Not to split hairs but strictly speaking I believe that one could in fact also milk a whale, being mammals.
The study actually presents a sub-analysis of quality measures for hospital that use CPOE and EMR and shows that there are significant quality improvements when these systems are used. I think that when we talk about computerizing hospital processes, these are the systems that we consider -- not whether HR uses computers for payroll. I think it is a little disengenuous for the conclusions of this study (and reporting thereof) to state that there is no relationship between computerization and quality of care.
Disclaimer: Without CPOE and EMR, I would be unemployed
because there's more h1n1 than regular flu anyway.
I'm one of those lucky people that got h1n1, and I can say that it is just a "regular" flu. It's just another strain like all the others.
I worked on an EHR procurement process for the last several years and, yes, there's a LOT of crapware out there, but I have seen systems deployed that were almost entirely reliant on the input of the actual front-line providers and they'd sooner saw off their own arms than go back to paper records.
"They should start working now to have all records be electronic, X-rays, MRIs, personal history, etc. should be in formats that can be directly shared between doctors."
They already do. It's called HL7. It's been around for twenty years. Teleradiology is nothing terribly new anymore either.
As for "having a doctor or nurse putting in billing codes," look, if they're worth half their salt, they can already rattle off the ICD9/10 codes with sufficient accuracy from memory that it's actually faster than scribbling the condition on paper.
Yes, even GOOD systems can fail if deployed poorly. ITFA they admitted "we sucked when we used paper, then we went to computers and lo-and-behold, we still sucked just as badly, almost precisely so, ergo, we're pretty sure it was the computer's fault." This is a typical case of bad management pointing the finger at the technology to cover their own incompetence. I'm sure when they were on paper they blamed the f'ing pencils.
it is pronounced "egregious"
(sorry for the quality, best i could do on short notice)
The Register shares details of an IBM research paper which has recently come to light: [The] research paper that shows IBM working on a computing system capable "of hosting the entire internet as an application." This mega system relies on a re-tooled version of IBM's Blue Gene supercomputers.
"We hypothesize that for a large class of web-scale workloads the Blue Gene/P platform is an order of magnitude more efficient to purchase and operate than the commodity clusters in use today," the IBM researchers wrote.
A typical configuration would include four 850MHz PowerPC cores arranged in a system-on-a-chip model with built-in memory and interconnect controllers. You can take 32 of these "nodes" and pop them onto a card. Then you have 16 of those cards slot into a midplane. Each server rack has two midplanes, leaving you with 1024 nodes and 2TB of memory. In theory, you can connect up to 16,384 racks, providing up to 67.1m cores with 32PB of memory. That'll get some work done."