Home Forums Discussions Problems So How is 6.1.1 Folks???

Hey folks,
For those that were freaking out with the first release of 6.0 over the problems that were discovered, how it the newest quick fix release doing for all of you out there with clumps of missing hair???? I'm personally interested to hear the experience of anyone running P2P, Windows XP small network, but certainly any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated..... As many of you know we are sort of hanging back at 5.26 for the moment waiting to see how others fare...

Thanks in advance for sharing and explaining.....

Paul

6.1.1 has faster rx. overall smooth, but crashes a few times daily on vista and seven. XP machines are fine. A few unusual bugs that we had not seen before including reversed vaccine dates and unusual "updated by" entries. Still a work in progress.

Hi Paul,

I had qiute significant problems with 6.0.09, had to change some hardware etc. Had to turn hardware acceleration off.

6.1.1 is significantly better, still need to keep hardware acceleration off on older machines. Occasional quirky behavior, no crashes.

6.1.1 is probably not as good as 5.?? (last release of 5) in terms of speed.

6.1.1 is much faster with drug interaction checking turned off.

erxing has been great.

Our hardware: Main computer i7 Win 7 Pro 64 bit, new laptop i5 Win 7 Pro 64 bit, older machines about 6 years old, XP Pro, single core processors, 2-3 gigs RAM. P2P (despite Bert's efforts to persuade me....)

Gene

you have problems with an i7? I dont have one of those and I dont have speed problems. I dont think so , anyway.

I have been using 6.1.1 for a few days
it is significantly faster than 6.0.9 but it has a few bugs in it.
when my MA scans in reports it shows up in her in box and mine
sometimes she cannot use the e crop screen when she 'denies and writes a new script'.
CCDs are not updated unless the note is signed, and it confuses the pt as it cant be edited. I don't finish my note till later so this is a problem for me
e rx is much faster though.
bala

Hi Wayne,

Sorry, my post was confusing. Speed issues were on older machines, not i5/i7. Win 7 was definitely better than XP Pro. But I really did not want to buy all new computers.....

Gene

Oops, see my post in MU, meant to put it here.

Wendell, ever since the new theme, you've been posting in the wrong threads left and right. You better go back to the old one.

I just don't understand this. It seems like one version fixes one thing and breaks another. In most software updates, it will say fixed x, y, and z and it is improved. Then three months later a few bugs are found or tweaked.

Here is the thing. And, I know this is a fast-release beta. But, we shouldn't have to have threads like these where people (me included) don't update until others test the waters. We are actually beta testing in production.

Now, CCHIT and MU did change the landscape a bit. And, I know that Jon states he does upgrades and beta testing differently. I just, and this is just my opinion, think doing it differently would work better. Again, just an opinion.

Don't talk about upcoming releases. Let a version be the officially released version for a while. If you discover a problem, issue a small update or patch. When you are ready for a new version, go through the normal alpha and beta testing with completely behind the scenes. After it has been thoroughly tested over and over and over and it seems flawless with no showstoppers, then announce it is release.

It's the colors, man, they are so pretty I get lost in what thread I'm in dude

Bert, I totally agree about beta vs. production, as per my previous rants. But, please recall the pressure you, I, and everyone else put on AC in post after post to get a MU useable version out there for use. I think it is largely our own fault. I can, however, soooo much empathize with AC from my own fairly simple databases I have written for our internal office use. It is like playing Whack-A-Mole, since one small routine that needs a tweak actually appears as a subroutine in all kinds of places that I totally forgot exist, and now don't work. My staff has to come to me with tears running down their cheeks and dripping on their shoes before I will undertake to "fix" something.

I don't know David, I don't think there was all that much pressure from active users to move AC along to a MU version. I remember a lot of posts asking that the known bugs be fixed first. I remember a lot of posts by users saying that they weren't going to bother with MU. I suspect that AC itself launched into CCHIT and then MU, based on what the rest of the EMR industry was hyping.The advent of MU allowed the lousy EMRs to gain on the useable EMRs (like AC) by promising the $44K payoff. What a sad comment on the whole EHR phase in. Companies like AC will be forced to make revisions at the same breathless pace to keep up with the next set of MU requirements. As we have already seen, usability suffers.

Not from active users, from new users. For AC to remain competative, especially in the environment of the government rebates pushing EMRs, they had to meet the government expectations. If they did not they would not have picked up many new adopters and the old adopters would have begun to migrate to systems that offered money. It would have meant the end of money to the company and they would have gone broke.

Yes, but look at the lists of what bugs have been fixed, it is considerable. While there were folks who stated they wouldn't bother (I still won't hold my breath for the money although I have registered) many have applied, and many more would not have bought AC if the money were not expected.

Jon did not want to follow CCHIT but found that new adopters were using it as the bases for "certified" EMRs and he needed to compete. While it may have been more hype than real he had to pay a lot to get it CCHIT certified. That did not change a lot of features. Meaningless Use, as above had to be done. Yes, it meant that a lot of needed things were pushed back, but I feel that the survival of the company was at stake to get certified. I would assume he did as well. If you ignore the MU stuff, AC is only different in a few areas.

HOWEVER, we have e-prescribing, better immunizations (OK VIPER is still better) tracking, and like it or not, some docs do need reminders of what should be done. If it means that 1 persons colon cancer or breast cancer is caught early because of a reminder then it is worth it. The other stuff is good, just takes time.

Having said that, I am not a major proponent of Meaningless Use, but compaired to some of the Pay for Performance measures many people have to go through, MU is a walk in the park (and AC then makes that easier).

There have always been things that need to be fixed, this is a work in progress. I do think that they pushed 6.11 out fast, but they needed to. Yes, it too has bugs but that is the nature of software. AC's beta's have been more reliable than many "mature" versions of other software. While 6.11 technically was not a beta, I accept that it introduced some issues.

