On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:41, Cedric Meyerowitz wrote: > BP users have 12 months ago asked HCN for a copy og MD3 to do excactly > this. They declined the offer. In the last 12 months this chalenge has > frequently resurfaced. BP was happy to provide a copy of BP, but HCN > wouldn't provide a copy of MD3. Why ? Are you saying we can now do this > benchmark test ? > > If you will supply the copy of MD3 we'd take up the challenge.
Such showdown might be meaningful for a number of well defined tasks (e.g. issuing repeat prescriptions, writing a new prescription, recording & reviewing vital observations and immunisations - but for general documentation I have experienced that the workflow (and documentation habits) vary that widely between doctors that I cannot see how to fairly compare. As an isolated rural practice, I employ a large number of locums for short time spans. They are used to all sorts of software packages, and there are people saying "what you are using is crap, I am sooo much faster using MDW/Genie/Locum whatever", and others saying the exact opposite - as I said, people have different workflows and documentation habits, and user interfaces should reflect these differences by offering a "least common denominator" default interface with a high level of customizability. I know of no commercial package doing this or taking such differences into account, hence it is a good thing we have a variety to chose from, but a very bad thing that no two programs within this variety play nicely together and could be employed in parallel in the same practice using the same backend. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
