Talk:Electronic prescribing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic prescribing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heading

I change the header from Electronic prescribing to Electronic Prescription as this is what e-rx means. LamTK (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I removed the wikify, deadend, and advert tags as I think those have been fixed. If you see a need for other work, discuss it here rather than just adding a tag. Thanks, --Sultec (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

advice

Please add some current references--try PubMed. Please also move it to the present tense if relevant--I think it may well be a current practice Most or all of this is i think copied from the us govt sources--since they are public domain its not copyvio, but it is still not an encyclopedic tone. It would really be better to re-write in your own words, in a somewhat mroe concise manner, and less like a PR release or government report. . DGG (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

advice

DEA rules still do not allow electronic prescribing of controlled substances, so the sentence on controlled substances is inaccurate. The agency proposed a rule in summer 2008, but has taken no action on it. Also, contrary to the comment above, electronic prescribing is not current/standard practice yet by a long shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.62.56 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for more information on Electronic prescribing -> use this website [1].

tone

This still reads as promotional to me. It needs specific references to specific discussions of it in magazines and other sources. DGG (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ePrescribing is still so underutilized. What's wrong with getting physicians to use it if it improves patient safety. Having an ivory tower approach is not what get's the public motivated. Witness how politicians ride themes rather than being objective. I would urge that until ePrescribing is a little more accepted we remain flexible and promote its development and adoption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HITfirefighter (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government Incentives

The last edit by Quelknap removed a section w/ references that spoke about government incentives to encourage e-prescribing by office-based physicians. I referenced material from a practice-management journal for physicians. I think it is an important topic and makes a valuable contribution to this subject, as practice behavior is very likely to change as the incentives and penalties play out for physicians. These references were current, from 2009. Whereas the first three references are at least three years old. Do others feel the same way? Elukenich (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic prescribing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

last point in the paragraph of Limitations

@Magioladitis: Dear Magioladitis, Can you or anybody help elaborate this sentense:"This leaves the patient at the mercy of technicians or other undiscoverable workers.", I'm not sure I understand it. Thanks.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]