Could tablet computers be the future of EMRs?
Houston Neal wrote an interesting article about the rumour of a Mac tablet computer, and it’s implications for healthcare, particularly EMR:
Mac Tablet? - The Ultimate Device for EMRs?
He claims Apple has an opportunity to position themselves in the health market, if they create a reliable tablet interface.
I am not convinced that Apple is creating a full-sized tablet. It seems more like they are creating an iPhone “super” with a larger touch screen interface (They would come up with a cooler name, of course). This would run the same operating system as the iPhone and have a similar interface, but would obviously be more suited to word processing and data-work, on a double or triple-sized screen, with a bigger keyboard. (All guesses, no insider knowledge)
If they created that piece of hardware, I would buy it. How perfect would that be for a hospital laptop?
- Able to be carried easily in one arm to make notes on ward rounds.
- Slips into a smaller bag, so you are not lugging a full-sized laptop around.
- Big enough to study with, so you can avoid dealing with computers that others provide.
- And then docks into your macbook, or iMac of an evening and syncs, dropbox style.
Can I even hope for built in wireless data? Of course not. But that imaginary computer would be very cool for desk-less residents.
Anyway, read Houston’s article and let us know what you think. What is your ideal EMR/ward/clinical interface?
Simple file management with Fresh
The makers of Leap (who I have no commercial affiliation with, review here) have recently released a access level tagging program. Fresh is a useful document utility, which has three main functions:
- Tracking “fresh” or most recently used documents
- Tagging files (searchable by spotlight)
- Document launcher, or shelf for frequently accessed files
File access
Your seven most recently accessed files, and seven files/folders of your choice, are available at a keystroke. As you would expect, they can be dragged and dropped. The interface also works with “open file” dialogues in a lot of other mac software. Importantly, you can nominate any files that you don’t want to see in the interface. This is handy to prevent your itunes library showing up song by song.
The second section in the main HUD is a shelf of files that you choose. They can be any sort of file, and can therefore be quickly accessed to open, email whatever.
Tagging
Files in the fresh or cooler portion of the interface can be tagged with a right click. Other files can be dropped on the side of screen active tab.
According to Ironic Software:
“Fresh write OpenMeta Tags which can be seen by
Spotlight. In Leap you can do Spotlight searches which exposes files
tagged by Fresh.”
The cool stuff
- Plays well with others. Interacts with Dropbox, and Spotlight. You are not stuck if you choose to uninstall.
- Simple. This is definitely a good option for digital filing for those who are not interested in all the bells and whistles of Leap. What you get is what you need.
- Cheap. This program is under $10. This is great value for a program you may end up using every day. All of these functions are available in other programs for free. But if this works how you want, it is a bargain.
- Unobstrusive. Dropbox on the side of the screen and keystroke to pull up the HUD. The interface is similar to dashboard in concept - covers up everything you are doing when you need it, then gets out of the way.
- I get the impression these developers use their programs, so things tend to make sense.
- Rapid updates. There have been two updates for bugfixes since release. This is not the sort of program that is about to stagnate.
My issues
- Working with Leap and Fresh is patchy:
- The drop zones for both programs are on the same side of the screen, and can’t be customized. They overlap, but are not blocked by each other
- Fresh tags don’t show as Leap tags. You can do spotlight searches within leap and still identify those files, but they will not integrate with your Leap tags. This is important for me, as I use Leap as my digital filing solution. So it means files tagged with Fresh will not turn up in the right “filing folder” in Leap.
- You have to manually add stuff to the Cooler (the shelf). I mean, this makes sense, but I have been using this program for a week, and there is still nothing on the shelf.
Process: Just another Project manager
I have been working with a review version of Jumsoft’s Process, which is a task manager and project management tool. As always, I am looking at this in terms of managing my personal projects rather than managing group or corporate projects.
The functions
Basically, this is a task manager, where tasks are grouped under projects. Tasks can be assigned to different people and progress can be tracked to a degree. Tasks can also sync with iCal. There is a simple and intuitive interface. It has pretty bars and visual effects. It is “mac-like.” So far, so good.
I was starting to think this might be a good informal personal project manager.
However, there is very little project planning interface. By this I mean the planning of the project - the vision, the aim, the reason, the supporting notes, the deadline and interested parties. I already have a task manager, as I imagine a lot of people do. So this simply replicates a system I already have.
The verdict
This project planner may work well for groups with multiple deliverables and multiple responsibilities. However, It doesn’t suit personal project planning at all. I can understand removing the Gantt charts, timelines and graphing for most projects, but it gets a bit too lassez faire/genY when you remove any interface for overall vision and plan. I’m not saying I use this stuff all the time, or as much as I should, but that is what I need when I choose to plan a project.
Comparing Autofocus and GTD
I have been a long-time fan of David Allen’s Getting Things Done, and I have recently started using Mark Forster’s Autofocus system. After about a month of using Autofocus (paper), I thought it would be useful to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the systems.
I would like to add that purists on both sides say that these systems are not compatible and shouldn’t be combined. I don’t agree with this. Everyone hacks their systems to figure out how they can best stay productive. I have been using Autofocus, because it is much better at getting me to actually work on stuff, even those things I avoid. It’s not an merit badge, OK.
Please feel to disagree with my opinions in the comments.
Autofocus
Details
Definition: Tasks are collected in one continuous list, which is worked through in sequence. Groups of 20-30 tasks (pages) are viewed as a unit and used as a tool to prevent tasks becoming stale or ignored.
Website: Autofocus: get everything done (with full instructions, and forums)
Implementation:
Paper encouraged, but can be set up in most digital task management systems.
