The last 50 comments and changes of the discussionhttp://doingtext.com/discussions/vzdo5gFri, 19 Jun 2009 19:05:24 +0100vzdo5g/16629Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:05:24 +0100fsdfsfsfsfsvzdo5g/16630Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:05:24 +0100fsdfsfsfsfsvzdo5g/16628edit: The latest BCMA study is a very good one. 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.]]>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:05:02 +0100fsdfsfsfsfsvzdo5g/15807edit: The latest BCMA study is a very good one. 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 evaluate re-evaluate the need for this technology. The ROI picture is getting bleaker. ]]>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:51:18 +0100poikonenvzdo5g/15806edit: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.]]>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:45:44 +0100poikonenvzdo5g/15805edit: The latest BCMA study is a very good one. Finally we have an observational study that compares eMAR to BCMA. The results are astonishing. The only benefit seen was in 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 evaluate the need for this technology. The ROI picture is getting bleaker. ]]>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:45:08 +0100poikonen