Switching Hospital Systems to Linux
jcatcw writes "Health care software vendor McKesson Provider Technologies is focusing on ways to cut IT costs for customers, including hospitals and medical offices. The cure is moving many of McKesson's medical software applications to Linux, which can then be used on less expensive commodity hardware instead of expensive mainframes. A deal with Red Hat allows McKesson to offer its software in a top-to-bottom package for mission-critical hospital IT systems."
the cure are doing what now?
If this catches on, health care will become a little more affordable. 60% of IT costs is quite a bit of money for hospitals to save.
Seek and ye shall find.
If you use McKesson's software every day like I do, you would be amazed at its expense, sluggishness, and irritability. Lab systems that insist on running on Internet Explorer 6 and resizing to fit your whole screen aren't a big surprise - however mediocre. But mission critical systems that routinely crash with Java errors, can't run reliably remotely, require large IT departments to maintain, are slower and more difficult to use than the tty-based systems they replaced, can't trend labs, can't reliably wildcard search patient names, and die miserably if the wind blows more than 5 miles an hour or the moon is waxing - this is truly sad.
I wish our hospital system could dig its way out of it. I don't think running on top of Linux will help much. See if you can get a screenshot of their software on their website - I can't - they don't promote this stuff to the physicians and nurses who use it - it gets sold to the suits. There's a goldmine out their awaiting some entrepreneur who could really take pride in writing good software of this sort, and though I love Linux, I don't really care what it runs on top of.
Just wanna give a shout out to the PR rep that planted this story. Three brand mentions in the opening paragraph - can I get a whoop-whoop?
Two points off for the "less expensive commodity hardware instead of expensive mainframes" - that's a Microsoft marketing phrase from the early 1990's for God's sake - but still a pretty good job all around.
Two possibilities: in the process of porting, they have to rewrite all of the bits that call grody Windows bits, such as IE, and therefore many problem bits get fixed . . . or they just write bad code all over again, Linux gets the blame, and hospitals revert at great cost.
RedHat may help though - they might insist on some level of quality / provide some assistance in the creation of software that does not suck quite so much. They have a reputation to maintain, as well as sufficient company-ness to explain to suits that when things go wrong, it is *not* their fault. So, I'll be optimistic about this.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
(laughs so hard milk squirts out his nose)
Red Hat newbie, are we?
Just what we need... MUMPS for Linux. No!!!!!
Linux is only secure if you have good people who know how to properly make it secure. It seems that there are a lot of shops where someone with a corner office and a nice car decides that linux is cheap and doesn't decide to properly staff for the change.
Linux at the desk top is so next year.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Hospitals will not go for that.
They want accountability. They want someone to blame/sue if something goes wrong. A bunch of geeks writing software anonymously across the Internet? No hospital manager will go for that, especially with privacy guidelines going rampant. Even if they have the source code, they will not have the time/money to audit that code to make sure that everyone's info is not going to Russia.
They'll talk to Redhat and McKesson... Those companies are taking the responsibility (and liability) for the software. They won't talk to random Joe Blow on the internet.
If that isn't the parable of the broken window if I have ever heard it! Efficiency to any market is a good thing. The more unnecessary cost involved in the healthcare industry, the more dollars it needlessly sucks out of the rest of the economy. Sure, you can make the argument that healthcare is a capital purchase in that it increases your viability in the labor force, but that is a stretch. Cutting bloat is never a bad thing. We need to cut some serious bloat out of the industry, and we should start with beaurecracy and go all the way down to reforming the insurance industry. There needs to be some kind of oversight on cost to quality ratios, as this hybrid government backed/privately funded monster is the model of inefficiency. I like to argue for social justice so I'm naturally wary of any solely private system, but a well-designed private system would be ten times better than what we have now.
I got a catholic block.
Would also be supremely good for the Open Source community in general because of the massive amount of publicity we could gain from this (especially if the code is stronger, better and faster).