Key features:
- Physical based contexts if necessary
- Do tasks that stand out, and discard tasks that fail to get done after multiple reviews of a page
- Choice of task helps determine subconscious prioties
- Self-reveiwing.
- Minimal contexts, and emphasis on physical contexts only. Many proponents advise one single list regardless of context.
Advantages:
- Instructions are simple, and free
- Encourages little and often theory of task processing
- Works well with recurring or continuous tasks eg checking email, doing laundry, blog comment moderation
- Can deal with rapid input of tasks with minimal processing time (like medical officer shifts)
- Avoids dinosaur tasks (long-standing tasks that get avoided)
- Can help control procrastination (by adding those tasks to the list)
- One single list (or maybe two) for all tasks - therefore much simpler than GTD, especially paper versions of GTD
- Self-reviewing (My weekly reviews are now much shorter)
Disadvantages:
- Can’t accomodate tasks that need to be done by a particular time or in sequence
- Doesn’t manage projects well, without creating an additional list
- Has minimal ability to cope with “waiting for” tasks
- Need multiple lists for other things, such as agendas, shopping lists etc
- Paper list can be misplaced/lost without backup
Getting things done (GTD)
Details
Definition: A process aimed at collecting everything you are keeping track of in your mind. These thoughts and concerns are collected in an inbox, and markers kept for projects, next actions, goals visions, waiting tasks etc on numerous lists.
Website: http://www.davidco.com/ (includes many free downloadable resources)
Implementation: Paper-based (difficult to maintain due to complexity) or electronic
Key features:
- Inboxes for data collection, which are emptied regularly
- Ubiquitous collection of all issues in hard copy, and then all “markers” for these concerns are held in some form and reviewed regularly
- Use of contexts for different type of tasks, to reduce friction when working
- Regular review of information tracked
- Regular review of higher goals/aims/visions
- Associated uncomplicated filing system for reference material
Advantages:
- Less stress - due to ubiquitous collection
- Very popular, and lots of advice on system setups and hacks available online
- Adapts well to most workplaces and worktypes
- Works well in collaboration - multiple people using system in one workplace can have synergistic effect
Disadvantages:
- Can be very complicated series of lists, meaning regular review is mandatory to maintain control. Pruning (fiddling with) the system is constant temptation.
- Because of the complexity, I don’t think this system works well in an on-call environment like medical shift work, where few tasks can be deferred.
- Multiple context based system can be irrelevant
- Due to complexity, often needs electornic system to implement without constant rewriting
- Doesn’t deal well with recurring or continuous maintenance tasks, like moderating comments, or
- Accepted that years of work required to become “good” at GTD”
- Although the instructions are available for free on the internet, the system is based on a book, and it is best to purchase and read it to understand it properly.
What do you think? Have you used either or both of these systems? Or are you just out there finishing stuff?
Leap: the nirvana of digital filing
Since I last wrote about digital filing, I have found nirvana - Leap ($34, Ironic Software). Most filing solutions I have tried were either slow, proprietary or limited. Now that I have found Leap, I realise that other solutions try to do too much. Instead of organising files into a database with labels, Leap simply creates a good user interface for file tagging. It works as a finder, of sorts, with vastly improved search capabiliteis.
When you open the Leap’s main window, you can see your folder structure in the left hand toolbar. You can limit your view within that structure based on folders, file types and tags. There is a simple interface to add tags to a file, and you can move files around, create folders, and everything else you would expect from file management.
So, my filing behaviour has changed slightly. Instead of dropping a file I want to keep into Eaglefiler, or Yojimbo or any other database-style filing cabinet, I drop it into a folder, labelled inbox, which sits on my dock. When I empty my inbox daily, I drag reference files to the quick-tag dropspot. The file remains where it is, but has tags added. When finished, I drop the file into my “Filed” folder. Quick, no fuss. And vitally, no thinking time, no spinning beachball.
To find a file again, I can search using spotlight (tag structure can be customised for searching with spotlight), or I can drill down using Leap’s own interface. For example, I can choose, “PhD folder” “image files” and “tag:white_cell_stain” and see if you can figure out what I get. It integrates perfectly with quicklook, which makes it easy to know what you are dealing with.
The features:
- Easy to customise - you can have an inbox, a filed box, sort by year date, whatever works for you.
- Generous trial period.
- Tags are not program specific. They are accessible by spotlight, and Quicksilver, and other tagging applications
- Files are not duplicated, and remain in place. So if you want to have a file structure (as well as tagging) you can
- Plays well with others, including Quicksilver, and Dropbox. For example, if I tag files in my shared dropbox, my husband can also search by those tags on his end
- Looks great. Very similar look to itunes, so it has an “apple look” and thumbnails load quickly
- Great tool for finding duplicates as it ignores folder structure
- Almost every feature I recently requested in the next version of Finder.
This is only the 1.0 release, so there are some annoying glitches
- Not all the file type groups work well
- Keystrokes are still limited. For example, I can’t find a way to enter the tagging window using keystrokes
- Some bugs remain, like you can’t edit the tags in the info window, although you can edit the file title
- Moving files brings up an “Are you sure?” check every time. This is incredibly intrusive, especially as I move files routinely as part of my filing workflow (from inbox to filed, or trashing duplicates).
I work around this by moving in groups as much as possible, and tagging files for deletion with “trash” so I can batch delete.
An example of how great this system is
For my PhD, I take a lot of digital images for analysis. Then I have to duplicate and rename those files so I can be blinded during analysis. This often means that I have multiple copies of the same image, with different names.
Rather than getting lost and confused, and analysing the images more than once, I now tag the images with the name of the experiment, digital magnification and the slide number. By searching on tags, I can easily discover duplicates, no matter what files they have wound up in. Although a simple thing, this has made manipulating and measuring images infinitely less complicated.