Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Switching Hospital Systems to Linux

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:08 PM
from the open-sores dept.
jcatcw writes "Health care software vendor McKesson Provider Technologies is focusing on ways to cut IT costs for customers, including hospitals and medical offices. The cure is moving many of McKesson's medical software applications to Linux, which can then be used on less expensive commodity hardware instead of expensive mainframes. A deal with Red Hat allows McKesson to offer its software in a top-to-bottom package for mission-critical hospital IT systems."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:10PM (#21679651)
    the cure are doing what now?
    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by cooley (261024) on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:36PM (#21679811) Homepage

      The cure is moving many of McKesson's medical software applications to Linux
      Monday, applications choke
      Tuesday, Wednesday, RAID set's broke
      Thursday, let out the magic smoke
      but on Friday, I patch bugs

      Monday, my xorg conf is toast
      Tuesday, Wednesday, CPU roasts
      Thursday, it won't even POST
      but on Friday, I patch bugs
  • by log1385 (1199377) on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:16PM (#21679673)
    If this catches on, health care will become a little more affordable. 60% of IT costs is quite a bit of money for hospitals to save.
    • Honestly, it would be nice, but IT costs are afterthoughts when it comes to the healthcare industry. The market is so broken. Quality of care and price are completely detached. The privatization here, the socialization there... it's just one big quagmire. If this sort of thing did catch on, which would be a long ways in the future and a big if at that, the effect on the price of care would be almost unnoticeable. It's nice to dream, but beaureacracy and corporate litigiousness have busted the market. It's a mess.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2007, @12:28AM (#21680113)
        Call me when we get doctors that are not gouging prices like crazy, hospital admins that do very little for their 6 figure incomes, Supplies that are horribly overpriced, medications that are priced 9000 percent higher than normal.

        The entire medical biz is a scam to get the poor to finance a few $2,500,000 homes and lots of BMW 7 series cars. Doctors do not deserve to be paid insane rates. Some doctors are sane and charge real rates and tell their clients to avoid the hospital at all costs while helping them with outpaitent surgery in their offices.

        IT costs are less than 1/90th the cost of health care.
    • by sumdumass (711423) on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:29PM (#21679755) Journal
      The IT costs are peanuts compared to the real costs. And of course those real costs are mostly made up. It is the inflated values of machines used for testing. Any witch doctor can say your leg is broke, but only a few would have an X-ray and MRI machines to show why they need to charge you more for their opinion.

      You would think that after they pay for their equipment, the costs of using it would go down. It just isn't so, Sure there are still costs like maintenance and so on but generally the cost of using it goes up once it is paid off.
      • If that isn't the parable of the broken window if I have ever heard it! Efficiency to any market is a good thing. The more unnecessary cost involved in the healthcare industry, the more dollars it needlessly sucks out of the rest of the economy. Sure, you can make the argument that healthcare is a capital purchase in that it increases your viability in the labor force, but that is a stretch. Cutting bloat is never a bad thing. We need to cut some serious bloat out of the industry, and we should start with beaurecracy and go all the way down to reforming the insurance industry. There needs to be some kind of oversight on cost to quality ratios, as this hybrid government backed/privately funded monster is the model of inefficiency. I like to argue for social justice so I'm naturally wary of any solely private system, but a well-designed private system would be ten times better than what we have now.
          • by JohnBailey (1092697) on Thursday December 13 2007, @06:15AM (#21681599)

            I don't understand the mentality either. Once here on /. I simply stated that it might be a good idea for people to try to behave a bit more sustainably and I get ripped into about moving into a grass hut with a dirt floor. Consumption is a religion for some and it is due to a belief that the economy will collapse if we don't all go out and buy something and just throw it away unopened. Why would people think that?
            Social conditioning. The entire retail market is designed to make us aspire to the new stuff when the old stuff is perfectly adequate. This applies to consumer electronics, clothing, housing, etc. Its taken a while, but now many people are conditioned to confuse the words want and need.

            If you ask why, or even worse, try to reduce your consumption, you are directly challenging the personal validation system of the more conformist consumers. If someone measures their self worth on the amount of money they earn, or the expensive toys they have, then you are questioning their status in the social pecking order.
      • by blurryrunner (524305) on Thursday December 13 2007, @12:01AM (#21679963) Homepage
        I think the market could find something much more efficient than health care that would more than offset the effect on the economy. Your argument reminds me of the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org]. Wasting money in health care is like breaking windows and saying that it's providing jobs. Sure, but fixing that window is just taking resources away from better endeavors.

        /br
      • No, the spending wouldn't decrease at all. They would just reapportion the funds to equipment such as the latest digital X-Ray machines. Or the newest CAT scanner. Or the latest robotic surgical nurse.

