We need to reevaluate our training methods for physicians. Ajami (2013) suggests that traditional training methods used for nurses, therapists or staff are insufficient for doctors. Doctors have long been the “captain of the ship” providing guidance, orders and instructions to support staff. Now it seems the opposite. Technicians and nurses are providing instructions and directions. We need to offer training at their convenience and in private settings. Training arm-elbow doctors is not effective. There are time limits, interruptions, distractions and, most importantly, spectators. Training providers with patients and staff observing is professionally degrading to most doctors. Plan time in a closed environment, away from patients and distractions, so that the student does not feel inadequate. Furthermore, different medical specialists have different needs (Grinspan 2013). Surgeons are not known for their documentation while primary care providers tend to provide more comprehensive documentation. Neurologists are quite technical and detail-oriented. Endocrinology specialists tend to be very organized and follow established guidelines, while oncologists and pediatricians also have differing opinions on what they think is most important. We need to do more research into more specialty-specific training and the usability of programming with respect to the different learning styles of physicians and specialties. Lack of time and motivation of participants are often reported obstacles. Individual physicians will appreciate greater benefit from electronic systems as they become more customized to their specific specialty. Over the past 2 years, all EHR vendors have spent countless dollars developing to include the programming and features required for Meaningful Use certification. I believe suppliers have spent fewer resources on research and development