|
|
|
|
|
by phren0logy
2339 days ago
|
|
I have not used all of them, but every one of them I've touched is hot garbage. Like much enterprise software, the people who decide to buy it are not the people that use it. It would seem, from the outside looking in, that the majority of the effort goes into maximizing billing in the byzantine world of US insurance rather than the work of actually making people well. What concerns me most about the larger players in the field is their dedication to minimizing interoperability to lock people into their software. |
|
- Home-grown systems which were fit for purpose but not operable or available outside the organisation for which they were designed. The Birmingham (UK) University Hospitals system [1] is a great example of these.
- "Enterprise" (pejorative) systems which generally came from the US and focused almost entirely on billing capture, and had almost no thought put into clinicians workflow. This encompassed Epic, Cerner Millenium and so forth.
- "New" systems which were UX first, but were often little more than front-end mockups. A good example was "Alert", a Portuguese system written in Flash which had almost nothing in the way of basic medicine management safeguards, and the team demonstrated zero aptitude for the ability to build them.
In the end the hospital in question used paper-based prescribing.
[1]: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2017/05/birmingham-childrens-g... is a reasonable story about this.
[2]: http://org-portal.alert-online.com/products-services