On Friday 29 June 2007 15:22, James wrote:
> HI Richard - I would love to agree- still waiting for a demo of profile-
> Stephan from profile is waiting for the next version before he gives it to
> me. Why do you favour Profile so much? Why can other software not improve?

As I said previously, because I think the paradigm is incorrect. 

Unfortunately windows software had its genesis often from DOS software (MDW 
the best example) where the design was simply moved to windows.

 Programmers who moved from DOS design to Windows by and large failed to grasp 
the concepts of windows programming and the freedom it gave them (hence the 
heirachical tree like mechanisms in MDW ie one windows opens, leads to the 
next, leads to the next (all modal) and close the same way.

They did that I think because it is incredibly hard to control non-modal 
programs, where there are so many combinations of what can happen when the 
user clicks on different parts of the screen.

Unfortunately, the concept most people have of medical program design is that 
you plonk a few textboxes on the screen to do whatever you want, whearas the 
only sensible medical record design is an intelligent blank piece of paper, 
where the system (like in a word processor) is able to parse the user input 
intelligently and act accordingly 

Hence what could have been acheived with intelligent design in a single plane 
where the system both allowed the user to select any part of the screen, plus 
intelligently interpretted likely scenarious, was never done.

Whereas Frank has tried to improve with Best Practice, I think his mindset is 
tied down to the original DOS/MDW design, and  poor screen ergonomics.

Contrast this to Profile where the progress notes are the workplace. Profile 
of course has reasonably poor prescribing and atrocious immunizations, but 
that is a tradeoff against flexibility.

The Profile concept could be taken further however. I've played extensively 
with their current and up and coming version.

Pity their support has been less than good, however I'm so fed up with current 
software offerings I'm thinking of biting the bullet myself and using 
Profile.

Regards

Richard



>
> I would guess the underlying program is important- Functionality- support
> and stability are key elements. I wonder if any one will be able to keep up
> with the wish list I have compiled already?
>
> Regards James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Richard Terry
> Sent: Friday, 29 June 2007 10:39 AM
> To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Wish list- Medical Software
>
> On Thursday 28 June 2007 23:56, James wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> > A software development fellow (medtech type) is visiting. Do you have any
> > wish list items you might like to recommend for medical software?
>
> Basic mis-understanding of medical software design.
>
> It is the functional paradigm which makes medical software work/not work.
>
> There is only one program on the market with any intelligence and a good
> functional paradigm and that's Profile.
>
> Medtech is functionally hopeless and to think you can improve it by a wish
> list misses the point. Ditto for MDW and best practice (though much better
> than MDW). Bolt on solutions never work.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
> > The fellow is a software development consultant from India. He is
> > visiting me next week. When we spoke to day he said he is interested in
> > discussing improvements I can suggest to make MT32 the best product -
> >
> >
> >
> > I want cutting edge medical software- I would like to see that!- LOL
> >
> >
> >
> > Any wish lists- dreams will be considered.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk

Reply via email to