71–80 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. | Also EPIC is spectacularly unfit for purpose. Total garbage software that essentially functions as a billing tool.
How is it "garbage software"?
Might want to specify which Epic. I was left wondering in what way Fortnite was connected to Google Cloud integrations.
Googler, opinions are my own. WSJ has had some good converge about parallel medical record stories that are going on right now too, as has CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/epic-systems-warns-customers... https://www.wsj.com/articles/paging-dr-google-how-the-tech-g... WSJ podcast about it: https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/why-google-is-pushi... To quote the end of the WSJ article: > Existing players in th…
Oracle over the years, acquired some of our competitors.
Then every time customers would need to renew database licenses with Oracle, Oracle's sales reps would try to sell them the competing enterprise systems that they had acquired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They pick Azure because somewhere along the line the mid- and upper-level managers, including director-level IT people, have been made to believe that anything other than Windows is insecure and not suitable for HIPAA. I'd argue it's less because of a belief that a non-Windows environment is inherently insecure and more that Microsoft very aggressively promotes their products as being compliant with regulations like…
It'x a brilliant piece of marketing from MS, if you think about it. Many decision makers, even in spaces with HIPAA data, have no real idea what it entails. They are frightened of screwing it up. What Microsoft sells is a "good enough" solution that speaks the right language for the decision makers. In turn, this makes their decision less risky while still satisficing the requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it "garbage software"?
It's a billing system with clinical related functionality tacked on. It's pretty frustrating to use from the perspective of a "boots on the ground" user.
Google is doing the right thing. EPIC is a perfect example of the walled garden ecosystem that extracts every last drop from its clients and keeps anyone trying to innovate out. Healthcare tech could use the competition to drive down costs related to medical record management and exchange.
> EPIC is a perfect example of the walled garden ecosystem that extracts every last drop from its clients and keeps anyone trying to innovate out. Google doesn't do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a billing system with clinical related functionality tacked on. It's pretty frustrating to use from the perspective of a "boots on the ground" user.
That's a pretty pessimistic and quite frankly not accurate assessment of the software. They have a ton of clinical functionality, and that's what the majority of the dev/design spends their time on at their users group meeting, among other places. You might not like it, but many do.
I don't blame them - from my understanding there are certain Google Cloud services that have glaring security holes/are legitimately HIPAA violations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a physician forced to use Epic, I'm not sure "crafted" is the word I'd use to describe their software. It's more like they addressed the spec from the C suite in a way that was equivalent to punching health care providers in the face. They take Dad's money, and use it to pay thugs to beat up his kids.
Serious q: are the other systems any better? Have you tried them? Have you compared notes with physicians using them? (I'm new to the field and genuinely curious... I haven't heard anybody saying anything nice about any of them...)
Epic was by far the jankiest. i.e. if you tried to cancel a recurring appointment the wrong way it crashed the entire system. Athena and Nextech were among the least disliked