Cipher <
nota...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> * I get to fight the EHR system which is built on a purported database
> that is like Access 2.0, only with half the tools and none of the
> good design sense
A friend worked as a developer for one of the EHR companies for about 7
years. Part way through it, I asked him: if you got in a car wreck,
woke up in the hospital, and saw your company's software in use on the
PC next to your bed, what would you do? Answer: "Ask to be transferred
to a different hospital."
He recovered from the EHR company and then sought new unrecovery.
Apparently his previous employer had a reputation. He said that the
most common response from HR types in his interviews was, "You *lasted*
seven years there?"
Another friend actually works in hospitals and has to use EHR systems.
I asked her for her 30-second evaluation. For the product of the
company that my friend worked for, she said, basically, that the front-
end UI is better; the doctor doesn't have to re-enter a lot of
information, and making simple orders is quick. But the back-end sucks;
it's hard for the billing people to figure out what the doctor actually
*did*, so they can charge accordingly.
For a competing EHR system, it was pretty much the reverse: the front-
end is horrible, requiring re-entering the same information in multiple
places, and makes the doctor go through several screens to submit
relatively simple orders. But the back-end works a lot better for the
billing department.
All of that is a long way around to say that all software sucks.
Matt Roberds