Microsoft and NHS to design healthcare software
Recidivist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microsoft and NHS to design healthcare software
I find this very worrying.
Horrible new meaning to 'Blue Screen of Death' ?
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9289163,00.htm
Horrible new meaning to 'Blue Screen of Death' ?
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9289163,00.htm
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've seen about the current project management methodologies used in developing these large systems, which include healthcare, Microsoft will do a bloody good job. MS methodologies are streets ahead of the clunky old nonsense these large UK software houses use. One of the problems with NHS software is they don't actually do what the end user really wants and that, IMO, is largely because the methodologies used are not good at this. The MSF way of doing things has to be a huge improvement, and who better to bring it in than MS?
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
frostbite,
I see nothing to worry about in what is being proposed. Distinguish between real-time safety-critical software and application software. It is the former that cannot afford to go wrong - ever! The latter can cope with the odd ctrl-alt-del.
Software used for flight control systems, or ATC systems would be examples of the former - or software controlling x-ray / MRI / Radiotherapy machines in the medical world - where you really don't want errors!
Inventory / warehousing or patient record applications are nowhere near as critical.
SD
I see nothing to worry about in what is being proposed. Distinguish between real-time safety-critical software and application software. It is the former that cannot afford to go wrong - ever! The latter can cope with the odd ctrl-alt-del.
Software used for flight control systems, or ATC systems would be examples of the former - or software controlling x-ray / MRI / Radiotherapy machines in the medical world - where you really don't want errors!
Inventory / warehousing or patient record applications are nowhere near as critical.
SD
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 58
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adds a new dimension to "crash call."
I do see myself as being at the "coalface" of care, yet I can never recall anyone actually asking me , (or my colleagues), what we need from a system.
(I've got a big list)
I do see myself as being at the "coalface" of care, yet I can never recall anyone actually asking me , (or my colleagues), what we need from a system.
(I've got a big list)
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
I do see myself as being at the "coalface" of care, yet I can never recall anyone actually asking me , (or my colleagues), what we need from a system.
But not the point being raised, I think.
One can (and should) separate WHAT is being done from HOW (and how reliably) it is being done.
SD
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 58
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if it appears I've missed the point, and I must confess, I know little about computer systems.
I do, however, have a wide knowledge of the gap between patient need, and health service supply.
Over the years, the "top down," approach to supplying systems which designers think we need, has not been of any benefit to improving patients health, or to help me improve the quality of care my patients deserve.
Designers seem to have the attitude of "this is what I can do," rather than "what do you need."
The znet article concerns itself with avoiding drug "significant events." Admirable, but only part of the solution.
I do, however, have a wide knowledge of the gap between patient need, and health service supply.
Over the years, the "top down," approach to supplying systems which designers think we need, has not been of any benefit to improving patients health, or to help me improve the quality of care my patients deserve.
Designers seem to have the attitude of "this is what I can do," rather than "what do you need."
The znet article concerns itself with avoiding drug "significant events." Admirable, but only part of the solution.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gingernut has actually put his finger smack bang on the point being raised. Microsoft have a way of developing software that is alien to the current designers of healthcare software. They are more likely (not guaranteed of course) to give the end users what they want than the current lot. IMO.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
gingernut,
I agree with you 100% -
The fundamental raison d'etre of any computer system is to do what actually needs to be done, hopefully as accurately and efficiently as possible.
Unfortunately the IT landscape is littered with projects that were badly / wrongly specified (for whatever multitude of reasons). Not something that the IT industry or the business managers involved in the selection, procurement and specification should be proud of.
HOWEVER, I believe that the original point was "Oh my God, MS involved in healthcare software, shock horror", patients will die not because of what the system does, but simply because Windows will crash.
Not, perhaps the best-informed viewpoint as subsequent posts have indicated.
As an aside, which would be better - an application that does exactly what you want, but crashes occasionally, or is sometimes unavailable, (but human safety is not compromised) or an application that is 100% reliable but doesn't do what it needs to - or only 60-70% of what it needs to do?
I hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that MS software is more or less unreliable than any other (non safety critical) commercial platform.
SD
I agree with you 100% -
Over the years, the "top down," approach to supplying systems which designers think we need, has not been of any benefit to improving patients health, or to help me improve the quality of care my patients deserve.
Designers seem to have the attitude of "this is what I can do," rather than "what do you need."
Designers seem to have the attitude of "this is what I can do," rather than "what do you need."
Unfortunately the IT landscape is littered with projects that were badly / wrongly specified (for whatever multitude of reasons). Not something that the IT industry or the business managers involved in the selection, procurement and specification should be proud of.
HOWEVER, I believe that the original point was "Oh my God, MS involved in healthcare software, shock horror", patients will die not because of what the system does, but simply because Windows will crash.
Not, perhaps the best-informed viewpoint as subsequent posts have indicated.
As an aside, which would be better - an application that does exactly what you want, but crashes occasionally, or is sometimes unavailable, (but human safety is not compromised) or an application that is 100% reliable but doesn't do what it needs to - or only 60-70% of what it needs to do?
I hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that MS software is more or less unreliable than any other (non safety critical) commercial platform.
SD
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mission critical software**
For tailored software that allows for easy administration, Microsoft shines.
M$ offers the most flexible and generally compatible OS in the business.
**If my Nonna (or anyone else in our family including me) were to be connected to a life-giving machine that uses a popular PC OS, I would rest easier knowing that Unix or Linux were loaded.
M$ offers the most flexible and generally compatible OS in the business.
**If my Nonna (or anyone else in our family including me) were to be connected to a life-giving machine that uses a popular PC OS, I would rest easier knowing that Unix or Linux were loaded.
