'The New iPad 3' dirilis oleh Apple

Unik Informatika - Hari ini CEO Apple Tim Cook memperkenalkan New iPad yaitu IPad 3rd gen dengan fitur LTD, Retina Display, iSight, Minus Siri.
Nama yang dipilih adalah The New iPad, :D janggal bukan? bukan hanya anda yang bilang nama itu janggal tapi menurut Info Teknolgi juga terdengar janggal dan mungkin saja bisa membuat bingung semua orang.

Spesifikasi New iPad adalah :

1. Processor Quad-core A5X.

2. iOS 5.1.

3. Berjalan di jaringan LTE (4G) dengan backward compatibility ke jaringan 3G (HSPA+) dan mampu menggunakan pemakaian 2 operator seluler.

4. Akses kecepatan internet 42 Mbps.

5. Layar etina Display beresolusi 2048 x 1536 pixel @264PPI

6. 4x lebih cepat dari Tegra 3.

7. 5 MP Camera dengan Isight Tecnology, mengadopsi iPhone 4s dan mampu merekam video HD 1080p.

8. Tebal x Berat = 9,4 mm x 1,4 pound.

9. Baterai bertahan 10 Jam pada saat modus 3G dan 9 Jam saat berjalan pada modus LTE.

Harga New iPad 3 :

1. Model Wi-Fi 16 GB = $499

    Model Wi-Fi 32 GB = $599

    Model Wi-Fi 64 GB = $699

2. Model LTE 16 GB = $629

    Model LTE 32 GB = $729

    ModEl LTE 64 GB = $829

Tanggal 16 maret akan tersedia, dan di 32 negara lain akan tersedia pada tanggal 23 Maret.

EHR Musings From a Pediatrician

I am reproducing with the author's permission a post from Sermo.com. The author is a pediatrician. Sermo is a physician-only online community.

Emphases mine:

EHR Musings
March 06, 2012
Author Specialties: Pediatrics

Let me preface my comments by saying that I LOVE TECHNOLOGY. I am a geek at heart and live to use all kinds of gadgets. I was actually looking forward to going EHR. These comments apply to someone with an existing mature practice that needs to be converted to EHR. For a doc starting out new, things are infinitely simpler. I am a Pediatrician in solo practice.

It has been 6 months since we started using [EHR name redacted - ed.] and dove all in to the EHR realm. They have not been a happy 6 months. I am working a lot more and enjoying it less. My days do not end with the last patient, far from it.

This is my opinion:

Pros: 1) You can always find the chart. 2) In the case of [EHR name redacted - ed.], since it is web based, I can work at home and access records from anywhere. It is also free and never has to be updated. 3) At the end of the day I remember the patients better. I can also send messages to the staff within the EHR for follow up calls, things I might have forgotten , etc.

That is pretty much it.

Cons: 1) Documenting will add 1-2 hrs to your day. Since a lot of the documenting consists of templates you or the EHR created, it results in charts that all look very similar and there is a tendency to overdocumenting. I daresay it gets in the way of patient care. 2) You will have to drastically change your workflow. If you walk in the room with a laptop or tablet, you will wind up interacting with the tablet and not the patient. If you jot down notes, and then go out of the room to chart or look up things in the chart you will walk 10 miles a day and take up precious minutes. 3) I actually find it harder to keep track of things as growth charts, immunization records, prior labs, previous medical diagnosis and things I need to follow up. Why? Because I now have 2 charts for each patient. The new electronic chart and the digital copy of the paper chart. In the case of newborns things are better because there is no old record. 4) Once you sign a chart it is often impossible to add a note to some parts of the chart to explain an error. For example if the MA switches the weight and the height and I do not notice prior to signing, the growth chart looks like a roller coaster and I can't change it.

Then there are the quality of life issues. I no longer have any time to do anything out of the office at lunch time. It is usually spent finishing the "documenting" from the AM so I don't have as much to do at the end of the day. I get frustrated by the inability to come up with a better workflow after 6 months. I have tried various different methods and none seem better than the other.

