> Whereas I understand that everyone on this list is allowed their own
> viewpoint, I would appreciate if you would not trash web-based interfaces
> merely because you feel that they are not your cup of tea. If you don't
I apologize, honestly, and quite ashamed after reading what I wrote. Late hours, lack
of sleep.
But then, how many doctors ARE using a cpomputer to do their daily work? I don't mean
just for some administrative tasks, I mean really as the mainstay of their
documentation? Really paperless? According to official statistics, very, very few. Why
is that so? Think. Certainly not because there is no need. It is because the presently
available solutions do not satisfy the need. And of all the feedback I had so far in
almost 20 years, performance was always somewhere on top of the list. If it slows you
down, you don't use it.
Here in Australia, one software package dominates the market by about 85%. ("Medical
Director"). It is bad, and I mean really bad - because it looses and misfiles data. It
hasn't got even the most basic security / integrity precautions, and interoperability
does not exist in their vocabulary. It never was designed for multiuser networking
environments. Yet it is the big favourite. Why? The user interface is nice &
"responsive". It does not slow you down while you work. You simply can't do that with
a web based interface, at least not with our present standards. In my view, a software
that keeps loosing/misfiling data is worthless, but 85% of the docs (and Oz is one of
the countries with the highest percentage of computerized GPs according to the
statistics) still use & prefer (!) it. That's the real world I mean. Not a good world,
but the only one we have. Now, we can ignore that and keep living in the ivory tower
high up in the clouds cursing the dumb masses who stubbornly refuse to rejoyce about
our intellectual produce - or we can roll up our sleeves and start working on a real
world solution.
Apologizing,
Horst