        You get the picture. In fact, in most of health care, that's just what happens already. They spend as little as possible on IT and reapportion the cost to areas of service that will directly benefit their ability to attract doctors and customers and therefore generate greater revenues.

        Those reading this might think I'm kidding, but let me tell you this: I once replaced a token ring network with an ethernet network connecting Pentium IIs and IIIs. In 2005.

        -- A former healthcare IT worker.
  • by dmr001 (103373) on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:18PM (#21679681)
    If you use McKesson's software every day like I do, you would be amazed at its expense, sluggishness, and irritability. Lab systems that insist on running on Internet Explorer 6 and resizing to fit your whole screen aren't a big surprise - however mediocre. But mission critical systems that routinely crash with Java errors, can't run reliably remotely, require large IT departments to maintain, are slower and more difficult to use than the tty-based systems they replaced, can't trend labs, can't reliably wildcard search patient names, and die miserably if the wind blows more than 5 miles an hour or the moon is waxing - this is truly sad.

    I wish our hospital system could dig its way out of it. I don't think running on top of Linux will help much. See if you can get a screenshot of their software on their website - I can't - they don't promote this stuff to the physicians and nurses who use it - it gets sold to the suits. There's a goldmine out their awaiting some entrepreneur who could really take pride in writing good software of this sort, and though I love Linux, I don't really care what it runs on top of.

    • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:47PM (#21679865) Homepage
      Well, TFA didn't exactly mention it, but it appears that it's the server apps that get the UNIX -> Linux treatment. I'll bet that the clients remain XP / Exploder 5-6.

      Linux at the desk top is so next year.

    • AMEN BROTHER! I'm a doctor in a hospital that just deployed an electronic health record system that is slower than the system it replaced - which was slower than the TTY system it replaced - that refuses to search patient names if you can't provide a first initial. I'm an anesthesiologist, so I see people I don't have long relationships with, and remembering someone's first name is just damned hard when you remember their medical conditions better than their name. The one piece of medical software I've seen that is really fantastic - and no, I don't own a piece of the company, I just wish I did - is our radiology system, Stentor iSite (now bought by Phillips, I think). It's very easy to use, yet the advanced user can access all sorts of features that improve the experience.
      • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday December 13 2007, @01:23AM (#21680377)
        I'm a doctor in a hospital that just deployed an electronic health record system that is slower than the system it replaced - which was slower than the TTY system it replaced - that refuses to search patient names if you can't provide a first initial.

        Pay attention here, IT freaks. Notice that the user here (possibly your doctor) says nothing about the OS. This is simply abysmal design and implementation. Unix/Linux/Windows/OSX/Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/MSSQL....ALL could end up thusly. Or all could end up not too bad. Design it right, and build it right. Think about what your user is actually trying to accomplish.

        I saw some comments upthread about RedHat this and Linux that...Bullshit. The user interface is (most of) the key. If you screw that, the backend matters little.

        Yes, if you start from a stable base, it is easier. But no matter what the base is, if you fuck up the actual program and interface the that user, in this case a doctor or nurse, uses....everything else is irrelevant. They will hate it. And still not care what the base OS is.
    • There's a goldmine out their awaiting some entrepreneur who could really take pride in writing good software of this sort
      This is exactly what I've been doing for the last 8 months. I'm being paid by a neurologist to develop a system to run his practice. What I've built is a LAMP framework that can be adapted to any medical practice. It's entirely paperless, replaces faxing, automates a ton of stuff currently done by secretaries, and meets all the requirements for electronic records set out by The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I'm developing the whole thing on my own (so far), and although I'm not a brilliant programmer, it's faster, more secure, more scalable, and more platform independent, and way more intuitive than anything that's currently being used at any hospital in our city.

      We're in beta testing with actual patients now and my boss is bankrolling us into starting a company to sell the software and other medical-related IT solutions to local doctors (many of whom have horribly inefficient offices and don't fully realize it). I'm hoping we can expand beyond just local doctors, because it is a huge market and the best anyone else seems to be doing (around southern Ontario at least) is holding seminars to talk about how technology could be used to enhance medical practice someday.

    • I was going to make my own McKesson sucks comment, but instead I'll just second yours. They write Crap. Period. End of story.

      I remember sitting in on a presentation they once made to one of our directors regarding some new patient records management system they were trying to pitch to us. Not one single screen shot was shown nor were any technical people on hand so that I could ask the difficult questions. In the end, when she asked me my opinion, the conversation went like this:

      Me: Remember application X that you used to use at hospital Y?
      Her: Uh... yes.
      Me: They wrote it.