Then there is the issue of the e prescribing. Any of you that are doing this can "attest" ( nice play on words ) to the fact that you can write 5 paper prescriptions in the time you can do an e Rx. E prescribing would be a cinch in rural Arkansas, where your patients have only 4 Pharmacies to choose from. In Orlando with a 300 pharmacies or so, and dealing with young parents of kids it is a nightmare. They change pharmacies more often than I change clothes in a week. They tell you to send it to one pharmacy and later complain because they made a mistake and gave you the wrong pharmacy. It is such a hassle for the staff, that they beg me to give them paper scripts so they don't have to deal with the calls. Notice I have not said anything about the Rx's that never reach their destination !

BTW, if and when I receive the incentive money I will know that I have earned every penny of it and then some.

If you are still reading at this point, you can tell I AM PRETTY FRUSTRATED. And we all owe this to those wonderful folks in Washington DC whose lives are devoted to coming up with ideas to mess with our lives even more. ARGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would love to hear comments. Just venting has made me feel better. Of course it is now 10:50 EST and I have 7 more charts to do.

I post this with no additional comments.

-- SS

Using a "Professionalism" Initiative as a Speech Code to Punish Students' Criticisms of Administrative Authority?

The original impetus to set up Health Care Renewal was increasing evidence of external threats to physicians' professional values.  So it seemed to me that renewed interest in addressing professionalism in academic medicine might lead to more attention to these threats, and perhaps even real challenges to them. 

Instead, most academic professionalism initiatives seem to have steered away from this contentious area.  Worse, at times the academic medical concept of professionalism has been turned on its head. 

A Dispute Among Students at University of California - Davis

A recent post in the Torch blog from our friends at FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) provided a graphic example.  The case involved an apparently trivial dispute among two medical students:

[University of California - Davis medical student Curtis] Allumbaugh's ordeal began after he emailed the 'med2014' mailing list (or 'listserv') on July 19, 2010, regarding a party he was organizing. The listserv was widely used for a variety of non-academic purposes. Allumbaugh's email provided the address of the party, detailed the available space, and listed the variety of alcohol that would be available at the party. The email noted that others had signed up to bring snacks and mentioned that some things were still lacking for the party, such as music, fruit juice, and beer. Prior to Allumbaugh's message, others had sent similar emails using the same listserv about their own parties, such as a 'kegger' one student called 'CAMP MED.'

On July 20, 2010, a second-year student emailed Allumbaugh, notifying him that she had 'been placed on the class of 2014's listserve' and had monitored the class email. She criticized Allumbaugh's email for placing 'a heavy emphasis on alcohol.' In response, Allumbaugh emailed her directly on July 21, calling her a 'busy body' and telling her, 'You should really just mind your own business and let our class be.'

Note that the second-year student's email (available here) carried a suggestion that she had some sort of authority to monitor the extra-curricular actions of first year students as manifested on the list server, and perhaps even punish them for perceived misconduct:

I can tell you that as MS2s, we work and play hard, but we do it responsibly and always in the forefront of our minds we remember what image we are portraying in public and through the messages we send. I'd hate to see any one of you 2014ers get into any trouble right before you start an amazing period of your life.

Note that the exchange between the two students did not occur in an academic or clinical setting, and it was never clear why the second year student was "placed on" the list server, or why she should have any authority over the Allumbaugh. .

The School Administration Invokes "Professionalism"

The medical school saw fit to cast Allumbaugh's actions as violations of the school's standards of professionalism:

As a result of this email exchange, Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Graduate Medical Education James Nuovo sent Allumbaugh a letter on September 14, 2010, citing him for 'failing to demonstrate the highest standards of civility and decency to all' and 'failing to demonstrate courtesy, sensitivity and respect.' On November 3, 2010, Allumbaugh received a letter from the SOM Committee on Student Progress, punishing him with academic probation for the rest of his time in medical school and requiring him to undergo a psychological assessment to determine whether he was 'fit' to continue in medical school.

Finally, on November 19, 2010, SOM changed its rules to force all medical students to abide by the Principles of Community or else face academic probation.

