Re: Computer Prog.++Responses
Pat Peick
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Computer Prog.++Responses
Creator:
Pat Peick
Text:
Dear Colleagues,
These are more responses to my ongoing questions with writing or buying a
software system for O and P practice as of 2/19.
<<
Dear Patrick,
You're embarked on a long and painful process. Access and it's database
relatives aren't too hard to learn in theory, but making a comprehensive
program to perform many functions accurately is very complicated. There's
a reason developers charge so much.
Whle far from ideal, we and many other facilities use a number of
programs for different functions. We use a database manager, Alpha 4,
similiar to Access, for filling out insurance forms; Dac accounting for,
guess what? Accounting and; Chaos, (yes, that's the program's name,) for
scheduling; Billing Assistant from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for
electronic billing.
It's not quite as bad as it seems. The thing to avoid is repeat entries
of info. We ues the database infrequently now, since most of the claims
are electronic. The accounting program has minimal client info., name,
address and $ stuff including inventory. The backbone of daily use has
become the scheduler, what is called a PIM. There a lot of them around.
If you find a killer, do all application, I'd like to hear about it. I'm
not recommending the titles we use, but they work for now. It's a devil
of a ob to change, so choose carefully. Ask your accountant, for example,
or a friendly doctor what they do. their volume is usually larger than an
O&P practice per practitioner so if it works for them, it may be OK for
you.
Larry
>>
Saw your responses and agree that MedFlex is the way to go. We also tried
Dezine which was a joke. Mike Bass and John Mason are top notch. I don't
think John has a peer in his profession!
Good luck.
Brian Gustin CP.
Nearly all real problems have been, shall we say, operator-dependent
;-) Some people just know no difference between a mouse and a
telegraph key; If it doesn´t work, click again, if that doesn´t help,
click harder, if that don´t do it for you, click a lot of times all
over the screen! I am not joking, this is what happens with beginning
computer-buffs. THIS costs a lot of my time. We have 9 computers in
our local facility today with 13 potential users, of which 9 use the
computers all the time. I guess it takes about two to three hours each
week to dabble with the system or individual computers, printing
problems, checking back-ups, giving advice and all that. And that is
on a good week!
> Has it prevented the
> smooth running of the practice if it crashes or malfunctions?
We run NT4 Server on an IBM 310 Server and WfWg 3.11. We have had only
one occasion in over a year when we couldn´t use the computers for
patient-related management. There have been a few times when I had to
reboot after a total system deadlock (users again), but that took only
a few minutes each time.
> What have been some of the unexpected surprises or benefits to
> computerizing all of the practice?
Working with appointments in the computer as opposed to using a paper
book! You no longer need to borrow the book or find erasers for
changing appointments, it is right there on whatever computer you
choose. We have telephones by each computer, so it is easy to put
things right if a patient calls you.
We also keep all patient records and measure charts in the computer
for easy access, we can connect any standard Windows document to any
existing work-order. Naming of these files is automatic, you just call
them from the work-order, no need to search yourself crazy in the
FileManager.
> If you had to do it all over
> again, anything you would have wanted to do different,
> realistically speaking?
A few things, of course; first of all get everything you decide upon
with the computer consultants ON PAPER! Whip their behinds if they
don´t give you what you ordered. Second, do not believe that you can
both try the system and use it full-scale at the same time. Still,
that´s a good way to bring hidden conflicts to the surface :-)
It is very difficult to produce a good data-model; what should the
system do? This is almost a philosophy and requires professionals to
get it done right!
With kind regards,
Kjell-Ake Nilsson, CPO at Linkoping University Hospital, Sweden.
These are more responses to my ongoing questions with writing or buying a
software system for O and P practice as of 2/19.
<<
Dear Patrick,
You're embarked on a long and painful process. Access and it's database
relatives aren't too hard to learn in theory, but making a comprehensive
program to perform many functions accurately is very complicated. There's
a reason developers charge so much.
Whle far from ideal, we and many other facilities use a number of
programs for different functions. We use a database manager, Alpha 4,
similiar to Access, for filling out insurance forms; Dac accounting for,
guess what? Accounting and; Chaos, (yes, that's the program's name,) for
scheduling; Billing Assistant from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for
electronic billing.
It's not quite as bad as it seems. The thing to avoid is repeat entries
of info. We ues the database infrequently now, since most of the claims
are electronic. The accounting program has minimal client info., name,
address and $ stuff including inventory. The backbone of daily use has
become the scheduler, what is called a PIM. There a lot of them around.
If you find a killer, do all application, I'd like to hear about it. I'm
not recommending the titles we use, but they work for now. It's a devil
of a ob to change, so choose carefully. Ask your accountant, for example,
or a friendly doctor what they do. their volume is usually larger than an
O&P practice per practitioner so if it works for them, it may be OK for
you.
Larry
>>
Saw your responses and agree that MedFlex is the way to go. We also tried
Dezine which was a joke. Mike Bass and John Mason are top notch. I don't
think John has a peer in his profession!
Good luck.
Brian Gustin CP.
Nearly all real problems have been, shall we say, operator-dependent
;-) Some people just know no difference between a mouse and a
telegraph key; If it doesn´t work, click again, if that doesn´t help,
click harder, if that don´t do it for you, click a lot of times all
over the screen! I am not joking, this is what happens with beginning
computer-buffs. THIS costs a lot of my time. We have 9 computers in
our local facility today with 13 potential users, of which 9 use the
computers all the time. I guess it takes about two to three hours each
week to dabble with the system or individual computers, printing
problems, checking back-ups, giving advice and all that. And that is
on a good week!
> Has it prevented the
> smooth running of the practice if it crashes or malfunctions?
We run NT4 Server on an IBM 310 Server and WfWg 3.11. We have had only
one occasion in over a year when we couldn´t use the computers for
patient-related management. There have been a few times when I had to
reboot after a total system deadlock (users again), but that took only
a few minutes each time.
> What have been some of the unexpected surprises or benefits to
> computerizing all of the practice?
Working with appointments in the computer as opposed to using a paper
book! You no longer need to borrow the book or find erasers for
changing appointments, it is right there on whatever computer you
choose. We have telephones by each computer, so it is easy to put
things right if a patient calls you.
We also keep all patient records and measure charts in the computer
for easy access, we can connect any standard Windows document to any
existing work-order. Naming of these files is automatic, you just call
them from the work-order, no need to search yourself crazy in the
FileManager.
> If you had to do it all over
> again, anything you would have wanted to do different,
> realistically speaking?
A few things, of course; first of all get everything you decide upon
with the computer consultants ON PAPER! Whip their behinds if they
don´t give you what you ordered. Second, do not believe that you can
both try the system and use it full-scale at the same time. Still,
that´s a good way to bring hidden conflicts to the surface :-)
It is very difficult to produce a good data-model; what should the
system do? This is almost a philosophy and requires professionals to
get it done right!
With kind regards,
Kjell-Ake Nilsson, CPO at Linkoping University Hospital, Sweden.
Citation
Pat Peick, “Re: Computer Prog.++Responses,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 24, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/210310.
