Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

healthcareitnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–259 of 259 posts

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#251

Post by ta999999171 »

throw_14JAS wrote: post #239
ta999999171 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the new "Windows Terminal" project - EXCELLENT marketing strategies in recent years. I still don't trust them, but credit where credit is due.

I encourage you to consider how your statement, "I don't trust Microsoft," sounds to a higher level exec or department head. I don't mean this as a criticism -- I notice there's a tendency for ICs to state their opinions in such a way that hurts their perception. Namely, if you were to state to a higher level manager that you "don't trust Microsoft", you will come across as a crank. Or a developer who doesn't see the…

That would be the first reason I'd give to someone that questioned my "crank" statement.

The next one would be the PRISM connection (Skype architecture, etc), and FISA orders they're surely under.

It's not totally they're fault I don't trust them. Buuuuut, it is partly.

Definitely appreciate the feedback - lucky for me, I have removed myself from corporate tech bureaucracy, become self-employed, and can preach from my poor man's pulpit ;D

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#252

Post by whatevershesaid »

whatl3y wrote: post #178
leoh wrote: post #140

Google is absolutely doing the right thing. Anything that can be done to enhance the efficacy of EMR software will help lead to better patient outcomes. As far as I can tell, Google is approaching the problem foremost from the perspective of "how can we make people healthier by making software more effective." Epic and Cerner are simply not doing that. Somewhere in the comments here someone mentioned that most EMR so…

> In most implementations, neither Cerner not Epic encourage structured data recording except for billing codes. > The software is designed to be sold to administrators and, as currently designed is unquestionably leading to worse outcomes for patients. disclaimer: I’m a former Epic employee who worked on their inpatient app. Do you have data or literature to support these statements for a typical Epic implementation…

Generally agree with your sentiments, with one correction: Scheduling/Revenue apps came first (Cadence was the first app to go live in 1983) with clinical apps launching in the 90s (Ambulatory in 1992 and Inpatient in 1998).

Source: staff meetings (former Epic IS) and this old article: https://isthmus.com/news/cover-story/epic-systems-an-epic-ti...

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#253

Post by fauigerzigerk »

loceng wrote: post #248
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think ads should be obliterated. People will always try to influence other people and ads are just one way of doing that. In my opinion, there are far more nefarious, manipulative and intransparent ways of pursuing the same goal. Also, ads are currently indispensible for privacy as weird as that may sound. There is currently no widespread, privacy preserving form of electronic payment, and I very much doubt t…

How about an "ad system" that people actively engage with when they're wanting to discover vs. being bombarded everywhere - perhaps not understanding the implications of manipulation of ads have on them? At minimum it changes the user experience greatly.

We can always wish for things to be less annoying, but the difficult question is how to make it happen without causing more unintended consequences than intended ones.

You have to ask yourself what advertisers would do if you ban those in-your-face super annoying ads. Stop spending money on trying to influence our decisions? I don't think so.

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#254

Post by loceng »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #253
loceng wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about an "ad system" that people actively engage with when they're wanting to discover vs. being bombarded everywhere - perhaps not understanding the implications of manipulation of ads have on them? At minimum it changes the user experience greatly.

We can always wish for things to be less annoying, but the difficult question is how to make it happen without causing more unintended consequences than intended ones. You have to ask yourself what advertisers would do if you ban those in-your-face super annoying ads. Stop spending money on trying to influence our decisions? I don't think so.

Except other methods will certainly cost more, bringing their cost of products up, and so someone's products who are better and known as such through word of mouth will have a competitive advantage on price.

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#255

Post by fauigerzigerk »

loceng wrote: post #254
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can always wish for things to be less annoying, but the difficult question is how to make it happen without causing more unintended consequences than intended ones. You have to ask yourself what advertisers would do if you ban those in-your-face super annoying ads. Stop spending money on trying to influence our decisions? I don't think so.

Except other methods will certainly cost more, bringing their cost of products up, and so someone's products who are better and known as such through word of mouth will have a competitive advantage on price.

I'm not so sure about that. Ad spending has remained roughly the same as a share of GDP for over a century.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-03/advertisi...

I think transparency is more important than fighting annoyances.

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#256

Post by ShirtlessRod »

leoh wrote: post #137
ShirtlessRod wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You haven't spoken to many doctors then. I don't mean to be a jerk or snarky. It really is an awful piece of software. Among its worst flaws is that in most implementations, neither Cerner not Epic encourage structured data recording except for billing codes. This means that if a patient comes through the medical system frequently, doctors have to read pages and pages of unstructured text to get a sense of what's goi…

That's because the organization requires their docs to file data in that way; it's not a requirement or limitation of the software at all.

You're basically saying that software can be used in a shitty way. That's not exactly unique to this space.

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#257

Post by ShirtlessRod »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #109
ShirtlessRod wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the system can somehow overcome poor implementation; guardrails can only do so much. At the end of the day you can set up almost any piece of software in a way that hinders rather than helps a user. At some point the organization needs to take some responsibility for that. At any rate, this all started with a glib "garbage software" comment, so I suppose I should happy that…

> I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the system can somehow overcome poor implementation If very large amounts of 'implementation' have to be done on top of the software, then that's also a sign of bad design. It should be handling more of the implementation and making it more streamlined.

They already have an option like that. The problem is a lot of organizations still want to do their own thing or have their own requirements they want to impose on their users, which is where the large amounts of "implementation" comes from.

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#258

Post by ShirtlessRod »

bagacrap wrote: post #229
ShirtlessRod wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it "garbage software"?

It's garbage because the interface sucks. It looks like it was designed in 1998, and is full of clunky non sequiturs like, "You cannot proceed. Proceed anyway?" There are untold hours and dollars spent on training users because of it. It's garbage on the backend because the update process is ridiculously manual. Every minor change sends out a ticket with incredibly detailed instructions, e.g. to update a single eleme…

What "update process" are you referring to? Claims processing?

Re: Epic Tells Customers It Will Stop Google Cloud Integrations

#259

Post by ShirtlessRod »

logfromblammo wrote: post #224
ShirtlessRod wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it "garbage software"?

In 2005, when I started working there, the Epic codebase was MUMPS and Visual Basic 6, which left mainstream support before I was even allowed to touch it. There was no migration plan for expiration of extended support in 2008. As for the MUMPS code, there was a node size limitation for the code. Which included variable names and comments. So each code segment (identified by inscrutable five-letter (or less) names li…

There's a lot of misinformation to unpack here. Your information is definitely out of date.
Post reply on HN