The result was a series of interventions by FIRE:

In response, FIRE wrote UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi on August 3, 2011, noting that enforcing professional standards in truly professional settings differs greatly from enforcing workplace standards in other settings such as private conversations. FIRE also noted that it is blatantly unconstitutional to police student speech under the UC Davis Principles of Community because such a 'civility' policy violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech when it is given disciplinary force.

When that letter had no effect, it took threats of litigation for the medical school to suspend Allumbaugh's punishment more than one year after it began:

SOM Associate Dean of Curriculum and Competency Development Mark Servis replied to FIRE on August 10, 2011, defending the policy. FIRE responded on November 23, 2011, reminding Katehi that 'violating well-established law regarding the First Amendment rights of students at public universities leaves you at risk of losing qualified immunity, thereby opening you and other administrators to personal liability' for the deprivation of students' First Amendment rights. Servis again defended the policy in a reply on December 5, 2011.

Finally, on February 16, 2012, the Committee on Student Progress notified Allumbaugh that his probation had been dropped, but persisted in requiring him to adhere to the Principles of Community.

Note that Associate Dean Servis' letter stated that the email sent to Allumbaugh by the second year student was "a genuine suggestion of concern and an offer of albeit unsolicited friendly advice."  Thus, Servis seemed unaware that it could have been interpreted as an assertion of authority and a threat of punishment ("I'd hate to see any one of you 2014ers get into any trouble.")

Dean Servis also defended the use of probation to punish a student for failing to "work effectively with classmates." Yet the dispute that had nothing to do with (academic or clinical) work, and only involved a single student from another class.  Why that student was not equally to blame was not clear, unless it was because she had been granted special authority by the administration to monitor the actions of less senior students.  The implication appears to be that the punishment was in defense of a student who had been granted special authority by the administration, and hence was ultimately in defense of the administration's power. 

Summary

In this case, the medical school's professionalism policy seemed to be used by the administration primarily to control students' speech outside of the academic and clinical setting. Furthermore, the student's main offense seemed to be failure to kowtow sufficiently to another student who by implication had been given some sort of authority by the administration.  What the two students' dispute had to with professionalism is not  apparent.

On one hand, this seems like a case in which a speech code was mainly used to defend administrators from criticism and challenge.

On the other hand, this speech code was cloaked in the mantle of professionalism.  So this case seems to be an example of a professionalism initiative used as an excuse for the leadership to maintain its power.

It is beyond ironic that while this was going on, the University of California - Davis, and its Chancellor Linda Katehi were becoming briefly infamous for another effort, a more violent one, by the administration to prevent criticism and challenge. Chancellor Katehi had authorized university police to "clear" student demonstrators from an "occupation" of the campus which was protesting, among other things, rising tuition and economic inequality, and in doing so, the police used pepper spray on unarmed students (see this post.)

There are a lot bigger threats to physicians' and other health care professionals' professionalism than medical students' sarcasm or even rudeness in disputes about alcohol served at off-hours parties. Since many of these threats also generate personal benefits to academic leadership, it may not be much of a surprise that they have received little attention.  (See the list of threats appended below.  Note that we have discussed two of these threats in the specific context of the University of California - Davis.  Here we noted that Chancellor Katehi seemed to be re-imagining her medical school as a biotechnology company.  Here we noted that Chancellor Katehi was also on the board of a company with a medical education and communication company subsidiary.)

However, while they remain unaddressed, I submit that using "professionalism" to cloak increased social control of students to prevent them from looking too closely at what academic administrators are doing will eventually backfire. 

===
ADDENDUM: List of Threats to Professionalism


Instead, to really uphold professionalism, we need to defend it from its real threats, as listed in my 2010 post:

