Did the person survive?
Or maybe I'm giving these institutions too much credit?
If the alternatives/plan b's were as good or better than the plan a's then they wouldn't be the alternatives. Nobody is going to have half a hospital's care capacity sit as backup when they could use that year round to better treat patients all the time, they just have plans of last resort to use when what they'd like to use isn't working.
(worked healthcare IT infrastructure for a decade)
Seems like a possible plan would be duplicate computer systems that are using last week's backup and not set to auto-update. Doesn't cover you if the databases and servers go down (unless you can have spares of those too), but if there is a bad update, a crypto-locker, or just a normal IT failure each department can switch to some backups and switch to a slightly stale computer instead of very stale paper.
Money spent on spares is not spent on cares.
The "downtime" computers were affected just like everything else because there was no network.
Phones are all IP-based now; they didn't work.
Couldn't check patient histories, couldn't review labs, etc. We could still get drugs, thankfully, since each dispensing machine can operate offline.
I worked for a company that sold and managed medical radiology imaging systems. One of our customers' admins called and said "Hey, new scans aren't being properly processed so radiologists can't bring them up in the viewer". I told him I'd take a look at it right away.
A few minutes later, he called back; one of their ERs had a patient dying of a gunshot wound and the surgeon needed to get the xray up so he could see where the bullet was lodged before the guy bled out on the table.
Long outages are terrifying, but it only takes a few minutes for someone to die because people didn't have the information they needed to make the right calls.
You don't need 4 years of specialized training to see a bullet on a scan.
X-Ray has limitations though - most of our emergencies aren't as easy to diagnose as bullets or pneumonia. CT, CTA, and to a lesser extent MRI are really critical in the emergency department, and you definitely need four years of training to interpret them, and a computer to let you view the scan layer-by-layer. For many smaller hospitals they may not have radiology on-site and instead use a remote radiology service that handles multiple hospitals. It's hard to get doctors who want to live near or commute to more rural hospitals, so easier for a radiologist to remotely support several.
One day, during a rapid pediatric patient intervention, a caregiver tried to log in to a PC to check a drug interaction. The computer took a long time to log in because of a VDI problem where someone had stored many images in a file that had to be copied on login. While the care team was waiting for the computer, an urgent decision was made to give the drug. But a drug interaction happened — one that would have been caught, had the VDI session initialized more quickly.
The patient died and the person whose VDI profile contained the images in the bad directory committed suicide. Two lives lost because files were in the wrong directory.
You come in for you next shift and are finishing charting from your prior shift. You open one of your partially finished charts and a little popup tells you "you are editing the chart for a deceased patient".
This is why I'm impressed by anyone who works in a hospital, especially the more urgent/intensive care