> prescriber less will be needed. For a simple prescriber - and even a > university hospital department - a long and bloated list containing > thousands of items will be counterproductive and lead to frustration and > non-use: hand-written prescriptions may be simpler and quicker. So there A short and concise list does not preclude the existance of a long and complete list. A long and complete list does not hamper usability in any way. Poorly designed interfaces will. Why should the prescriber have to operate on the complete list with thousands of "junk" items OR why should she have to lack the availability of such a list ? Give each user her own list that organically grows by selecting drugs from the complete list. There may be another intermediate list (department/ practice level) with a broader pre-selection that what an individual physician will actually use but excluding most things she'll never use.
> idea to make a very short list and test it in the field just for > feasibility in the different user groups. This has been proven to work already. It is implemented in several popular practice management systems worldwide. It's not like we are talking innovation here. > I would go for the general medical practitioner in the beginning. A few > drugs: Valium, Ketorax, Viagra, Lasix - just to make it simple enough > and besides introduce some of the problems of variable doses and > narcotics controls. How exactly have I to envision this to work ? I am a rather avid proponent of IT use in General Medicine but I fail to see the particular benefit here ? What are we trying to find out that we don't already know ? I am very interested in your take on this. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
