I actually work as a director of medical informatics at a large, well known, medical institution that field tested and uses patientkeeper. Sanj's assertions are spot on. I won't adress all of them individually, but they all speak to real problems in the "digitization" of healthcare.<p>For those of you who think any singular device will be the electronic panacea people are waiting for in healthcare you are out of your minds and have no clue about the current state of medical informatics. Getting medical records systems into the healthcare environment with entrenched users is probably harder than getting the us legal system to use them.<p>As I have said in other forums, it is not any singular device or platform that will make this work. The current landscape is that of a patchwork of systems silos, none of whom talk to one another. There is practically zero integration at a platform level and any integration that is done is ad-hoc and custom.<p>If I were advising Obama, et al, I would Incentivise (with a capital I) data interchange over any specific data format or platform. Do not pick winners and losers, in my opinion it is kind of un-American. Let everyone have a fair shake in the market but encourage them to open their systems to integration from third parties through open read/write (bidirectional) api's. This would go a long way to getting new innovative systems into institutions with entrenched legacy systems.<p>Speaking to integration costs, point 2, I could not agree more. Working at any institution other than a small sized private practice requires an untold amount of training, education and ongoing maintenance to get the users to use any system of even minimal complexity.<p>"Wishlist" 1, again spot on. Doctors do not monitor vitals in real time. They just do not have the time, nor is it pertinent to quality of care. What doctors do want are <i>intelligent</i> alerts. But how do you get an intelligent, dynamic, real-time monitoring system that needs access to raw data? See my point above re open api's.