Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

At my institution, they developed their own EMR in house. And it works really well, presumably because 1) incentives are as well aligned as they could be, and 2) it allows incremental improvement. This latter point is crucial - the basic system went out, everyone could use it and make suggestions, and then other services were gradually integrated (radiology, pathology). The same people working on the EMR keep working on it over (thus far) 7 years. It also was dramatically less expensive than say getting a product from Epic, which is what the next iteration will be. Everyone is worried.



>Epic, which is what the next iteration will be. Everyone is worried.

Why are they doing that? I'm curious as to the dynamics that make people drop "works really well" for systems that are widely disliked.


They are integrating multiple hospitals in the precinct. I guess the thought is that the project complexity is best handled by outsourcing to Epic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: