Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Relevant - paper here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250633/ - which is the paper that rescued my PhD (on electronic health records rather than medical records, but adjacent).

Note that Scotland got electronic medical records much more correct than England by making the whole thing a Clinician lead process rather than the English technocratic approach.

Finally it's very difficult to do "proper" scientific research on electronic health records, as control matched research is not achievable. Therefore you have to reach for things like single case study

Final brag - when I submitted my PhD it was politically quite sensitive so we had to find the right external assessors. One expert, one person whose judgement we trusted. The expert returned their report saying what a great piece of work it was and it should receive high commendation. The other person said it was solid and thorough but ultimately pretty obvious. Therefore I conclude that I received better than a high commendation for my work :D



> Clinician lead process

could you tl;dr what does that mean, why the English one relatively failed, and how it would have fared better with a clinician led version? thanks!


Best outcome is when the people using these systems are the same people as those buying/specifying the systems. And best introduced with limited and constrained scope so you end up meeting the users actual needs. Pretty simple really and a tale as long as enterprise software itself.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: