3 ms·
Better search is definitely needed and seems like something the EPICs and Cerners of the world could easily do if they just assigned a couple smart people and l
by gmarx 11y ago
Better search is definitely needed and seems like something the EPICs and Cerners of the world could easily do if they just assigned a couple smart people and left them alone. Instead they'll probably form vast teams of search stakeholders.
But search is only one need. You say EMRs imagine an idealized model. Maybe. They certainly never develop one. And that's what you need to reach the potential of medical data analytics. The software needs to "understand" what the data means without constant human intervention
- specialist 11y agoPerhaps my effort was informed by my prior experiences with ERP/CRM systems and the semantic web. I'm firmly in the folksonomy (vs taxonomy) camp. We just showed our customers data back to them. In most cases, it was the first time they'd ever seen it. Hence the churn on "what is a visit", resolving scripts, etc. I don't know anything about medical data analytics, but if we captured the data, then its there to be mined. It was just HL7 (or whatever), as is.
- sk5t 11y agoHonest question: who wants to read raw HL7? To whom is the ability to access HL7 on-demand a killer feature?
- webjprgm 11y agoOut of curiosity, what kind of data do you propose searching? Do you mean searching a patient chart? Searching for lab results? Searching doctor notes? Or do you mean more like analytics to see trends? Or for finding patients, in the vein of an national patient ID service? I ask because there is some amount of chart searching and organization analytics in the big EHR products so I'm curious which part you think is specifically lacking?
- cordite 11y agoThe "and left them alone" is a very important point that is not being met for innovation.