On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:52, Greg Markey wrote: > Like Liz we swapped from MD2 to Promed/Medibase about 2 years ago. At > the moment we use Pracsoft 2 with it. Works for us and we have > absolutely no bother. I'm not certain about the support now because > we haven't needed to use it for a long time, but it has been excellent > in the past. We would be very unwilling to change. Greg M (lurker > and ignoramus)
Same here - we swapped to Medibase too, some 2 years ago. Because it uses Interbase (or FIrebird) and has no restrictions in data format (all open) it was very easy to enhance - first I wrote a web interface that allowed our locums at the hospital controlled access to some data that was essential for A&E work & emergency admissions, then a INR module (using wxPython), then a Pathology result browser (because we all agreed the built in one sucked), and then it gradually mutated so that currently I can access it both via the old Medibase program as well as via the gnumed interface and use all gnumed extensions with it too. Since it changed hands (now Promed) we did not renew the contract because it would have explicitly forbidden such extension work, while Richard King (the original developer and owner) not only tolerated it but also helped me generously with advice whenever I asked. Downsides The program has few bells and whistles, the letter writer module is not particularly refined, repeat scripts were needlessly cumbersome, and generic prescribing was poorly and only partially supported Upsides Server replication works without any additional costs Server runs just fine on Linux Open data format, easy to export / import data Hot backups possible at any time Effortless updates at any time, can be automatized / scripted In the two years we had only one single software crash with only the last (incomplete) progress note lost, but no other losses of data nor any data corruption Summary: a basic medical software package that runs robust and reliable and is very easy to administer and maintain. I has many short term locums in the meantime and none had problems with it (very short learning phase), but some didn't like it, some did. Lacks some bells and whistles and refinement esp. re ergonomics, but appears to be rather responsive to customer wishes (don't even know whether my "downsides" still apply to the current version). Import from MDW was no problem - ran fully automatic in one evening; only things that failed during import were some esoteric scripts (not existing in MIMS but in AZ-DEX, in that case the program imported name etc. but couldn't cross reference the drugs with the MIMS database it uses), letter templates (all letters imported just fine), and "recipes". Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