My $0.02 AU, ignore at will
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
I think the market could find something much more efficient than health care that would more than offset the effect on the economy. Your argument reminds me of the broken window fallacy. Wasting money in health care is like breaking windows and saying that it's providing jobs. Sure, but fixing that window is just taking resources away from better endeavors.
/br
A while ago I was hacking at parts of that great mess commonly known as McKessons "top-to-bottom package" for almost 5 years. As far as I can tell the "package" is actually hodge-podge collection of applications accumulated over time by acquiring various software vendors which barely talk to each other. In a lot of cases the people who wrote the apps and knew how to maintain those cached out and jumped the ship years ago. Last thing I heard of it this summer entire locations were shut down and routine maintenance moved to Bangalore. As a twist those left to the end had to do some time there training replacements. Personally I am extremely skeptical about their ability to maintain what's there, much less move this all stuff to radially different platform such as Linux.
AMEN BROTHER! I'm a doctor in a hospital that just deployed an electronic health record system that is slower than the system it replaced - which was slower than the TTY system it replaced - that refuses to search patient names if you can't provide a first initial. I'm an anesthesiologist, so I see people I don't have long relationships with, and remembering someone's first name is just damned hard when you remember their medical conditions better than their name. The one piece of medical software I've seen that is really fantastic - and no, I don't own a piece of the company, I just wish I did - is our radiology system, Stentor iSite (now bought by Phillips, I think). It's very easy to use, yet the advanced user can access all sorts of features that improve the experience.
Two possibilities: in the process of porting, they have to rewrite all of the bits that call grody Windows bits, such as IE, and therefore many problem bits get fixed . . . or they just write bad code all over again, Linux gets the blame, and hospitals revert at great cost.
You don't "call" IE, you serve it. And the description poster provided is of the Java server code rewrite that didn't work like the prior "tty" system. That's mainframe terminal software. (I'm an AS/400 System i programmer. McKesson also used to run their enterprise software on AS/400, but they also bought HBOC medical system software company which was mainframe software, so it's probably referring to that.)
There was a big problem with the HBOC thing, lawsuits, etc., but they would have rewritten in J2EE anyway. And you'll hear people who have to use web systems replacing mainframe tty systems saying the same thing everytime. I have a collection of articles that make that point over and over.
rd
We're in beta testing with actual patients now and my boss is bankrolling us into starting a company to sell the software and other medical-related IT solutions to local doctors (many of whom have horribly inefficient offices and don't fully realize it). I'm hoping we can expand beyond just local doctors, because it is a huge market and the best anyone else seems to be doing (around southern Ontario at least) is holding seminars to talk about how technology could be used to enhance medical practice someday.
No, the spending wouldn't decrease at all. They would just reapportion the funds to equipment such as the latest digital X-Ray machines. Or the newest CAT scanner. Or the latest robotic surgical nurse.
You get the picture. In fact, in most of health care, that's just what happens already. They spend as little as possible on IT and reapportion the cost to areas of service that will directly benefit their ability to attract doctors and customers and therefore generate greater revenues.
Those reading this might think I'm kidding, but let me tell you this: I once replaced a token ring network with an ethernet network connecting Pentium IIs and IIIs. In 2005.
-- A former healthcare IT worker.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
I was going to make my own McKesson sucks comment, but instead I'll just second yours. They write Crap. Period. End of story.
I remember sitting in on a presentation they once made to one of our directors regarding some new patient records management system they were trying to pitch to us. Not one single screen shot was shown nor were any technical people on hand so that I could ask the difficult questions. In the end, when she asked me my opinion, the conversation went like this:
Me: Remember application X that you used to use at hospital Y?
Her: Uh... yes.
Me: They wrote it.
We didn't buy the software.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Who exactly the hell are you and who is Jeff Carr? And why do you think your names are recognizable without context?
OpenVista is the open source version of the VA's VistA program, deployed at over 1500 sites worldwide. You can also grab it for free from http://sourceforge.net/projects/openvista.
Yes, you can get professional training, installation and ongoing support for it:
http://medsphere.org/
Posting as AC for obvious reasons... Unfortunately for me I work in healthcare IT. But at least I can pass the bad news on to you.
We can argue about how much of healthcare costs are sucked up by IT. But whatever percentage you come up with is likely to be not insignificant. And one of the biggest costs of healthcare IT is the amount of money paid to so-called "IT Consultants".
My understanding is that pure healthcare people don't understand much about IT and since they figure IT is the next biggest thing, they are willing to give money hand over fist to people who have decent resumes in this field who present themselves as IT "experts".
They are throwing their money away. It's really awful.
If you don't believe me, look at some of the so-called IT "standards" documents coming out of the healthcare IT community.
Sure, HL7 V3 is a good, robust yet flexible standard definition. But look at some of the abysmal crap that is being built off of it.
I mean, seriously, read some of these "standards" documents coming from non-HL7 sources. Not only are they inconsistent with reality. They have massive internal contradictions, logical inconsistencies and even simple syntax errors. And this is stuff from organizations that have been around for A DECADE.
Believe me, IT consulting has nothing to do with helping the healthcare industry actually make the best use of modern technology and everything to do with lining the pockets of a few contractors who would be thrown out of any other domain for sheer incompetence.
The janitor will come by, type a few random key strokes into the terminal, and boom, no more linux box. *nix computers are just too easy too kill.
Yeah, that's the major flaw of Unix operating systems, and it still hasn't been solved in the 35 years Unix has been around.
If only there was some sort of system under which some special user with special powers could create user accounts deprived of these special powers so that they wouldn't be able to break everything...
You just got troll'd!
that this is a bunch of marketing hype. Mumps, STAR and absolute garbage is about all that they produce. In general the state of IT with American healthcare is pretty bad, and having worked on their lackluster products, and knowing how they rank among providers drives the point home. They are too cheap to hire top tier staff, their culture does no encourage innovation, they do everything they can to drive out their capable staff instead ramping up on a big group to develop software in India. It is amazing that they are not hit with more lawsuits due to medical record and patient data errors. As the old addage says, garbage in, garbage out.
I work in the Medical Imaging field, a MRI Field Engineer for Siemens, users in hospital want something that works, they are less tolerant of reboots and system hangs.
In the past Unix (SunOS) was the preferred platform, there are actually many MRI systems running on a 100Mhz Sparc processors today, which still do and excellent job.
We've moved to Windows, it's a common interface for users who can learn it quickly. Windows requires CPU's in the 3Ghz range and higher to be effective. Windows also has major issues with Service Patches and hotfixes in the Medical imaging world, all updates have to be QA'd so there is a delay of months before they get applied. Medical Imaging will probably continue to move away from Windows and it's patches if can make an interface easy for the average user who walks upto a system and start using it.
Recently at Siemens Medical http://www.siemensmedical.com/ the MRI systems moved from Windows to Linux (Suse) for the image reconstruction computers (Not at the user console). During MRI imaging data is coming in from the scanner at 10MSamples/Sec at 24bit accuracy up to 32 separate channels, that's a significant amount of data to be processed, having a mouse pointer and a GUI interface is just not needed, Linux just more efficient.
I'm a doctor in a hospital that just deployed an electronic health record system that is slower than the system it replaced - which was slower than the TTY system it replaced - that refuses to search patient names if you can't provide a first initial.
Pay attention here, IT freaks. Notice that the user here (possibly your doctor) says nothing about the OS. This is simply abysmal design and implementation. Unix/Linux/Windows/OSX/Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/MSSQL....ALL could end up thusly. Or all could end up not too bad. Design it right, and build it right. Think about what your user is actually trying to accomplish.
I saw some comments upthread about RedHat this and Linux that...Bullshit. The user interface is (most of) the key. If you screw that, the backend matters little.
Yes, if you start from a stable base, it is easier. But no matter what the base is, if you fuck up the actual program and interface the that user, in this case a doctor or nurse, uses....everything else is irrelevant. They will hate it. And still not care what the base OS is.