      We didn't buy the software.
        • by gardyloo (512791) on Thursday December 13 2007, @12:24AM (#21680087)
          Gosh, I hope you were drinking milk.
        • by Psychotria (953670) on Thursday December 13 2007, @12:25AM (#21680097)
          I actually think you're the redhat newbie and not the parent. RedHat in recent (3-4 years?) has been very stable. All the stuff gets seriously stress-tested on Fedora first, so by the time it makes it into a stable RedHat, things are stable--i.e. the packages don't "suck". Additionally, because things are "tested" on Fedora first you get this kind of intrinsic QA for things making it into RedHat stable. Next time you decide to squeeze milk through your sinuses, at least do it for something funnier ;-)
          • by module0000 (882745) on Thursday December 13 2007, @12:35AM (#21680145)
            Glad to see someone else saw this glaring piece of obviousness.

            Just because a product wasn't plug-and-play in 1997 when you last used it, doesn't mean it still sucks a decade later.

            The amount of testing/development that takes place in the fedora community all funnels directly into a more stable and usable product(i.e. RHEL). That subscription to RHN ensures those engineers bust their ass to fix whats wrong and get it delivered to you: it also means that if your the IT staff in said hospitable and something doesn't make 100%, you can call someone who it does make 100% to and get an answer/fix instead of diagnosing it for 45 minutes while a doctor needing to do a simple task breathes down your neck and wastes both their time and yours.
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:23PM (#21679709)
    Just wanna give a shout out to the PR rep that planted this story. Three brand mentions in the opening paragraph - can I get a whoop-whoop?

    Two points off for the "less expensive commodity hardware instead of expensive mainframes" - that's a Microsoft marketing phrase from the early 1990's for God's sake - but still a pretty good job all around.
  • OpenVista (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wheelie_boy (26751) on Thursday December 13 2007, @12:56AM (#21680243)
    Really want to save money? And a whole lot of Tums? Screw McKesson's kludgeware.

    OpenVista is the open source version of the VA's VistA program, deployed at over 1500 sites worldwide. You can also grab it for free from http://sourceforge.net/projects/openvista [sourceforge.net].

    Yes, you can get professional training, installation and ongoing support for it:

    http://medsphere.org/ [medsphere.org]

  • It's Not a Mainframe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BBCWatcher (900486) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:13AM (#21680923)

    The original Computerworld article [computerworld.com] cited is confusing, but it refers to UNIX mainframes. The most likely educated guess is they're talking about high-end UNIX servers from Sun, Hewlett-Packard, and/or IBM, not what we would generally think of as true mainframes, notably IBM's System z [wikipedia.org].

    Yes, among System z's five popular operating systems z/OS contains a complete and certified UNIX(TM) implementation (called z/OS UNIX System Services). And yes, System z runs 100% GPL open source kernel.org Linux. And yes, OpenSolaris on z will be z's OS #6 before too long, and that's clearly UNIX(TM) too. But I doubt the article is talking about any of these technologies, based on the context of the article. There are not 2,500 U.S. hospital IBM mainframes (the number of McKesson hospital customers cited), for example. Maybe there should be.

    Computerworld's editors seem to be on vacation, unfortunately, so their usually good copy editing is suffering, resulting in some gibberish articles. This week they also reported that Steve Jobs and The Woz approached Commodore in 1982 to talk about the latter company selling the Apple II, pointing out that Apple's two founders didn't have enough money to launch the product, worked out of a basement, and the safety and stability of cashing out for a couple hundred Gs was better than the alternative. Unfortunately for Computerworld they got the date wrong: by 1982 Apple was doing just fine, and The Woz was doing Nissan commercials.

      • No!!! (Score:5, Funny)

        by pegr (46683) * on Wednesday December 12 2007, @11:31PM (#21679777) Homepage Journal
        Just what we need... MUMPS [wikipedia.org] for Linux. No!!!!!
            • Re:No!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by copdk4 (712016) on Thursday December 13 2007, @03:39AM (#21681015) Homepage
              well you are right but when you talk about the domain of healthcare or biomedicine in general, the complexity of data and processes is so high that to develop a software system you need "extra" data-structures/information models such as HL7 standards, ontologies etc. to meet the requirements of the application. So somehow I tend to think that X (health care domain-specific) language would a superset of a general purpose language that simply provide basic programming elements (say OO, loops, variables etc). Not sure about verbosity though.

              In mathematical terms:

              A = {basic set of programming artifacts}
              B = {domain-specific structures and computable knowledge elements}

              X = {A U B}
              and Y = {A}

    • by 4D6963 (933028) on Thursday December 13 2007, @01:10AM (#21680305) Homepage Journal

      The janitor will come by, type a few random key strokes into the terminal, and boom, no more linux box. *nix computers are just too easy too kill.

      Yeah, that's the major flaw of Unix operating systems, and it still hasn't been solved in the 35 years Unix has been around.

      If only there was some sort of system under which some special user with special powers could create user accounts deprived of these special powers so that they wouldn't be able to break everything...