In article <[log in to unmask]>, Adrian
Midgley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>The BMJ Paper from the Bristol hospital study by Coeira et al at
>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7132/673
>is relevant.
It talks about loss of efficiency and effectiveness and describes a
large percentage of non-useful and disruptive calls. But isn't this
human nature and a typical social behaviour pattern? As such, to remove
it will increase efficiency but also sterilise the work environment to
the extent that it becomes inhuman.
Perhaps a moot point but I believe one that will resist computerisation
just as most efficiency drives are doomed to failure when they
contradict naturally inefficient social interaction.
>THere are, for instance, 96 patients on my list of
>whom I have no record of their ever having been seen in the Practice.
>THe shortest duration is 3 days, the longest is 1047 days.
This, and a whole lot of other statistical stuff, is avaialable on an
efficient computer driven system, some more valid than others. One
cannot deny its use is more effective in some ways but does it really
lead to inreased quality of life?
I don't want to waste my life through inefficiency but, like Achilles, I
am willing to trade off some quantity for quality. And I bet that my
definition of quality is different from yours, or his or hers. Rigid
conformity, such as the present state of computer development entails,
is not a natural behaviour. I believe we need to consider the philosophy
and desirability of the enablement the computer offers to us. Perhaps,
as Ahmed syggests elsewhere, a new paradigm is necessary.
Regards
George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|