Having access to records on-line benefits a variety of parties:
1) Clinician If there was a universal repository for records that the clinician could query, care could be delivered more efficiently. You wouldn't need to repeat your in-depth medical history every time you visit a new doc. 90% of medical diagnoses can be made from history alone, so having an accurate, ubiquitous record benefits both the patient and clinician.
This is especially true in situations where the patient cannot communicate. [think of someone coming into the ER comatose, without any records.]
2) Insurance Companies Obviously,having this info in a universal repository provides the payer with more accurate information about your past medical history. This may not always be in the patient's best interest [consider: if you thought you had HIV or suffer from a psychiatric disorder, would the availability of your record online deter you from seeing a doc? It might. Not good.]
3) Pharmaceutical Companies Recruiting people for clinical trials is a big business. The more efficiently you can enroll people in trials, the faster your drug can get approbed. A compound can take 10-15 years to reach market after it is discovered. Shaving off a couple of months of development time can mean hundreds of millions of dollars in increased revenue.
I agree that caution needs to be taken WRT the development of a universal system to get the records online. Serious thought has to be given over access methodologies. Ultimately, _you_ own your medical record, and _you_ have the right to determine who uses it. Any system that is developed should reflect this reality. [That said, I won't hold my breath:( ]
This is slightly off-topic, so moderate down as appropriate.
I am a self-described geek, have an advanced degree, and am finishing up an MBA at one of the aforementioned satanic institutions, so take this FWIW.
The hostility that i'm seeing by techies to their PHB's really is (IMHO) about a communication gulf.
Many of my peers in business school are getting involved in high-tech, obviously because that's where the money is.
The more self-aware ones realize that they haven't got a clue about the underlying technologies, but they are making an attempt to learn. The M$ mentality still prevails, but the volume of people asking me about my linux boxen increases daily.
I think that many business-types would appreciate the techies in their companies giving them the scoop on the latest technologies. These people are not idiots, but you need to do it in a language that they understand. Money.
Want to use linux as a print server? Don't just tell your manager that Linux rules and NT is a bloated hog.
Intuitively, we believe that Linux is a superior solution. So prove it: fire up excel and do a little NPV analysis. Show them with numbers that your alternative is viable and fits with the goals of the business. In your model's assumptions, explain the merits of the technology as best you can.
It's not rocket science, and it would go a long way to helping foster acceptance of OSS by people who were previously clueless. Not to mention the fact that communicating effectively with management makes you that much more valuable to those you work for. [An important skill, if Roblimo's hypothesis is correct.]
Sorry for the rant, but I too am tired of seeing superior solutions passed over because those in the know could not or would not make a proper business case to management. To me, this is just as egregious as managemnent forcing IT guys to wear ties:)
In the hospital, I give antibiotics to patients with blood infections. While the drugs work for a period of time, often times within a week the population of bacteria in the patient's blood gets resistant -- that is, the bacteria population has _evolved_ and is now immune to the effects of the drug. The ones that were susceptible to the drug were killed, the remainder lived to breed another day & flourished.
This is evolution in its most easily observable form, and is indisputable.
Using evolution to describe the origin of our species is necessarily more difficult, as the evidence is not as readily observable as a population of rapidly-dividing bacteria.
Regardless, the basic theory needs to be taught. Period. It is fundamental to the study of biology, and any kid that doesn't get exposed to it is being cheated.
Let people learn the bedrock basics; allow them to draw their own conclusions about the broader applicability of the theory. Kids deserve as much.
docwolf
Re:This could be trouble....for someone
on
The Cat Cam
·
· Score: 2
Does this mean they'll eventually be able to say, get signal from a video camera and 'insert' it into this same area of the brain in order to allow blind people to see?
Depends on the type of blindness you have. Lets assume they are able to make devices high-res enough to give a good image...
If your blindness is due to eyes that don't function[for whatever reason],then pumping this bitstream down to the brain might provide some sort of image.
However, if you have cortical blindness, all bets are off. These people have damage in the part of the brain that interprets visual signals. Therefore, even if you provided them with the highest quality image possible, they wouldn't be able to interpret what they were "seeing".
As an aside, I had a friend in med school who worked on this type of problem at the NIH a couple of years ago. IIRC, they installed a 256-pixel device in a blind patient. He did report being able to see flashes of lights from the device. I have a feeling we're going to hear much more about this in the not-too-distant future.
Caffiene is a stimulant [a la the much-maligned ritalin.] Looks like you _have_ been self-medicating. BTW, those with ADD respond quite differently to Ritalin than "normals" -- the latter tend to just get a buzz, whereas the former do see improvement in behavior that they deem troubling. In that regard, it can be used as another ex-post diagnostic tool... docwolf
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an MD who works in the medical IT industry.
