sa maladie au patient. Le rôle des explications particulières que donne le médecin au malade est exploré à la lumière d’une conception narrative et évolutive de la vie humaine. Le rôle du médecin apparaît alors comme d’aider le patient à réécrire a posteriori le fil d’une histoire qui apparaît initialement comme interrompue par la maladie.<p>Le rôle social de maintien de l’ordre de la pratique médicale est alors évoqué. Ensuite, par une approche descriptive du phénomène religieux, on montre que la médecine du XXIe siècle a les caractéristiques d’un tel phénomène. Entités extrahumaines, mythes, rites, tabous, prétention à bâtir une morale, accompagnement de la vie et de la mort, miracles, promesse de salut, temples, officiants sont identifiés dans la médecine « classique » contemporaine. Seule la fonction de divination de l’avenir d’un homme précis est devenue brumeuse, la technoscience permettant régulièrement du « tout ou rien » là où auparavant un pronostic précis (et souvent défavorable) pouvait être affirmé.<p> L’hypothèse que la médecine est devenue une religion du XXIe siècle est confrontée à des textes de S. Freud, M. Gauchet et P. Boyer. Non seulement ces textes n’invalident pas l’hypothèse, mais la renforcent même. Il apparaît que le fonctionnement de l’esprit humain favorise l’éclosion de religions et donc la prise de voile de la médecine. La dynamique générale de la démocratisation de la société montre que la médecine est une forme de religion non seulement compatible avec une société démocratique, mais est peut-être une des formes accomplies de celle-ci, où chaque individu écrit lui-même sa propre histoire.<p>Le danger qu’il y a, pour le patient comme pour le médecin, si ce dernier accepte de jouer un rôle de prêtre, est ensuite développé. Enfin, la remise dans le cadre plus général de l’existence humaine, l’évocation de la dimension de révolte de la médecine, de son essentielle incomplétude, l’acceptation d’une cohérence imparfaite permettent au médecin de retrouver des sources de joie afin de, peut-être, ne tomber ni dans un désinvestissement blasé, ni dans un cynisme blessant.<p><p>From a description of the many changes medical practice has undergone for a few decades, the work goes on to study many sides of the modern doctor’s malaise. The gain of power made possible by technoscience is put on a larger stage where information technologies play a major role. The abundance of knowledge makes health literacy more difficult. the great number of observations makes discrepancies with general theories more frequent. The gain in power is associated with a loss of coherence of the medical speech. The doctor’s role vanishes behind technology that seems to be the only access to all medical progresses. Doctors becomes mere service providers and go on to offer unvalidated or even harmful services on the market.<p>Modern medical power resumes into the explanations and diagnosis given to the patient. The role of medical explanations is explored through an evolutive and narrative vision of human life. The duty of the doctors then appears to allow a new narration of the self that bridges the gap disease introduced into the patient’s life.<p>The role of medicine in maintaining social order is mentioned. Through a sociological approach of the religious phenomenon, one can see that XXIst century medicine is such a phenomenon. Medicine knows of extrahuman entities, myths, rites, taboos, miracles, temples; priests are present in modern mainstream medicine. Some want to derive objective moral values from medicine, and it brings companionship to man from birth to death. The only departure from old religions was the weakened ability to predict the future of an individual patient: for some diseases for which survival was known to be very poor, the possibilities are now long-term survival with cure, or early death from the treatment. <p>The hypothesis that medicine is a religion is confronted to texts from Freud S. Gauchet M. and Boyer P. Not only do they not invalidate the hypothesis, but they bring enrichment to it. Brain/mind dynamics is such that the appearance of religions is frequent, and makes the transformation of medicine into a religion easier. Society’s democratisation confronted to religion’s history shows that medicine is the most compatible form of religion within a truly democratic society, where each individual writes his own story.<p>To become a priest brings some dangers for the patient, but also for the doctor. These dangers are discussed. This discussion is put into the larger context of human life. The revolt dimension of medicine is discussed, as is its never-ending task. Their acceptance, as that of a lack of total logical coherence can open the possibility for the doctor to enjoy his work, without being neither unfeeling nor cynical.<p> / Doctorat en philosophie et lettres, Orientation bioéthique / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished