Does that mean that all medical computer systems will have to go through the same compliance?
Whose stupid idea was that?
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Midgley
Sent: 13 April 2012 13:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: INR star "invitation"
If we accept for a moment that the immaterial instantiation of a mathematical expression or sequence of logical thought can be a "device" then how could we avoid concluding that a paper form designed for the purpose of collecting information of relevance to healthcare and existing in material form is not a device?
If we do that, then good may come of it, since poorly designed forms - which cannot hide their poorness in secret source code compiled into impenetrable object code behind a more or less glitzy interface often referred to as screen forms - would endure a scrutiny clearly absent at present.
this http://www.flickr.com/photos/midgley/6175226173/ for instance, or a form I saw today where the "what it is for" field has been usurped for additional, redundant, advice on how to take or not take it.
But I'm not convinced either is a good idea.
And I do not accept that running code and storing data next to the Buncefield fuel depot is better than doing so in the Practices where it is to be collected and used.
Adrian Midgley http://www.defoam.net/