History for The latest BCMA study is ...
Here you can see all comments and changes to a discussion. Latest comes first.
Good Study
about 1 year ago by fsdfsfsfsfsedit: 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 an 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 re-evaluate the need for this technology. The ROI picture is getting
bleaker.bleaker.about 1 year ago by fsdfsfsfsfsedit: 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 an 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
evaluatere-evaluate the need for this technology. The ROI picture is getting bleaker.about 1 year ago by poikonenedit:
This when only 1/3 of hospitals have infection control monitoring systems?I believe it is time to reconsider BCMA as part of ASHP's 2015 initiative.about 1 year ago by poikonenedit: 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
inan 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 evaluate the need for this technology. The ROI picture is getting bleaker.about 1 year ago by poikonen
Good Study