Also in the industry, but on the HL7 interface side.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen studies that suggest, for example, a 75-90% reduction in med error rates in hospitals that have gone to computerized barcode systems. So there's a tremendous amount of good to be done in the field.
But, as you point out, the potential damage that can be done by mistakes makes for a fair bit of anxiety at times. Fortunately, it's been my experience that people in the field tend to take testing very seriously as a result.
Another interesting thing on that aspect - I'm one of the only people in my department that doesn't have a prior clinical background. I almost wonder if the fact that they're less trusting of the technology at times is a good thing to some extent.
>I'm one of the only people in my department that doesn't have a prior clinical background. I almost wonder if the fact that they're less trusting of the technology at times is a good thing to some extent.
I totally agree. Over time I've come to really value working with teams made up of a variety of backgrounds. I think it's incredibly valuable to not end up in group-think on either end of the spectrum when it comes to how to approach problems, assessing risk, and healthy cynicism about technology.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen studies that suggest, for example, a 75-90% reduction in med error rates in hospitals that have gone to computerized barcode systems. So there's a tremendous amount of good to be done in the field.
But, as you point out, the potential damage that can be done by mistakes makes for a fair bit of anxiety at times. Fortunately, it's been my experience that people in the field tend to take testing very seriously as a result.
Another interesting thing on that aspect - I'm one of the only people in my department that doesn't have a prior clinical background. I almost wonder if the fact that they're less trusting of the technology at times is a good thing to some extent.