There is too much operational and human complexity to solve healthcare with software alone.
One hospital death has already been confirmed as being due to UX difficulties with the new system. Link in Finnish: https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000006391154.html
The results apparently doesn’t favor Epic in that it costs 4-5 times as much [1] and has caused productivity loss 1.5 years after implementation [2] (links in danish)
Still don’t know if is a fair comparison though, since you probably pay the costs of adhering to process to start off with and only reap the benefits later. However the Epic implementation has also been bug riddled and I’ve also read that the procedures are designed for a litigation happy US and thus are not rational to apply here.
[1] https://www.computerworld.dk/art/248393/sundhedsplatformen-e...
Complaining about large corporate structures failing to meet individual needs is always a very appealing criticism, but people rarely seem to point out that these large behemoths need to be judged by their overall throughput.
The mass of people who benefit from standardized workflows are always anonymous, the failure cases always have a face, but it doesn't mean the trade-off isn't net positive.
Same input, but vastly different outputs.
And I don’t think their differing constraints can appropriately justify it.
It was all web-based - we even had a version for "mobile" (at the time which meant a ipaq personal assistant, running a version of Windows CE and a browser that made IE6 look sane).
The idea behind it was "patient-centricity"; the patient could manage, view, and "edit" their own healthcare records, and any physician on the system could have access to that patient's records (the patient would have to give approval to share with the provider).
It wasn't ever going to replace EPIC or any of the other large medical record systems, but the fact that a patient could control their own data was a significant part of the core marketing behind it - provided you could get other providers and support people on-board.
Things were going rather smoothly (but not very quickly) in the progress of the development of this app, until the client wanted to make the entire thing HIPAA compliant. At the time, this meant taking it off our in-house shared hosting environment, and get it on something else. What we found was, at the time the only option was to lease a full rack from Rackspace and use their services (and servers), as they were (supposedly) fully HIPAA compliant.
The client balked at the cost to implement such a system, and instead opted to roll their own. Then the client decided to hire their own developer (without telling us), and wanted us to backdate some HIPAA "compliancy documents" to say their system was fully compliant on a date when it wasn't. My employer thankfully decided not to go down that road, and instead to drop the client and contract (probably the best decision he ever made).