Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by righthand on Monday December 23, 2024 @11:10PM
(#42499683)
Medical information system vendors only care about making a profit, not implementing actual solutions. The discrepancies between systems can lead to bad information which can cost people their life.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by ethbr1 on Tuesday December 24, 2024 @11:05AM
(#42502771)
As an analogy, imagine if the consequence of Oracle doing Oracle-as-usual things was worse medical outcomes. But they did them anyway for profit.
That's basically medical information system vendors.
The fact that the US hasn't pushed open source EMRs through CMS is insane. It's literally the perfect problem for an open solution.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by caboteria on Tuesday December 24, 2024 @11:22AM
(#42502896)
It's worse than that. VistA is a world-class open source EMR that the VA has been trying to kill for decades.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by nradov on Tuesday December 24, 2024 @09:17PM
(#42506393)
VistA was useful in it's time but it's hardly world class anymore. There were fundamental problems with the platform stack and data model which made it effectively impossible to keep moving forward.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by prepend on Tuesday December 24, 2024 @08:14PM
(#42506169)
I love open source EMRs, but has any major country adopted open source EMRs?
I know OpenMRS exists but is mainly used within developing nations.
The US has Vista, made by VA, and it is a beast and no one really wants to use it.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by jampekka on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @06:00AM
(#42508180)
If I understand correctly, Estonia made their own EMR/EHR from scratch. The government produced (and commissioned?) software is all open source. https://koodivaramu.eesti.ee/explore
EMR software seems like something that shouldn't be that hard. It's fundamentally a CRUD. Sure, there's a lot of legacy to interface with, but medical software seems like a deeply dysfunctional and probably corrupt industry.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by prepend on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @10:37AM
(#42509280)
It’s a famous “should be easy” use case. I think this is wrong only because no one does it.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by jampekka on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @12:11PM
(#42509795)
I'm sure there's a lot of work, but hundreds of millions per deployment is not justifiable. The Finnish EPIC deployment has cost almost a billion euros.
Estonia's from-scratch system was reportedly about 10 million euros.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by nradov on Tuesday December 24, 2024 @08:50PM
(#42506295)
It wouldn't be appropriate for the federal government to push any particular product. They have certified open source EHRs. It's not at all clear that increased adoption of those would improve patient outcomes.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by harvey9 on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @06:27AM
(#42508271)
Since Oracle bought Cerner a few years ago, no imagination needed. Sadly, since Cerner has lots of good people who want to make good products.
Re:Why Are Cancer Guidelines Stuck in PDFs?
by delfinom on Wednesday December 25, 2024 @09:49AM
(#42509033)
>The fact that the US hasn't pushed open source EMRs through CMS is insane. It's literally the perfect problem for an open solution.
It's not insane, it's because the US is an oligarchy. And it's about to go even more oligarchy on steroids in the next year.