<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>The latest BCMA study is ... - History - doingtext</title><description>The last 50 comments and changes of the discussion</description><link>http://doingtext.com/discussions/jgcved</link><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:44:23 +0100</pubDate><item><title>new edit on line 1</title><guid>jgcved/15804</guid><description><![CDATA[ <span class="info">edit:</span> The latest BCMA study is a very good one.  <http://www.ajhp.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/12/1110> Finally we have an observational study that compares eMAR to BCMA.   The results are astonishing.  The only benefit seen was <del class="diffmod">in </del><ins class="diffmod">an </ins>improvement in wrong time errors.  Given the time, energy and cost (upwards of $1+ million/hospital) to implement this technology and the only benefit is improvement in time errors, perhaps it is time to start to <del class="diffmod">evaluate </del><ins class="diffmod">re-evaluate </ins>the need for this technology.  The ROI picture is getting bleaker.  ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:44:23 +0100</pubDate><dc:creator>poikonen</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>