• Abandonment of traditional prohibitions of the commercial practice of medicine - In the US, a Supreme Court decision was interpreted to mean that medical societies could no longer regulate the ethics of their members.  Until 1980, the US American Medical Association had  ruled that the practice of medicine should not be "commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade."  After then, it ceased trying to maintain this prohibition.  The result was increasing, now rampant commercialization.  See posts  here and here.
• Making money takes precedence over education -  A recent survey showing that more than half the faculty at multiple US medical schools felt they were valued more for how much money they brought in than their teaching or patient care abilities (here), confirming previous anecdotal reports (see here). 
• The medical school re-imagined as a biotechnology company -  In 2000, a Vice President of the American Association of Medical Colleges(1) wrote that research universities must respond to "societal demands that they become engines of economic development…."  Many universities now defend lax conflict of interest policies with similar arguments.  For more details, go here.
• Faculty become employees of industry - For numerous examples of this and other kinds of conflicts of interest, go here.  A survey by Campbell et al suggested that approximately two-thirds of medical academics get significant payments from industry.(2)
• Academics become "key opinion leaders" paid to market drugs and devices - Marketers regard "key opinion leaders" as salespeople who appear more credible because of their professional guise.  See anecdotal evidence here.  
• Control of clinical research given to commercial sponsors - A study by Mello et al showed how universities' grant administrators are willing to sign contracts giving commercial sponsors control over key aspects of human research studies.(3)  See post here. 
• Conflicts of interest allow manipulation and suppression of clinical research - Commercially sponsored research design, implementation, and dissemination are often manipulated to favor the sponsor's interests.  When such manipulation fails to produce favorable results, the results may simply be suppressed.
• Academics take credit for articles written by commercially paid ghost-writers - Such ghost-writing is often part of organized stealth marketing campaigns. 
• Whistle blowers are discouraged, or worse, and academic freedom is damaged.  Discussion of some examples of what may happen to whistle blowers is here.  The survey mentioned earlier (here) showed that about one-third of faculty fear they may be punished for speaking  out. 
• Leadership of academic medical centers by businesspeople - Ill-informed management may result from leaders who have no background or training in actual health care. 
• Leaders of teaching hospitals and universities become millionaires -  A recent example is here, and more may be found here.  Leaders of academic medical centers and the parent universities of medical schools often make more than $1 million a year in the US.  When such amounts are in play, executives may focus more on short-term measures that lead to even more pay than on upholding the mission. 
• Medical school leaders become stewards (as members of boards of directors) of for-profit health care corporations - A recent example is here, and a summary of how we discovered this phenomenon in 2006 is here.   The conflict of interest is severe because directors of for-profit corporations are supposed to have unyielding loyalty to the interests of the corporation and its stockholders, although they are frequently accused of acting mainly as cronies of the top hired executives (see here and here).
• Leaders of failed finance firms become stewards of academic medicine - We have found numerous examples, recently here, here, and here, of top executives and/or board members of the finance firms who helped bring on the global financial collapse also being trustees of medical schools, academic medical centers, or their parent universities.  Such "stewards" may bring to the academic environment the "greed is good" culture now pervasive in finance. 

References


1. Korn D. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000; 284: 2234-2237. Link here.
2. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Llink here.
3. Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 21.  Link here.

Tweak Firefox make Firefox Browser fastest

Unik Informatika - Tweak-tweakan yookk, oke la ayo kita mulai kali ini tentang twik Firefox, anda tidak ingin berpaling ke browser lain karen firefox melambat bukan? atau firefox anda sering bug bukan?

mari kita twik agar firefox sesuai dengan selera kita, selera anak muda, selera cepat hehe :D.

Twik ini akan membuat firefox anda akan bertambah cepat baik itu untuk proses atau browsing. 

Tidak sabar? oke kita mulai,

berikut adalah beberapa step by step yang harus anda ikuti :

1. Buka browser Firefox anda boleh versi apapun.

2. Ketik 'about:config' di address bar nya firefox, lalu tekan enter.

3. Lalu klik tulisan 'saya berjanji akan berhati-hati'.

4. Lalu cari ini dan ubah setting dan parameter nya dengan double klik.

Code:

browser.tabs.showSingleWindowModePrefs – true

network.http.max-connections – 48

network.http.max-connections-per-server – 16

network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy – 8

network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server – 4

network.http.pipelining – true

network.http.pipelining.maxrequests – 100

network.http.proxy.pipelining – true

network.http.request.timeout – 300

Nah, untuk satu ini anda harus membuatnya sendiri, caranya klik kanan di sembarang tempat yang kosong dalam halaman config, lalu tambah Integer dengan nama 'nglayout.initialoaint.delay' dan atur value menjadi '0'.

