oldbloke said:
How many different webserver architectures are there? Does my browser care? No.
Oh, for a modern browser based system! Most of our systems are client server. We even have some character based systems, which we access through a telnet client! We'd love to go out and buy a new system, but clinical systems are so specialised, there isn't a lot of competition. Software wears in rather than wearing out, so developers are loath to throw away a working application that took 10 years or more of incremental development, just to adopt the latest technology, that might turn out to be a fad. One of our (former) suppliers tried that, and got it wrong. Equally, why go J2EE for a total user base of less than 6 people, and no more than 2 concurrent users?
Our browser based systems give us a different problem. Most were designed for IE7 or earlier and the suppliers have not certified their apps against IE9 or Chrome, except for the ones who designed their apps for these browsers, and they won't certify on IE7. This makes PC roll outs a nightmare for the desktop team.
And now everyone wants to go mobile, and yet none of our apps work on Safari.
oldbloke said:
Obv it's nothing like as simple as I maybe made it sound, but I don't believe it need be insurmountably difficult.
"Anything is possible given enough time and resources". I've stopped believing this. We paid a developer to build a clinical system. We invited two senior consultants from the department to describe how the system should work, and they had very different, contradictory opinions. They argued and argued and were convinced their way was right and the other consultant was wrong. We were embarrassed to sit and watch them fight. Eventually, one got up and stormed out - so we built the system according to the remaining consultant. Egos; stubbornness and pride are very powerful opponents. And who has more pride than the gods who work life-saving miracles every day?
oldbloke said:
For one thing, continuing the "My GP is my primary link to health services" paradigm we've had so long, whoever treats you would send updates to the GP's computers.
We've been trying to put this in for years, so we could save a fortune on printing and postage. Most GP surgeries can't afford dedicated IT staff, but a few have banded together to form a consortium, pool their funds and buy a system in. I think we're paperless on fewer than 6 GP surgeries.
Healthcare IT isn't easy. I doubt the implementation team will get it right, so I've opted out.