I can give another perspective. I have worked with "clinical working groups" that are composed of nurses, doctors, therapists, communicate care, etc. Typically the docs and nurses dominate the conversation because they have complex and heavy workloads (not that the others don't, but I digress). It's actually very hard to get medical folks (even paid) to participate.
So every little UI, technical change, login process, etc get debated for a LOOOOONG time when finally there's finally consensus or quorum on what the decision is made. 90% of the time it's what the doc wants in the various settings; emergency department, general practice, palliative care, etc.
When the change is implemented, half of the people who clearly stated that they wanted something done one way, have had a change of heart or argue that this is not what they wanted. Documentation, sign-offs, mock-ups be damned. "This is not I what I signed off".
When it actually makes it to larger pilot group, we get feedback from one extreme to another. Even when we have colleagues from the same docs AT THE SAME INSTITUTION IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT.
At the core is patient safety and the crazy checklists that come with it. The best thing to do is to pass those check lists to someone specialized (i.e. not a doc or nurse); like a medical cleric (or like someone else mentioned, a scribe).
TL;DR; Everyone has an opinion and every doc appears to have their own preferred way of doing things. This is not unique to the medical field. I see that in CSRs as well.