No question that imaging has for years been a clear direction.

Yet how much of the positive press on this has been "planted" by 
vendors?  (There are folks who make a living writing puff pieces for 
the vendor press.)

Why are there no reports about why the XYZ system failed--except in 
underground newsletters.

When you go to a doc's office, it's full of computers, but the 
patient files are still in hard copy?  How come?

If "imaging" still means making an image of a document originally on 
paper, then there are two levels of cost--but also a time delay in 
getting the record into the system.

How often do these systems go down or are very sluggish?

Perhaps a medical records specialist (Registered Health Information 
Administrator) can be found to comment on these issues?

Mike


List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance