Talk:CCOW

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As far as I understand, CCOW is not indended for 'single sign-on', but for 'application synchronization'. The example would then be clearer if it was along the lines of: 'general practitioner Steph Saunders logs in. His applications subscribe to the context manager. He selects his patient Mary Jane in one of the applications. The other applications pick that up and also tune to that patient.' --Raboof (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed and this concern is likely no longer an issue, but to clarify, CCOW consists of multiple contexts. One would be a 'patient context' that would ensure the same patient is selected in all applications. Another context is the user context, which ensures that the same user, or care provider, is the one accessing those applications. The result of maintaining the user context in a CCOW application is Single Sign On (SSO) so that the user of the machine cannot log in to one application as one user, and another application as another user. I'd guess that patient context improves patient safety, user context improves security and privacy. Side effect of this is happier users and as such, SSO becomes a big bullet as why an application should be CCOW enabled. 152.16.177.116 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue raised is definitely still an issue with the article. While the "single sign on" functionality is frequently used to describe the standard, it is "context switching" that is the chief benefit of the standard. "Single sign on" could be achieved with many password management tools, the real benefit for this standard is that when you have multiple application windows open - including those on different servers and technologies - switching "context" switches all the applications. I believe there are four primary contexts; the patient, the encounter, the account, and the study (?, not sure). For example, when you change patient in application A and you are logged into applications A, B, C, and D, they _all_ switch to the same patient view as if you had provided focus to each window and looked up the patient in that application directly. While this may seem like an odd piece of functionality, integration on the desktop essentially, in health care where disparate applications are often running simultaneously for different systems with different purposes this is a tremendous productivity boost. A common example; a Radiologist has open the image viewer (PACS), Radiology management system (RIS), transcription application, and medical record application. Pulling up a patient in the transcription system lets the PACS application switch to all the images on file for the patient, the RIS shows the patient's appointment history, and the medical record system shows their charts including pathology reports. A great time saver. Lyle (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue with this article is that it refers to the "User" (Mary Jane) when I assume it means the Subject (generally patient). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.128.2 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The External links section includes a link with the text "CCOW Solutions". However that goes to a website for a specific company (it appears that the company is a vendor for a CCOW server.) As it is currently, the link misleads readers into thinking this vendor is the authoritative list of all CCOW software solutions. Should we remove that link, or should the link text be changed to indicate that it is a specific vendor? If we keep the link and list a specific vendor, should we add links to some of the other big vendors? Rick Townsend (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CCOW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]