Discuss the relative advantage of using a pointing device to enter a patient's vital signs compared with simply typing in the values using a keyboard.
Interface design is critical in enhancing patient data entry. Physicians using different interfaces easily get frustrated with interfaces or input devices that can be labor intensive. Pointing devices offer a range of significant features or abilities that can allow the user to input easily data such as a patient’s vital signs. Using pointing devices allows the user to move easily from patient record to patient record and from documentation to documentation. The pointing device as compared when using the keyboard easily does this kind of movement. According to Taveira and Choi (2009), pointing devices allow easy cursor positioning and faster selection, activation and dragging of items on the display screen. This is critical when entering critical patient information. Further, using the keyboard provides long finger-travel distance, which makes the input of information slower (Taveira and Choi, 2009). Additionally, using the pointing device allows the user to only focus on the display screen hence accuracy of inputting data is assured. On the other hand, using the keyboard requires constant focusing on the keys being typed and in some cases when typing without looking at the display screen may introduce typing errors. Typing errors may lead to wrong information resulting to patients being prescribed the wrong prescription. This is the case when such prescription is required urgently. According to Turpin, Armstrong, Frost, Fine, Ward, and Pinnington (2005), pointing devices can be used by multiple users unlike the keyboard, which requires users to spend a lot of time getting used to the keys. In addition, it is easy to hit a wrong key when using a keyboard than when using a pointing device.
How the use of a patient ID bracelet containing a bar-code representation of the patient's ID and a bar-code scanner can lead to improved quality of care in a hospital. What are the risks?
Medication errors have contributed to increasing the healthcare costs in the United States (Biradar, Patil, Mamledesai, Ronad, Rasal, Swamy, 2005). Additionally, some hospitals have reported a 50% reduction in errors from the use of bar codes. (Biradar, Patil, Mamledesai, Ronad, Rasal, Swamy, 2005). Bar codes allow a patient’s record to be linked to the patient bracelets. This makes it easy to obtain pertinent information such as dosage information and strength of the drug administered to the patient. Furthermore, the use of bar codes can help reduce errors associated with transcribing and prescribing as more hospitals adopt the use of computerized systems in handling prescriptions. Nurses can scan the bracelet to ensure that the patient is on the right medication and in the required quantities (Foote and Coleman, 2008). This helps to reduce medication errors. Furthermore, the bar codes can include expiration dates of medication to ensure the patients are protected from being given dosages that have expired.
The increase use of bar codes can introduce risks in hospitals. According to McDonald (2006), a patient may mistakenly be given a wrong bracelet and this can lead to serious consequences such as be given wrong medication. Further, bar coding reduces human alertness and this may contribute to increasing errors of misidentification.
Why are users doing so little in-house development of software today? Is this a good thing? Users have in the recent past opted to do minimal in-house software development. This has been after serious consideration of various financial and cultural-economic factors. Software development is a time consuming affair and this may require even the hiring of specialized personnel who will require significantly good pay. This makes the process of software development a costly affair. It is hence cheaper to outsource such tasks to external developers who have the necessary time, personnel and equipment to design and develop software to the specifications of the client company.
There is also an element of innovation that is introduced whenever a third party is invited to design or develop a firm’s software. Sometimes, working from within the firm can be monotonous hence leading to a construed manner of thinking. However, if the same problem is approached from a fresh perspective a better solution can be arrived at with minimal effort. This manner of software development is also an auditing tool that aids in ensuring IT experts do not collude with top level management to mismanage the firm’s funds. The fact that this is an effective control tool coupled with the cheaper cost of development of quality software has made many firms to opt for minimal in-house software development. Outsourcing also assures the client of quality service or software development. This is because these are highly specialized firms with the necessary personnel who can think and work as a team to ensure the best services are rendered to clients.
Would you all agree that in-house development of software is becoming rare? “In order to reduce development cost, offshore software development outsourcing has become more common. But - by relying on an outsourced company, practitioners and administrators may not be able to communicate all of their needs and insight on the software development. Or am I being too harsh???
It is very true that in-house software development has become extremely rare and that offshore outsourcing has become the preferred alternative. However, despite the many advantages that this new trend has brought to the firms that have opted to use it, there are several drawbacks that come with it. First of all, it common logic that if you want if you something to be done to the best of your requirements it is best if you do it yourself. Sometimes outsourcing does not manage to meet all the requirements of the client. In some instances conflicts may result due to substandard work. Even when a job is done, a firm’s ability to upgrade the software may be limited since the outsourced firm owns the software prototype. This limitation may result in incurring of major costs on an area that could have been easily solved if in-house software development had been being utilized.
Some situations can also be best solved by the users of the software product, and not just the developers. Strict market competition may limit the administrator’s yearn to implement new policies as they fear that competitors may hire the same outsourcing firms to set up similar software in their firms.
Discuss how the development of integrated healthcare systems has created an impetus for installing computer networks.
Healthcare systems have in the recent past embraced technological advancements. This has seen the development of integrated healthcare systems to take precedence over previously used methods of record keeping and referencing of healthcare systems. This has made it necessary for various healthcare centers to upgrade to the use of computer networks in the storing and retrieval of patients’ records. The healthcare system has also become competitive and as such any technological advancement that gives one center a competitive edge against other market players is readily embraced. This results in a rapid and aggressive installment of computer network even where they were non-existent.
References
Biradar, S. S., Patil, B. M., Mamledesai, S. N., Ronad, P. M., Rasal, V. P., & Swamy, A. V. (2005). Using Bar Codes to Enhance Patient Safety by Reducing Adverse Events. Internet Journal of Pharmacology, 4(1), 1.
Foote, S. O., & Coleman, J. R. (2008). Medication Administration: The Implementation Process of Bar-Coding for Medication Administration to Enhance Medication Safety. Nursing Economic$, 26(3), 207-210.
McDonald, C. J. (2006). Computerization Can Create Safety Hazards: A Bar-Coding Near Miss. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(7), 510-W86.
Taveira, A. D., & Choi, S. D. (2009). Review Study of Computer Input Devices and Older Users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(5), 455-474.
Turpin, G. G., Armstrong, J. J., Frost, P. P., Fine, B. B., Ward, C. D., & Pinnington, L. L. (2005). Evaluation of alternative computer input devices used by people with disabilities. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 29(3), 119-129.
