Tony Eviston wrote: > David Guest wrote: >> Oliver Frank wrote: >>> David Guest wrote: >>> >>>> If this is true, it would be only the second time, as far as I am >>>> aware, of HCN allowing hooks into their software. >>> As Basil Fawlty said to the German guest who he thought was asking >>> whether he had to supply his own food, "Not necessary!". >> No Oliver. >> >> If I understand Fee correctly, you type 'Fra, Oli' in the patient >> selection box and a message pops up saying "Give this patient Lipitor, >> you loser", or words to that effect. >> >> So Pfizer is happy. HCN is happy. The patients aren't all that happy. >> They think you are in the pocket of the druggies. The GPs aren't happy. >> They didn't even get a free lunch out of it. The Feds aren't all that >> happy because the bill for statins just doubled. >> >> The bottom line, however, is that death from heart disease is lower. So >> it's all good. > > since when are GP's unable to process this information themselves > provided it is presented to them? > There is a user interface deficiency in MD (and probably others as well) > where there is no one screen which gives the broad overview of the > information needed to quickly assemble all of the information required > to make these decisions. > I think there is a general perception among professional programmers > (and even set out in Microsoft's UI Guidelines I believe) that multiple > aesthetically pleasing, uncluttered screens are better than a single > very busy screen with lots of information. > In my opinion the most useful tool is a single screen displaying all of > the data required. All the better if the information hyperlinks to allow > further drilling or broadening of the information. > We have been using this prototype for 4 years now and find it an > efficient way to do the data gathering and mental processing: > http://bmc.mine.nu/freeaccess/summary.htm
A very good point, which Richard Terry has also made many times as well. There is a clear difference between the acceptable level of complexity of user interfaces that skilled professionals are expected to use every single working day, and a user interfaces that neophyte users can assimilate and understand in 30 seconds. Far too many software designers implement the latter, because they look nicer in teh marketing brochures and during 10 minute demos of the software, and don't produce an initial shock reaction of "uggh, that's so complex, I'll never understand it". But utility is more important than aesthetics for something that is used every day and which by necessity becomes as familiar in layout as the inside of your own mouth. That is not to say that complex and information-dense displays can't be made aesthetically pleasing, but it does require more thought and creativity on the part of the designer. As a slightly related aside, for anyone interested in the general issue of information design (any information), can I recommend the following blog: http://www.infosthetics.com - browse through the historical archives and you'll see lots of ideas for information presentation and visualisation that could be applied to clinical data, given a bit of R&D funding. Also has links to other data presentation and visualisation resources. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
