> The problems are aversion to technology in places, unwillingness to adopt new (human) protocol/processes, entrenched proprietary technology, that does not adhere to standardized formats.
It is not. This is a classic example of assuming the problem exists within the realm of your current understanding.
The stereotype of people in medical roles not wanting/liking/understanding technology is wrong. What we don't like is the god awful technology we are handed because the work hasn't been done to understand how we work. THAT technology is not worth learning or caring about.
As someone who has rounded patients over many times, the problem is the extensive amount of information that is ingested into establishing a cohesive clinical picture of a patient, then continually adjusting the degree of confidence in numerous facets and levels of the case. Then it all gets dumped into the heads of the next group of people.
So people in tech develop these programs to help track the information. Yet they fail to grasp that there are many situations where the conclusions are based on a web of contingencies that operate on disparate time series, are affected by a wide net of things not directly reflected in empirical data, and it is completely impractical for me to continuously update the intermediate changes to my conclusions just so your software can know what's going on. The more that people try to construct a UI that captures the complexity of what can be noted in a case, the less usable it becomes. Even then, they still undershoot the level of depth needed to reflect what doctors are tracking in their heads. You may think it's enough to have someone input the hematologic data as the results and their ranges. You fail to track that my interpretation of those results is contextualized by the fact that nurse Martha was on the floor and likely dropped the ball on how promptly the ABG was run, and that certain staffing dynamics affected how much weight I give certain subjective criteria. In rounds, a simple eyebrow raise can be enough to convey to the next shift a mutually known dynamic that affects how information should be interpreted. Asking us to spell all of that out in your "new technology solution" won't happen. It is a waste of everyone's time and social dynamics will prohibit it.
I could go on and on with a variety of other examples, but I don't have the time or desire to do so. My point is that the tech hubris is wasted effort. While you sit there thinking you need to teach the "tech illiterate doctors" how to follow matters of process, we see you as someone that has been asked to develop a more effective tool, and you hand us a fisher-price screwdriver and insult us for not finding it useful.
Like the other comment said, https://xkcd.com/1831/