I don't know how big these customers are, but Linux is not as stable as people seem to think. I used to work for one of these software companies, and Linux was just for small customers (go above 1000 concurrent users and you're toast). Weird problems start to crop up. Usually RedHat will respond with oh just update to the latest version of xyz. But when you're talking about medical software you can't just upgrade things on a whim. Has RedHat's cluster software even gotten anywhere yet? That was another pain the ass to deal with.
yes its a huge market. it all works fine in a local institution, but the real challenge lies when you try to "generalize" it to different institutions, each with their own idiosyntric processes and data elements. Keep in mind unless you make the underlying engine some standards based (using RIM or terminology driven) or use good design software practices (Archetypes) you ll have a lot of trouble customizing it.. unless of course.. you become like existing vendors who develop the whole thing from scratch at each installation site and send a team of IT services who work there forever and keep your revenue stream running. Good Luck.
my 2 cents
OpenVista is an implementation of VistA as in Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture, which existed long before Microsoft Windows Vista, or any Microsoft Windows for that matter.
As Michael Bolton once said "No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
Recently, they requested we do an "open source strategy", which in essence is the plan looking forward a few years to cut over everything to open source solutions.
* The database and reporting layers are Oracle 10g.
* The hospital system application system runs on top of the Oracle 10g Business intelligence suite.
* The system is run on 3 servers per hospital site. Two of the servers are configured to use RHEL and one is running Windows Server 2003. Medium term planning (after the system is stabilized) include cutover from the Windows servers to the Linux servers.
* The system utilizes a client on workstations that is browser based. Initial design of this client includes ActiveX controls, which limits the use of the clients to Windows based workstations. Further down the road, testing on MONO based clients are options.
* Major customization and integration has taken place as part of a large project.
All in all, it is quite easy to switch systems to Linux, since Oracle is portable. It would also put a lower load on the servers and bandwidth. Note however that the biggest expenditure is still the Oracle licenses and the Windows licenses pales in comparison, and changeover would also cost money... so, is this not a case of penny pinching?
I don't understand the mentality either. Once here on /. I simply stated that it might be a good idea for people to try to behave a bit more sustainably and I get ripped into about moving into a grass hut with a dirt floor. Consumption is a religion for some and it is due to a belief that the economy will collapse if we don't all go out and buy something and just throw it away unopened. Why would people think that?
The original Computerworld article cited is confusing, but it refers to UNIX mainframes. The most likely educated guess is they're talking about high-end UNIX servers from Sun, Hewlett-Packard, and/or IBM, not what we would generally think of as true mainframes, notably IBM's System z.
Yes, among System z's five popular operating systems z/OS contains a complete and certified UNIX(TM) implementation (called z/OS UNIX System Services). And yes, System z runs 100% GPL open source kernel.org Linux. And yes, OpenSolaris on z will be z's OS #6 before too long, and that's clearly UNIX(TM) too. But I doubt the article is talking about any of these technologies, based on the context of the article. There are not 2,500 U.S. hospital IBM mainframes (the number of McKesson hospital customers cited), for example. Maybe there should be.
Computerworld's editors seem to be on vacation, unfortunately, so their usually good copy editing is suffering, resulting in some gibberish articles. This week they also reported that Steve Jobs and The Woz approached Commodore in 1982 to talk about the latter company selling the Apple II, pointing out that Apple's two founders didn't have enough money to launch the product, worked out of a basement, and the safety and stability of cashing out for a couple hundred Gs was better than the alternative. Unfortunately for Computerworld they got the date wrong: by 1982 Apple was doing just fine, and The Woz was doing Nissan commercials.
Remember OSS isn't just Linux.
.net integration. I personally went with Dundas, but I suspect my needs are simpler to yours there.
In your particular case, that would be EnterpriseDB. You didn't say whether you're running SE or EE, and I can't remember whether BI is emulated by EnterpriseDB or if they only emulate AS, but if you want to talk about an open source strategy it is worth at least mentioning. The other big money saver is moving from EE back to SE - partitioning is all well and good, but you can afford about a terabyte of solid-state drive for the saving in licence fees, which would more than make up for it in many cases.
