Why do physicians ignore medical software?

Why do physicians ignore medical software?

‍

The same pattern is visible on the other side of medicine—in medical devices. The U.S. FDA receives approximately 100,000 reports of medical device-related incidents annually. More than one-third of these are initially attributed to "user error." Yet, when looking closer at product recalls due to design flaws, more than half do not stem from electronics or mechanics, but from the interface (AAMI, Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology; UXPA Magazine, "Total Recall").
‍

The FDA puts it bluntly: if a user makes a mistake, the cause is usually the device design, not their competence. This is such a serious issue that human factors engineering—designing with real human behaviors and limitations in mind—is now a mandatory part of the registration documentation for many medical devices (IEC 62366 standard).

When a physician "does something wrong" in a system, or doesn't fight it but instead finds a workaround, it is often the most reliable signal of quality your product can provide. You need to know how to interpret it, rather than dismissing it as a "user error."
‍

‍

A tired physician has no time to tolerate poor design.

Burnout and poor UX fuel each other. Physicians with symptoms of burnout rate their EHR systems significantly lower than their colleagues without such symptoms — the difference in the Net EHR Experience Score is nearly 25 points (KLAS Arch Collaborative study, KLAS Research).

It is not entirely clear what is the cause and what is the effect, but that does not change the core issue: a tired, overworked physician no longer has the resources to "negotiate" with a poor tool. They either bypass it or stop using it to its full potential.

However, there is a silver lining to this vicious cycle: it can be broken from both sides. Organizations that invest in UX optimization and customize their systems to support the team's actual workflow see a measurable increase in staff satisfaction and retention—exactly what is missing from burnout statistics.

‍

It wasn't created for medicine. And yet, doctors fell in love with it!

The interesting thing about all this is that doctors don't avoid technology at all. They are happy to use a tool that wasn't designed for medicine at all — WhatsApp. Not because it's the "easy way out" or a way to bypass procedures. But because it is simply a well-designed product: it requires no learning, adds no extra duties, and works exactly as fast as someone who has ten seconds between patients to make a decision expects it to.
‍

This shows that the problem is never whether doctors "want" to use technology. It lies in whether a medical product understands their real needs as well as a messaging app does.

For medical software to stop losing out to an app created for entirely different purposes, you have to start with the same question that drives WhatsApp's success: what does the person on the other side of the screen really need — and that applies to both sides, the doctor and the patient.

‍

Design that requires no tolerance.

At ZIMA UX,UI & Design Strategy, we assume from the start that the user — whether a doctor or a patient — will have neither the time nor the patience to "learn" a bad system. That is why, before we start designing the interface, we examine what the work of the person who will use it actually looks like:

‍

• where they are in a hurry,
  ‍
• where they make decisions under time pressure,
  ‍
• what works in their current process and what is already being bypassed today.
  ‍

This approach pays off twice over. Companies that take UX seriously from the start see a 20-40% drop in support tickets within just three months of implementation — because there are fewer things to explain when the product guides the user along the right path itself (CLEIO, "ROI of UX Design").

‍

Ignoring something is a piece of data, not a problem to be punished.

Before a medical company asks, "How do we finally get doctors to start using our system?", it’s worth asking the opposite question: what exactly are they bypassing in it, and why that specific part? The answer almost always leads straight to the area that needs a redesign — not to a list of training sessions that still need to be conducted.
‍

You don't need a massive audit for this. Sometimes, just looking at one specific path is enough to see where users most often drop off. That is exactly what our free pilot workshop is for — a way to diagnose the problem before you start looking for a solution.