I agree no one under 25 would buy Cerner or Epic or McK or Allscripts, etc. All legacy based systems with web front ends.
But - and this is the most important part - 25 year olds are not CIOs or CFOs or CEOs at health facilities. When they move into those decision making positions they will no doubt install today's state of the art technology since that is what they are familiar with and understand. Which by then the new 25 yr olds will label as LEGACY!
I was built in 1991 (26 yrs old) - 8 years ago
and I agree, Epic would never make it through a selection committee of my peers, not even on the shortlist. It looks like it was programmed during a different generation and hasn't caught up to 2016.
We grew up using tablets,smartphones, MACs, web pages, etc. It was a shock once I started rotations and had to use it for the first time. Same goes for GE and Cerner--they all had the look and feel of software built in the 80s.
No not a 50 yr run a 20 yr run - 8 years ago
Epic wasn't anything to anyone until MU started in ~2009--you know why? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO PAY FOR THAT GARBAGE. It didn't sell on it own merits, functionality and GUI. It sold once AND ONLY ONCE Uncle Sam said he'll pay 90% of the cost.
you're right, i was probably too giving with my 20 yr comment. I already see some of the smaller hospitals ditching Epic because the huge financial burden. Probably another 5 yrs before people started ditching it for a web based systems that doesn't need a a CIA data center to host and doesn't cost MILLIONS of dollars a year to support.
MC - 8 years ago
Agree with Frank Poggio, all depends on the definition of efficiency. Most clinicians consider them inefficient because they take more time however if you consider the safety aspects then they are definitely more efficient. I will say though that we are just starting to peel the onion on that topic, believe we will make rapid strides now that the majority of hospitals have electronic systems.
Gone in 20? Well lets see that would make it an almost 50 year run. Not bad for any company. Fact is neither Epic or Cerner or whoever are perfect state of the art systems- but the techies that preach that only new technologies can solve old problems never have worked in hospitals and do not realize that administrators are basically conservative and will always go with the safe (though maybe costly) solution first.
E also stands for.... - 8 years ago
"E"ternal bond rating downgrades and "E"xit interview after bankrupting your health systems for a piece of software that appears to built in the 80s. Epic "sucks a$$"...it will be gone in 20 years.
Epic? did somebody say Epic?
Oh, I get it. Epic starts with an E and so does efficiency...
This blog sucks a$$ - 8 years ago
clearly biased towards Epic, that's why this blog is considered gossip and not news. The same 1000 ppl reading the same stories and stroking each others' egos at your little annual party. Puppetry at its worst/best.
Depends on how you define efficiency. if you only look at one element - usually source data capturing by clinicians then it is less efficient, but if your view is the overall delivery and process including quality then it could be more efficient. Typically most analyses deal with only one or two of the elements, not the full spectrum. I discussed an example using CPOE some six years ago at http://www.kelzongroup.com/CPOE_Doc_Dilemma.html
I agree no one under 25 would buy Cerner or Epic or McK or Allscripts, etc. All legacy based systems with web front ends.
But - and this is the most important part - 25 year olds are not CIOs or CFOs or CEOs at health facilities. When they move into those decision making positions they will no doubt install today's state of the art technology since that is what they are familiar with and understand. Which by then the new 25 yr olds will label as LEGACY!
and I agree, Epic would never make it through a selection committee of my peers, not even on the shortlist. It looks like it was programmed during a different generation and hasn't caught up to 2016.
We grew up using tablets,smartphones, MACs, web pages, etc. It was a shock once I started rotations and had to use it for the first time. Same goes for GE and Cerner--they all had the look and feel of software built in the 80s.
Epic wasn't anything to anyone until MU started in ~2009--you know why? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO PAY FOR THAT GARBAGE. It didn't sell on it own merits, functionality and GUI. It sold once AND ONLY ONCE Uncle Sam said he'll pay 90% of the cost.
you're right, i was probably too giving with my 20 yr comment. I already see some of the smaller hospitals ditching Epic because the huge financial burden. Probably another 5 yrs before people started ditching it for a web based systems that doesn't need a a CIA data center to host and doesn't cost MILLIONS of dollars a year to support.
Agree with Frank Poggio, all depends on the definition of efficiency. Most clinicians consider them inefficient because they take more time however if you consider the safety aspects then they are definitely more efficient. I will say though that we are just starting to peel the onion on that topic, believe we will make rapid strides now that the majority of hospitals have electronic systems.
Gone in 20? Well lets see that would make it an almost 50 year run. Not bad for any company. Fact is neither Epic or Cerner or whoever are perfect state of the art systems- but the techies that preach that only new technologies can solve old problems never have worked in hospitals and do not realize that administrators are basically conservative and will always go with the safe (though maybe costly) solution first.
"E"ternal bond rating downgrades and "E"xit interview after bankrupting your health systems for a piece of software that appears to built in the 80s. Epic "sucks a$$"...it will be gone in 20 years.
Epic? did somebody say Epic?
Oh, I get it. Epic starts with an E and so does efficiency...
clearly biased towards Epic, that's why this blog is considered gossip and not news. The same 1000 ppl reading the same stories and stroking each others' egos at your little annual party. Puppetry at its worst/best.
Depends on how you define efficiency. if you only look at one element - usually source data capturing by clinicians then it is less efficient, but if your view is the overall delivery and process including quality then it could be more efficient. Typically most analyses deal with only one or two of the elements, not the full spectrum. I discussed an example using CPOE some six years ago at http://www.kelzongroup.com/CPOE_Doc_Dilemma.html