On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:01 PM, Tim.Churches wrote:
> Certainly formal quality assurance mechanisms for health-related
> software should be used where possible and reasonable, but it must
> also
> be remembered that the practice of medicine itself is, at worst,
> guided
> by a tradition of what seems to work as recorded in textbooks and
> handed
> down by traditional teaching, and at best by "evidence based practice"
> which relies on meta-analyses of observational studies which have all
> sorts of design and execution flaws, or on (hopefully double-blind)
> RCTs
> (randomised controlled trials) which typically have very limited
> generalisability to wider populations.
>
> Tim C
Ultimately, isn't the issue here whether we are concerned primarily
with computer science, medicine (or perhaps both)? to be honest, the
computer industry has not exactly done a stunning job in the quality
department, but does that mean we can only respond with defeatism? In
view, overemphasis on testing and process, to the exclusion of
engineering principles is a major factor in our failure to develop
reliable systems at a reasonable cost.
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Design quality doesn't ensure success, but design failure can ensure
failure."
--Kent Beck
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
