Indeed iscribe md software#

Her main research areas are eHealth and Information Technology and Work from a sociotechnical and gender perspective, focusing on how human centered software engineering can influence how organisations work with ICT deployment and can impact digital work environments. Prof Åsa Cajander is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Uppsala University. The conflicting needs of the different user groups will be illustrated by role play, and she will relate and discuss the findings in relation to the design and development of eHealth systems. In this key note she will present the patients' perspective of the system, and contrast that with the perspectives of physicians and nurses. This experience has made her revisit the core values of user centeredness, as the different user groups of PAEHR indeed describe conflicting user needs. With roots in Human Centred Software Engineering, and in User Centred Systems Design, Prof Åsa Cajander has led research on Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHR) since 2012. Software Engineering with Conflicting User Needs: Patient Accessible Electronic Patient Records Prof Åsa Cajander, Uppsala University Sweden The software engineering research community has an important role to play in helping to improve development practices and mitigate the risk associated with technology-induced medical errors and unintended consequences of software-intensive medical systems. Despite these ongoing investments, however, research on reported outcomes and technology-induced adverse effects often paints a sobering picture. The development and implementation of software-intensive systems has been seen as a key enabler for healthcare system reform and many jurisdictions have provided major investments and incentive programs to propel this transformation. Healthcare systems in many countries have been under mounting pressure to find innovative ways to remain sustainable, accessible and efficient in presence of a rapidly aging demographics and an increased demand for complex care. It is also proposed that instead of correlating such intensive material properties with sensory evaluations described by a predetermined sensory vocabulary, they should be used to study the distribution or spectrum of humans' verbal responses, expressed in their own chosen terms.Program - International Workshop on Software Engineering in Healthcare Systems It is proposed that the TPA parameters currently in use be replaced by a list of mechanical and other physical properties determined by testing methods recognized by material scientists, such as “yield stress,” “strain at failure,” “stiffness,” and “toughness,” perhaps supplemented by a quantitative measure of “juiciness” and/or the acoustic signature's features, especially developed for the particular food. It is doubtful that the instrumental TPA parameters indeed describe the same properties in different foods and sometimes even within the same food, as in ripening juicy fruits and certain soft cheeses. Also, because the arbitrary test conditions, notably the specimen and probe's geometries and the set deformation level significantly affect the TPA parameters' magnitudes, assigning them textural term leads to logical inconsistencies, making their relationship to the food's actual properties even more difficult to establish. But because they are all specimen size-dependent, they cannot be considered intensive material properties. The TPA parameters are supposedly objective measures of the tested food's textural attributes. Their measured and calculated parameters, for example, “hardness,” “brittleness,” and “cohesiveness,” bear only a remote relationship to the same properties as understood in material science and other disciplines.

Although innovative at the time of their inception, all the historic and extant instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) versions have serious methodological flaws.