The question was:
Should Investment Continue in The Present
Contentious Design of The PCEHR as It Is Rather Than Fixing The Design Flaws
First?
Just Steam On
- 7 (20%)
Make Some Minor
Changes
- 1 (2%)
Make Major Change
But Push On
- 0 (0%)
Regroup To Fix
Flaws And Then Proceed
- 26 (76%)
Votes 34
A stunningly clear cut vote. This project needs a careful
and in depth rethink seems to be the large majority view!
Again, many thanks to those that voted!
David.
What a ridiculously contrived and biased question! Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteI know, I'll ask the general public "Should investment continue on a building that is going to fall down? (Well, at least I think it might)"
It's one thing to wear your heart on your sleeve but this is getting ridiculous. I thought Docs believed in evidence?
Glad to see 20% tried to point out your bias...
Sorry..the question asked if we should regroup and fix or not. most said yes. Most don't agree with you - but I can't help that.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the ConOps is being updated suggests to me it was not perfect first time around and that to reduce risk it makes sense to re-assess on the basis of new evidence!
David.
I must admit that bias escaped me as I thought everyone knew it was a dogs breakfast. I am amazed that 20% want to steam on. I guess some people assume that if we are spending half a billion there must be someone at the helm who knows what they are doing. I would like to feel that was the case as well, but the odds of 10 years of non-delivery suddenly transforming into a well thought out and executed plan seem a little low to me. Especially given that the PCEHR will be built on top of NASH, Patient and Provider identifiers and SMD.
ReplyDeleteIts sort of like booking a liver transplant as the first operation in a brand new hospital with doctors and nurses who have never worked together before.