PubMed · 7968385
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
I H Valdes. Advantages of object-oriented programming.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7968385/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between the functions of seven configurations of Patient Data Management Systems (PDMS) and the Dutch specifications prepared by the users prior to use. DESIGN: An observational descriptive study with hospital visits of seven configurations of five different PDMS systems including three commercial systems and two locally developed systems. SETTING: Seven Dutch level I intensive care units in university and teaching hospitals. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A substantial disagreement was found between the Dutch specifications and the actual functions of the PDMS configurations tested. Between the PDMS configurations, major differences in key features, including "automated charting", "information and care planning", and "management information", were observed. Automated charting is adequately supported by the three commercial systems. All configurations tested had limited functions supporting care planning. In none of the configurations tested was the required function present to support unit management with reports on resource utilisation and outcome performance. The automatic calculation of prognostic scores was either absent or incorrect. The implementation, the (continuous) configuration and the training required a substantial investment in costs and human resources. CONCLUSION: Today, none of the PDMSs tested satisfy the Dutch specifications. This can be explained by technical impossibilities of the systems and shortcomings in the actual configuration or in the unit organisation. The PDMS might become a valuable tool in improving the quality of ICU practice, but full implementation of these systems according to the specifications still has a long way to go.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In 1984, the first flow cytometry data file format was proposed as Flow Cytometry Standard 1.0 (FCS1.0). FCS 1.0 provided a uniform file format allowing data acquired on one computer to be correctly read and interpreted on other computers running a variety of operating systems. That standard was modified in 1990 and adopted by the Society of Analytical Cytology as FCS 2.0. Here, we report on an update of the FCS 2.0 standard which we propose to designate FCS 3.0. We have retained the basic four segment structure of earlier versions (HEADER, TEXT, DATA and ANALYSIS) in order to maintain analysis software compatibility, where possible. The changes described in this proposal include a method to collect files larger than 100 megabytes (not possible in earlier versions of the standard), the inclusion of international characters in the TEXT portions of the file, a method of verifying data integrity using a 16-bit cyclic redundancy check, and increased keyword support for cluster analysis and time acquisition. This report summarizes the work of the ISAC Data File Standards Committee. The complete and detailed FCS 3.0 standard is available through the ISAC office [Sherwood Group, 60 Revere Drive, Ste 500, Northbrook, IL 60062, phone: (847) 480-9080 ext. 231, fax: (847) 480-9282, E-mail: isac@sherwood-group.com] or through the internet at the ISAC WWW site, http://nucleus.immunol.washington.edu/ISAC.ht ml.