Well, it doesn't matter what you or I think of it. It does matter, however, what a doctor thinks of it.

As the other comment pointed out, it's a balance. Simple is not the same as user-friendly, but they live on the same street.

Doctors routinely deal with concepts that would confound me, but they are often quite technophobic, when it comes to computers. I have a friend that's a really skilled anesthesiologist, and is constantly asking me the most basic questions about his iPhone.

Complex interfaces can be trained, but the magic is to have an interface that can be explored. If you train someone on rote, then they go to pieces, when anything changes.

However, if you give them an interface that doesn't penalize them for exploring, and has clear, unambiguous affordances, they can easily adapt to things like updates, and they won't force you to have to maintain an ancient UX.

But designing that kind of UX is quite difficult, which is why so few people do it.

How do you know I'm not a doctor?

HTML forms are a metaphor for literal paper forms. They don't have to be complex. One of the forms in the EHR system I am familiar with uses a stick figure layout. So if you are making notes on the left leg you just type it in next to the left leg. I don't see how this is difficult.

Meanwhile I can't figure out how to get my iPhone to show me what photos I took in the park by my house and every setting change involves consulting a web search or LLM.

nah

I maintain my emacs config

the problem is if someone changes something, that immediately impacts my efficiency which slows me down, then the patient's are pissed, and the administrators are too (which is ironic since they're the ones who signed off on the change)

It has to be rote, no time for exploring