TrakCare

Pros: It can be helpful to see when shared patients are seeing those Colleagues who have been forced to use this awful system.

Cons: Very time consuming convoluted and inefficient not to mention stress inducing.
It takes a very long time to click through the system to do ridiculously pointless things like let the system know your patient has arrived. NHS has long since got rid of the friendly supportive people who used to greet your patients so you have to let yourself know just to satisfy the system. It takes many many clicks to then make a further appointment. Basically I operate with a paper diary and text my patients confirmation and spend a few hours a week clicking h away at this awful wasteful stupid system just to keep the overpaid managers and silly politicians happy. Previously that personal time I’d spend reading research to do my job better. It is stuff like this that is driving Clinicians out the NHS into private practise where you can work unfettered by stupid computers for the sake of computers.

Overall: Highly time wasting system that has replaced caring support staff. It makes Clinical Staff stressed and takes time away from patient care. The advertising is very false. Awful and shameful that our poor beleaguered NHS has taken this system on. I don’t know how much it cost but I can promise you it is a waste of tax payers money.

Pros: ---drug interacton alert during prescribing process is generally helpful though some of which are unnecessary as they are practically unimportant.
---'' Best plan & Check-price " feature during prescribing helps manage the healthcare cost within health insurance limit.

Cons: ---dreadfully poor user interface, poor layouts, unintuitive navigation, inconsistent interactive pattern. These cause lengthy charting process and mistakes. It is bewildering and frustrating to work with and leads to user burnout. It definitely worsens work efficiency.
---the considerable complexity of prescribing process makes it difficult to manage prescription and leads to billing errors and prescription errors.
---too many needless pop-ups and check-boxes which are of no use and they are completely waste of time.
--- lots of nonstandard custom icons that unclearly communicate their meanings.
---the basically essential patient information such as body weight, body mass index & age is not shown on some required screens

Overall: The troublesome EMR application was launched at my hospital last year, we have been using it on a daily basis for several months, up to the present day it has not gained acceptance among users in my hospital yet. None of my fellows are satisfied with this software. It was surprising that the consultant physicians were totally mystified why this current version was even inferior to the earlier ones they have been using at other hospitals.
---Incredibly, the essential clinical data on each patient such as the vital signs; body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate & oxygen saturation level is not exhibited on the primary screen of the program, users have to serch them out. It is important to be aware that the vital signs are not the trivial signs.
---other basic information of the patient ; body weight, BMI, age & patient room number is not shown on some required screens and this is very inconvenient for user to work with.
---the lab reports are not displayed in conventional standard forms, it causes difficulties for user to review and compare with the previous tests.
---the unintuitive UI, user-unfriendly navigation & complex workflows make it difficult for users esp.part-time users to understand and work efficiently.
---this software allows individual user to edit (add/delete) the records on other user's notes, this is completely unbelievable and wholly unacceptable.
---the inpatient clinical workflows are really confusing and far more complicated, occasionally leading to medical errors. Some medical practitioners turn down the inpatient care service to avoid taking risks.

Pros: Two years after adoption within the hospital in which I work, I have yet to find a merit, or feature, that would justify the purchase of this software. The only facilitation I have found is in the access to direct prescribing via TrakCare on the Lazio region website. The rest leaves absolutely to be desired (see later).

Cons: A hospital management software, which doctors and nurses have to access on a daily basis, several times a day, in order to enter data and find patient data, should meet only one need: speed and immediacy, features that are absolutely absent in trakcare. Let us see in detail what the most important deficiencies are:
Let's start with the user interface, crude, ridiculous, unreadable. We are talking about a web application that still uses solutions such as frames, with tiny fonts, links to the different use pages that seem to be placed randomly on the top of the interface. If you search for something in trakcare, you simply either can't find it or you waste minutes, which then become hours, precious, unnecessarily wasting your time at the expense of patient care. You really don't understand where the software wants to take you if you're looking for some information, simply because it doesn't work for you, but against you. The usage is so convoluted and devoid of logic that operator error is just around the corner. Suggested by JCI among the software with compatible features for the accreditation process of the hospital facility where I work, it simply displaces the problem of data consistency by working on redundancy, the exhausting repetition of operations to be performed by the user, leading to error with the effect of becoming legal evidence to be used against the operator himself in the event of legal controversy.
The findability of information within trakcare is simply a distant mirage. What you enter is permanently lost when months or years later you try to find it again, unless you remember exactly the time you imputed the data. Prescribing a therapy for a patient is an incitement to suicide: no wizard, no treatment template, simply every time you have to start from scratch to enter medications, supportive therapies, dosage and this for each patient. In Italy after the attempt to insert it in a public hospital even there was a series of strikes and union initiatives to try to remove it, as the time for patient care had lengthened considerably.
Finally the customer is simply absent: any attempt to correct some bugs, or to improve the speed of the software have been neglected by the vendors.

Overall: Beware to use it, and run away. There are of course better solutions in the market. To this day it seems impossible for me to believe the slogans reported by the Intersystems company on their website, in which they promote this garbage as a product that can satisfy 99.86 percent of customers. Probably by "customers" they do not mean "users," those who with this lousy product are obliged to interact, with no viable alternatives, in order to work on patients, forced to waste time madly because of the failures of incompetent developers.