Talk:Epic Systems/Archives/2014

Proposed merge with Judith R. Faulkner

Is she really known for anything besides heading Epic? Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't do a merge because she's known for being one of the world's most powerful women. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Privately Held"

Well that's true but as I understand it, it's employee owned, or on the order of 90% so. "Privately held" is misleading in this case I think. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Epic is not an employee owned company by any definition I've heard for "employee owned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:60D:FD4D:2583:F35C:89D (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Public" and "private" are financial and legal terms. A public or publicly-owned or publicly-traded company is one whose stock is publicly traded on the stock market. A privately-owned company is one whose stock or ownership shares cannot be bought by outsiders. --Nbauman (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

use by Davies awardees

in this dif, 2600:1008:b126:3e8b:20d8:5481:5501:3ce1 added the following: "Forty-one organizations that use Epic have received HIMSS Davies Awards, which recognize outstanding achievement of organizations who have utilized health information technology to substantially improve patient outcomes while achieving return on investment.

and i reverted it. in my view this comes across as both WP:OR and WP:PROMO and here is why:

• the award givers don't emphasize the EMR system, but rather what awardees did with their EMR systems.
• the award site doesn't summarize the data on what EMR systems the winners used; the IP editor must have gone through and counted (!)
• the content doesn't provide any context around that number. What percentage of all awardees used Epic, and is that different from the percentage of all EMR users who use Epic? (in other words, is this exactly the number we would expect?) Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

HIMSS is the major organization in health information management, and the fact that its awardees use Epic is significant. If you don't think that addition provides enough context, feel free to add the context, but 2600:1008:b126:3e8b:20d8:5481:5501:3ce1 and I think it belongs. --Nbauman (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is disgusting and inept WP:PROMO text. hell no. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are engaging in an edit war, removing well-sourced information that other editors have included based on your own personal opinions, without discussion in talk or getting consensus. You complained that the list was unsourced, so I got WP:RS third-party source, Healthcare Today. A New York Times article discussing both sides of a controversy is not promotional. This is the country's largest EMR system, and it deserves more detail than your 1-sentence summary. If you don't like it, go find WP:RSs that support your view. and add them --Nbauman (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you engage with the WP:OR] and WP:PROMO issues raised. I provided rationale based on policy and guidelines. Please do the same. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

list of modules

Nbauman added a list of modules in this dif with edit note "List of modules. Supplied third-party WP:RS. This is important to hospital IT managers and others." IP address 32.218.41.85 reverted in this dif with edit note "mind-numbing list that is blatantly promotional)".

My sense is the content should not stay, per WP:NOTMANUAL, not to sell or maintain (not sure how having the list is important to IT managers outside of that). but in general i don't like long lists in WP articles. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you sign your name? I don't know who I'm talking to. This seems to be an unsigned post by Jytdog.

The reason this list is noteworthy, as 2 WP editors believe, is that the long list of modules is one of the unique features of Epic systems, which is controversial because some IT people criticize Epic for this. According to some WP:RSs, they believe that this is one of the ways that Epic locks customers in. Hardly promotional. --Nbauman (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

content on the criticism for having ... what, too many, not enough, too complicated.. a structure would be fine with me. But the raw list is just a WP:laundry list from my perspective. I didn't understand the IP's objection on the grounds of PROMO on this. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

agree with Jytdog that long list of modules may not be helpful. What about building a "history" section, using this article as a starting point? Could include a high-level overview/summary of modules. Malt12nigh (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Addenbrookes

It may be that the installation in Cambridge turns out to be a big success. But the fact that it appears to have been closed down within days of installation is certainly noteworthy.Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)agreed. I note that the guardian article says "It is the biggest single investment the Trust has ever made in the quality of patient care". and the BBC notes that it is the first installation of EPIC in the UK -important milestone for the company. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)