ShirtlessRod

> To get something that works better.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

From the article it sounded like it wasn't just "who is this person we would like to question them", it was more along the lines of "we need access to this person's email and other data".

The former seems possibly okay to me, but the latter is definitely not.

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 Your information is definitely out of date.

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

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.

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.

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 you acknowledge that the implementation requirements set by the organization have at least something to do with overall user satisfaction.

I'm not really sure what to say to that, since you seem to be implying that no one likes it, which is pretty patently false.

A lot of it does depend on the organization you're working with, as some are more dysfunctional than others when it comes to setting up best practices and build for their physicians. Others actually listen to their clinical users and tailor the system for them.

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.

How is it "garbage software"?

All of these things can be done without internet connectivity.

Didn't you read? "Some people", the most pernicious of all groups.

Solid argument, especially after throwing around insults instead of discussing (or refuting) the points brought up in the original comment.

True, but I would guess that oil is used at a much higher rate than sand, especially considering the relative availability of each.