Having access to records on-line benefits a variety of parties:
1) Clinician
If there was a universal repository for records that the clinician could query, care could be delivered more efficiently. You wouldn't need to repeat your in-depth medical history every time you visit a new doc. 90% of medical diagnoses can be made from history alone, so having an accurate, ubiquitous record benefits both the patient and clinician.
This is especially true in situations where the patient cannot communicate. [think of someone coming into the ER comatose, without any records.]
2) Insurance Companies
Obviously,having this info in a universal repository provides the payer with more accurate information about your past medical history. This may not always be in the patient's best interest [consider: if you thought you had HIV or suffer from a psychiatric disorder, would the availability of your record online deter you from seeing a doc? It might. Not good.]
3) Pharmaceutical Companies
Recruiting people for clinical trials is a big business. The more efficiently you can enroll people in trials, the faster your drug can get approbed. A compound can take 10-15 years to reach market after it is discovered. Shaving off a couple of months of development time can mean hundreds of millions of dollars in increased revenue.
I agree that caution needs to be taken WRT the development of a universal system to get the records online. Serious thought has to be given over access methodologies. :( ]
Ultimately, _you_ own your medical record, and _you_ have the right to determine who uses it. Any system that is developed should reflect this reality. [That said, I won't hold my breath
docwolf
This is slightly off-topic, so moderate down as appropriate.
I am a self-described geek, have an advanced degree, and am finishing up an MBA at one of the aforementioned satanic institutions, so take this FWIW.
The hostility that i'm seeing by techies to their PHB's really is (IMHO) about a communication gulf.
Many of my peers in business school are getting involved in high-tech, obviously because that's where the money is.
The more self-aware ones realize that they haven't got a clue about the underlying technologies, but they are making an attempt to learn. The M$ mentality still prevails, but the volume of people asking me about my linux boxen increases daily.
I think that many business-types would appreciate the techies in their companies giving them the scoop on the latest technologies. These people are not idiots, but you need to do it in a language that they understand. Money.
Want to use linux as a print server? Don't just tell your manager that Linux rules and NT is a bloated hog.
Intuitively, we believe that Linux is a superior solution. So prove it: fire up excel and do a little NPV analysis. Show them with numbers that your alternative is viable and fits with the goals of the business. In your model's assumptions, explain the merits of the technology as best you can.
It's not rocket science, and it would go a long way to helping foster acceptance of OSS by people who were previously clueless. Not to mention the fact that communicating effectively with management makes you that much more valuable to those you work for. [An important skill, if Roblimo's hypothesis is correct.]
Sorry for the rant, but I too am tired of seeing superior solutions passed over because those in the know could not or would not make a proper business case to management. To me, this is just as egregious as managemnent forcing IT guys to wear ties :)
docwolf
[tieless, wearing a mumu like homer.]
In the hospital, I give antibiotics to patients with blood infections. While the drugs work for a period of time, often times within a week the population of bacteria in the patient's blood gets resistant -- that is, the bacteria population has _evolved_ and is now immune to the effects of the drug. The ones that were susceptible to the drug were killed, the remainder lived to breed another day & flourished.
This is evolution in its most easily observable form, and is indisputable.
Using evolution to describe the origin of our species is necessarily more difficult, as the evidence is not as readily observable as a population of rapidly-dividing bacteria.
Regardless, the basic theory needs to be taught. Period. It is fundamental to the study of biology, and any kid that doesn't get exposed to it is being cheated.
Let people learn the bedrock basics; allow them to draw their own conclusions about the broader applicability of the theory. Kids deserve as much.
docwolf
Depends on the type of blindness you have. Lets assume they are able to make devices high-res enough to give a good image...
If your blindness is due to eyes that don't function[for whatever reason],then pumping this bitstream down to the brain might provide some sort of image.
However, if you have cortical blindness, all bets are off. These people have damage in the part of the brain that interprets visual signals. Therefore, even if you provided them with the highest quality image possible, they wouldn't be able to interpret what they were "seeing".
As an aside, I had a friend in med school who worked on this type of problem at the NIH a couple of years ago. IIRC, they installed a 256-pixel device in a blind patient. He did report being able to see flashes of lights from the device. I have a feeling we're going to hear much more about this in the not-too-distant future.
docwolf.
Caffiene is a stimulant [a la the much-maligned ritalin.] Looks like you _have_ been self-medicating. BTW, those with ADD respond quite differently to Ritalin than "normals" -- the latter tend to just get a buzz, whereas the former do see improvement in behavior that they deem troubling. In that regard, it can be used as another ex-post diagnostic tool... docwolf