Browser based terminals... Give silverlight a whirl - Win, Mac and Linux with reasonable
Think about what your user is actually trying to accomplish.
But you missed the point in the grandparent posting -- this system is sold to the suits who run the hospital, not the poor sods who actually get to use it. As a result there is really no impetus for the management of the software company to spend anything more than the barest minimum they can get away with to actually develop the software or make sure it runs right.
I've been in this sort of situation (as a programmer) and I can say that it's not pleasant, nor conducive to good software development, usability, reliability etc.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Usually what you see is people going from mainframe to windows servers(and expecting the same stability(ha)), so with that in mind, I am happy with the choice of Linux.
If you ask why, or even worse, try to reduce your consumption, you are directly challenging the personal validation system of the more conformist consumers. If someone measures their self worth on the amount of money they earn, or the expensive toys they have, then you are questioning their status in the social pecking order.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Some years ago, when I entered the greek army to do my military duty and after boot camp, I ended up in a military hospital. To make the story short, I worked there for a couple months as an office assistant.
The resident Captain Psychiatrist called me to his office one day to request assistance for some Microsoft Access database he was building. I told him I didn't knew anything about it, but I was going to find out. I had time to spare.
I went through the built in help files and solved his problem and that excited him probably thinking he found some computer genius. So, he showed me his project, which was an extremely basic database in Access for his patients and asked me if I could take over. I am not a programmer (having only typed a few lines in C64 Basic and Amiga AMOS) and not the programming type (I even failed math at high school),but I am comfortable with computers and in the greek army people that know how to use a keyboard and click with a mouse are a tiny minority. Plus, I definitely had lots of time to spare!
So I bought a book on the subject, borrowed his Psycho-bible and sat down and learned about MS Access, databases, interface design and psychology while programming this thing. It became a complicated beast with all kind of diagnostic entries and references and pushed Access and myself to the limits. After about a month, Captair Doctor was jumping around with joy as the project seemed to have a good starting point and lots of potential. He told me that there was nothing good in the market, especially the greek one and that we should develop and market it commercially. We also became friends and even had dinner with his family, a very rare thing to happen, considering I was a drafted private and he a professional officer. I had to abandon the project when my time to leave the hospital came but I found out that it was picked up by another, just like me, drafted soldier who took my position in the hospital office.
Now, isn't that more or less the situation with Open Source? Imagine if I didn't have to use a developing base that sucked (both OS and tool), actually was skilled with coding, had more time and a whole community to take the project from me, instead of letting it die in some dusty box...
There were a couple of reasons to replace them. First though, I need to correct myself. I meant to say twinax and not token ring. I had one foot in the bed when I wrote the comment last night. In fact, replacing a twinax network might make more sense to you.
That said:
1) The machines did perform their alloted tasks adequately, but did not perform the newer tasks that employees were required to perform. For one, email is increasingly becoming an integral part of intercorporation communications. These employees using the terminals did not otherwise have access to a PC to check their email. Furthermore, the hospital had newer software tools that, while not critical and necessary to their jobs, could help the employees perform their jobs more quickly.
2) The users were frustrated by their inability to check email and see notices posted on the hospital's intranet site. Their basic job duties weren't impeded, of course.
3) The cost of supporting 5250 terminals for us had risen past the point that they were a viable solution. Parts were becoming scarcer. IT personnel who actually knew anything about them were in short supply. It just didn't make sense to keep them around. And once you replace one in a department, you have to replace them all in order to prevent a riot. Employees are petty and once one employee gets something that another employee perceives as better (and yes a Pentium II, low end Pentium III was perceived as better), then you better make sure that all employees are happy.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Don't kid yourself.
Java is "fully of weird mysteries" regardless of the platform.
Java app servers are plenty prone to crashing and eating up
all available memory. You don't need to run them on Linux for
that. AIX or Solaris will do equally well.
My guess is that they made changes without fully understanding
them or testing them. They disturbed their the little java
house of cards they had going.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.