Oh, if you would like to devolve to V 1.24, let me know and I will forward you a copy

6.1.1 fixed my speed issues and made my staff happy. Minor glitches do not disturb our daily routine. My QuickBooks has more problematic glitches than AC.

It has really helped practices experiencing slow-downs and performance issues.

We have found that while TSP printing works on the local computer, we've still not completely fixed it for all computers on the network. We have also found that multiple modifiers isn't functioning. Both of these issues are being fixed and a new build will likely be released soon for those needing these fixes.

Whoa!!!! Don't put my name in there. I have never been for MU. I defy you to find ONE quote or post where I have asked for or wanted MU. I don't believe in it. I think it allows the government to shape our EMRs. I coined the term "Meaningless Use."

To be clear, I am not commenting on AC's decision to do it. I am just saying, I never asked for it.

Well, Bert, it is easy for me to say that I also must not be guilty as MU is not an issue for me since we have no plans to apply... but, remember I'm the guy who got all excited and sang out that 6.1.1 was out in beta, so there must at least be the "New and cool" factor at work. My guess is we added out dollop of pressure, inadvertent or not. I certainly will believe neither of us wanted a buggy release in return for MU money. There are sure less frustrating ways to make a few dollars than wrestling with a buggy program. Wall-mart greeting comes to mind....

but that is a far cry from asking for MU

I think we agree on the motives for the rapid release of versions 5 & 6. I don't want to revert back certainly, there is a lot of good new stuff. But I think it would have been there by this time anyway, only less buggy, without the MU "surge".

Unfortunately, the government once again, has screwed up a good thing. Offering money to physicians so they purchase an EMR is pathetic. Doing what they are doing with Medicare with ePrescribe makes much more sense. No, MU did not cause bugs necessarily, but it did put off upgrades substantially and did not allow AC to develop on a time schedule which would have been beneficial both for the company and the users.

@Wendell, Your post with multiple replies to ryanjo's posts was very persuasive. I just don't think the comment about v1.24 was warranted.

Nested quotes, Bert! I am scandalized!

Now, there is a scandal.

Why isn't she doing refills from within the program?

David--

I don't know anything about you or your practice, but I enjoy your posts.

Based on what I read from you, it is inconceivable to me that you would find Wal-mart greeting to be less frustrating than medicine!

I have reached the point in my life when I ask daily whether I wouldn't rather be doing something else -- my old fallback was "pumping gas in Albuquerque", but that isn't an option any more, with the advent of self-service gas stations. (We don't have self-service in Oregon, probably the only state that has neither self service gas nor sales tax!).

Anyway, the answer is always "no" -- medicine (at least a small private family practice) is a fine use of a life, and its frustrations pale compared to all other possibilities. Amazing Charts has given me something of a new lease on life -- one more tool I have to control my own environment. Kudos, and megathanks to the AC team.

I also appreciate the "beta" releases, and all the comment on the boards to know how to use them effectively. Before I got locked into Windows by medical software, I was a committed user of Linux -- it is the same situation, and really, it is exciting to see the product grow and mature. Sort of like raising kids. Frustrating one day, near tragic sometimes. At the end of the day, altogether rewarding.

Tom,

You misunderstand.... medicine has been and remains a hoot. I love it. But if the fairly trivial amount of money MU offers has to be accessed through a buggy program, there are lots easier ways to make the same amount of money with less headache. If the money is that important, get a second job, or raise a cow to sell through 4H, or something.

Playing with computers and beta programs can be a lot of fun; it does not upset me if my Avatar in WOW suddenly morphs into another creature. But that is when I use computers as a toy. When used in medical care, I need all aspects of my system to be serious, solid, and.... yes... even boring in their predictability.

@ Bert and John

I did not mean to be derogatory with the 1.24 comment, it was really a joke. I apoligize if I offended anyone.

That said, it is a whole lot faster than V4,5,6 but much less inclusive.

Thanks Wendell. LOL on the speed. Other bugs were atrocious, though.

Guess it was best I started with Version 2 :^)

Greg

Trust me, you don't even want to know. Makes the script writer a walk in the park.

OK, this is embarrassing. Philip how did you change the subject line to V2?

You mean you don't know how to?

Just trying to make him feel important.

Just that no one ever uses it.

I guess maybe that wasn't the best version. Bert, was that the version that would hang and you had to close AC in all the computers and reset a couple times a day, or was that in V2? Seems like this only happened to me and Bert.

Should have known not to trust a Pediatric EMR to be designed by a Family Practitioner (just kidding, still using it right )

Yes, Wendell, it was hell. Every time one crashed, which was about eight times per day, I had to run to the server and reset it, kind of alike Amazing Utilities. But, all of the programs had to be closed first.

That's not all. When they closed, they always remained in memory, and you had to use Task Manager to delete it. Then...those were the days of XP Pro Fast User Switching (now available but we don't use it much). So, when it told you it couldn't reset, you had to find the computer that had two people logged on, switch to the other user, shut AC, shut it down in Task Manager, and done. Ready for the next crash.

It was kind of like a pit stop. We had it down to just under two minutes.

I must have called Jon 25 times. He kept trying to fix it. (those were the days when Jon was the developer, support tech and board admin -- he had to administer Wendell and me). He kept telling me, "Don't worry, one other office has the same issue."

But was that V1 or V2? I don't think it started at the beginning, I'm inclined to say it might have been V2.

V1

Pediatricians love the colors. I love them as well even though I'm not.

Srsly, Dude.

I clicked on quoted reply and then clicked in the Subject box and changed the text.

You may be using another reply mode?

Greg