You have just written the sort of comment I should have. I took what I saw as scapegoating of software designers a bit too personally and addressed my response to Gordon. That was a mistake.

It would have been much better if is had simply mentioned I support well managed investment of $19B and offered my own view on the complex nature of the problems in making the investment effective.

For whatever it is worth, my wife is an end user of EHR software at a mid size hospital and her reaction was that the software she deals with is pretty darn good and does focus on the needs of he people who deal with patients.

You have just written the sort of comment I should have. I took what I saw as scapegoating of software designers a bit too personally and addressed my response to Gordon.

It would have been much better if is had simply mentioned I support well managed investment of $19B and offered my own view on the complex nature of the problems in making the investment effective.

For whatever it is worth, my wife is an end user of EHR software at a mid size hospital and her reaction was that the software she deals with is pretty darn good and does focus on the needs of he people who deal with patients.

“the people that are designing the software have to do a much better job.”

Wade suggested there was more to it

Your second post said:

“Wade – obviously you don’t design software.”

Perhaps my question about what kind of company you design software for was a bit snide but it sure did not start there.

If you are offended by my remarks then I apologize. I’m stating what needs to happen and you seem to agree yet you always add but it’s not the designer’s fault. You want to take the design responsibility away from the designer and give it to some administrator or bureaucrat and that’s it. I’m saying if it isn’t working for the people that use it, find out why. The reason I used the “Software 101″ analogy is because you can save a lot of time and work if you do that first. A bureaucrat or administrator may not know that but a software designer should.

And yes I do hire people – with solutions, and on occasion I even design and program software. But you should know that the first to sling arrows was you: “What sort of company employees you to design software? I think in most, the requirements come via the marketing team and tend to reflect what the marketing team thinks will drive sales. They chat up the people who make purchase decisions. If they can please the people who make purchase decisions, the sales follow.”

Well, obviously that system didn’t work. So should we say “It can’t be done because the system doesn’t work that way?” Or should we go back and see what can make it better? I say the latter – you seem stuck on the former.

To review – The article makes the point that we are wasting 19 billion on software that isn’t effective because “most of the software being written for use in clinics is aimed at administrators, not doctors, nurses and lab workers”. I said it needs to be designed to work for the users. You and others say I don’t know what I’m talking about because it’s not the designers fault and it seems that marketing teams and purchasers do the designing.

I can’t believe that a designer maintains the position that designers don’t design software.

Well, maybe we are wasting 19 billion. But at least it’s not the designer’s fault.

Your condescension does not produce a useful exchange.

You have impugned my credentials and when I provided them you reversed course by suggesting that “software 101″ would be sufficient credentials.

You have insulted me personally without addressing the content of my statements.

You pretend you have a simple answer but do not offer it.

I see nothing in what Brian Lev says that I disagree with. The software is bad – Granted. Better communication between software designers and end users is vital – Granted.

Tell us how to make this communication happen without resorting to a simplistic accusation that it is “software designers” who “need to do a better job”.

Lastly, I have no interest in being hired by you (assuming you actually hire people).

When was the last time you’ve every heard of a federal government program ending up costing less than what it was originally slated to cost? I’m sure there might be an isolated example or two but compare that to the original projected cost of Medicare vs its actual cost, not to mention a Social Security system slated to go broke in a few years, and you already have two shining examples of government’s inefficiency at running anything. True, these problems didn’t start with Obama’s administration, but they certainly won’t end with it either. We’ve already seen how the so-called “stimulus legislation” (A.R.R.A.) has not exactly lived up to it’s expectations (10.2% unemployment vs a projected “ceiling” of 8%). So how can we expect such a government to efficiently spend $19 billion of our taxpayer dollars and come up with something that won’t cost us 10 times that amount in 10 years, much less something that runs efficiently and is not riddled with fraud and waste? We’re already suffering from this economic downturn, why aggravate it by adding more taxes to fund poorly run government programs. As I mentioned in a previous post, I don’t like politicizing anything and I apologize in advance, but instead of seeing “Hope and Change” from our government lately, all I’ve seen is “Hope this works…” I really do hope it does work because we are clearly on an unsustainable path and need to closely watch what and how our government spends OUR money.

For those of you who say “…well, what’s YOUR solution”? How about doing something that has been proven to work? Fix the economy first; get rid of the “too big to fail” mentality, shrink the size of government and get the private sector moving again through government incentives, NOT bailouts. Let the private sector come up with the innovation and expertise to develop and implement cost effective and useful EHR systems (we already have them and private enterprise will make them better). But that’s another complex issue that requires it’s own thread (I’m not trying to start one) and given the direction our leadership has taken, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon anyway. While I truly “Hope this works” I’m very skeptical.

Brian Lev gets it: “Quality of Software: Aaah, now we’re talkin’. Several times every week (to the point where some of my colleagues are going, “I know, I know…” halfway through my complaint) I end up bitching about how the software is obviously NOT designed by people who have to actually use it on a daily basis. I’ve done systems design, I’ve done interface design, I’ve done user support… and so far almost everything I’ve seen on the market falls far, far short of what I’d consider “good” or even “fair” levels of usability. (NOTE: Even the bad stuff can at least make illegible notes & orders easier to read, which makes life a *lot* easier for caregivers.) Get the designers out of the business offices and into the nursing stations for a few months, THEN turn them loose on the problem…!” – Thanks Brian

Richard – I really would never hire someone with this “I didn’t do it” attitude. Administrators shouldn’t be designing software. In very simple terms – users should be talking to designers and designers should be listening.

But, first, I applaud Brian Lev’s comments. I work for an insuror (Blues) and they’re not all as nasty as people try to make out; lot of dedicated people. And gettting rid of paper is essential to efficiencies and outcomes.

KMC