Lalu, restart firefox anda.

Rasakan perbedaanya, coba aja.

Terima kasih atas kunjungannya.

thank y'all so much for your sweet messages about barron....they were so thoughtful and sincere.  today, i'm feeling cheerful and that's a good thing....hence the bright colors!!  i really want to go get a manicure w/ some neon fingernail polish......have y'all sported it yet??!

*image courtesy of zero/ martin creed, sally king benedict/ i suwannee 

ECRI Institute's Top Health Technology Hazards for 2012

In my Dec. 2010 post "ECRI: Healthcare IT In Top Ten Health Technology Threats to Patient Safety", I wrote that:

The ECRI Institute is an independent, unbiased, evidence-based healthcare research, information, and advice provider. They have been in operation for more than 40 years and are one of only a handful of organizations designated as both a Collaborating Center of the World Health Organization and an Evidence-Based Practice Center by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

... (from WSJ) For the fourth year running, the nonprofit ECRI Institute has put together a list of what it judges to be the top ten health technology hazards on which health-care facilities should focus their efforts.

... #5 Data loss, system incompatibilities and other health IT complications: Problems with electronic-health records and other health IT systems can lead to problems including lost data, the need for repeat testing and even patient injury or death.

From Medscape (account required), here is ECRI's #6 on the list of top technology threats for 2012:

Failing to Pay Sufficient Attention to New Device Connectivity

Medical technology and information technology (IT) can create risks. Hazards can arise from software problems, interoperability between systems, and poor network performance. Problems could create a domino effect, in which changes to one component of the system affect the operation of another.

Potential problems also include issues about wireless networks, cybersecurity, and software upgrades. "Hospitals must stay on top of routine updates," says Keller.

ECRI's recommendations: Make sure that hardware and software changes, security changes, and planned maintenance are approved and implemented in a controlled manner. Because IT help desks are usually the first point of contact for problems with health IT, provide the help desk team with education, training, and clear escalation procedures.

I would add "Failing to Pay Sufficient Attention to New Health IT Defects" to the list.

-- SS

Cara mengganti nama 'Recycle Bin'

Unik Informatika - Mungkin ada beberapa teman-teman yang bingung cara mengganti nama Recycle Bin kalian di kompi, atau anda sudah lama ingin mengganti nama tersebut,

mungkin anda ingi menggantinya dengan 'Tempat Sampahku' atau 'TPA' misalnya, anda tidak usah bingung lagi karena saya akan membahas tuntas di blog Unik Informatika ini, saya akui saya juga sudah bosan dengan nama Recycle Bin, karena tak elok dipandang, hehe :D.

Tak usah berbasa-basi lagi, langsung saja ikuti langkah demi langkah dibawah ini, caranya :

1. Tekan 'Start' lalu cari 'Run' dan ketikkan Regedit.exe atau tekan tombol 'Start+R' dan ketikkan Regedit.exe untuk memunculkan Registri Edit Box.

2. Tekan 'Ctrl + F' untuk memunculkan kotak dialog pencarian dan ketik 'Recycle Bin' untuk dicari.

3. Setelah ketemu maka ganti semua Value Data 'Recycle Bin' dengan kata semau kamu, ya seperti 'Tempat Sampahku'.

4. Setelah itu, tekan 'Find Next' untuk mencari 'Recycle Bin' yang lain, dan setelah ketemu ulangi step nomor 3.

5. Lakukan berulang-ulang sampai value data 'Recycle Bin' terganti semua.

6. Tutup kotak dialog regedit.

7. Tekan F5 atau klik kanan tekan 'Refresh'.

Sekarang, lihat nama 'Recycle Bin' anda resmi berganti nama tanpa harus mengorbankan kambing untuk aqiqah, hahah lu kira manusia apa pake aqiqah, hehe :D.

Selamat Mencoba.

You can try this at home, bro ! :D.

Ingat : Sebelum anda mengutak atik registry anda, alangkah baiknya jika membackup dulu registry anda, supaya bisa kembali lagi jika sudah terutak atik. 

kalau tidak mengerti boleh ditanyakan di kotak komentar. Terima kasih.