I think the main points of the article is to introduce the potential complexities and pitfalls that come along with the digitization of clinical records and workflows. In my personal experience, engineers that haven't worked within a clinical setting always tend to struggle with how complex healthcare actually is, and that it requires a ton of nuance for understanding how to successfully develop digital clinical tools.
The other concern is that unlike Google, FB, or Uber, tech is not the funding priority of a healthcare system. They do spend money on large contracts for fully fledged EHR system (and a bunch of add ons), but because fundamentally it's an infrastructure problem and IT for healthcare systems are cost center, they're never going to be able to replicate the techno-centric workforce. I say this as someone who is intimately involved in developing technology for the healthcare system. But you do what you can; clinical informaticists (which is developing as it's own sub-specality) try to reduce the load, and do take on the continuous development of EHR systems. Asking for a level of polish that is unachievable isn't going to promote optimism.
The other concern is that unlike Google, FB, or Uber, tech is not the funding priority of a healthcare system. They do spend money on large contracts for fully fledged EHR system (and a bunch of add ons), but because fundamentally it's an infrastructure problem and IT for healthcare systems are cost center, they're never going to be able to replicate the techno-centric workforce. I say this as someone who is intimately involved in developing technology for the healthcare system. But you do what you can; clinical informaticists (which is developing as it's own sub-specality) try to reduce the load, and do take on the continuous development of EHR systems. Asking for a level of polish that is unachievable isn't going to promote optimism.