Re: MQSA report software

[Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>]

>References: <199802181518.JAA02891@dgabby.mfldclin.edu>
>Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:00:19 -0500
>Reply-To: BKobistek@Prodigy.net
>Sender: Medical Physics Listserver <medphys@lists.wayne.edu>
>From: Bob Kobistek <BKobistek@PRODIGY.NET>
>Organization: National Physics Consultants, Ltd.
>Subject:      Re: MQSA report software
>To: Multiple recipients of list MEDPHYS <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>
>
>         ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all the
>subscribers to review ...
>
>
>Bill:
>
>I am only familiar with the Keithley "Accredit" software.  Here's what I
think of it:
>
>Good stuff....
>
>   * It is EXTREMELY easy to use if you are familiar with spreadsheets like
Excel or 123.  It plays and feels exactly like a spreadsheet.  The
individual MQSA reports are set up with tabs at the bottom of the screen,
exactly like Excel has tabs to select from multple sheets.  Basically, to do
>     anything (i.e. delete, move, cut, etc.) you do it exactly the way you
think you should.
>   * It interfaces directly with the Keithley Triad system, so you don't
have to manually enter measurement data.  This, of course is not an
advantage if you're not using the Keithley instrumentation.
>   * Printed reports look exactly like the ones in the ACR manual.
>   * All the "action limits" are programmed in.  If a test fails, the word,
"fail" is automaticaly passed to the summary sheet in the appropriate line.
The user may override this feature if necessary.
>   * It appears to be bug free.
>
>Bad stuff...
>
>   * It does not support long filenames per Windows 95 or NT.  I heard a
rumor that the next version will allow long filenames.  Perhaps someone from
Keithley will comment.
>   * It doesn't have an "undo" function which is a big deal only for
clutzes like me.
>   * I think it's more expensive than the RMI software.  Just under $1K (I
think).  Again, perhaps someone from Keithley could fill in this blank.
>
>If you noticed that the "good stuff" is longer than the "bad stuff, " I can
exlpain:  Our group was consulted for input when Keithley was developing the
software, and we also beta tested it.
>
>Bob Kobistek
>National Physics Consultants, Ltd.
>Cleveland, Ohio
>
>
>
>William Geisler wrote:
>
>>          ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>> If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all the
>> subscribers to review ...
>>
>> >>Apologies if this is a second copy--attempted to send yesterday but our
email system crashed<<
>>
>> Fellow Medphyser's,
>>
>> We are considering the purchase of software to generate FDA/ACR approved
MQSA physics reports.  Could individuals in net land provide their
opinions/likes/dislikes on the various report writers?  (I personally am
only familiar with GAMMEX/RMI mammo. report writer but I'm sure others exist).
>>
>> Feel free to respond personally or to the listserver (hopefully this
would have enough general interest).
>>
>> Thanks much (as always) for your inputs,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> William R. Geisler, M.S.
>> Medical Physicist
>> Marshfield Clinic
>> 1000 N. Oak Ave
>> Marshfield, WI 54449
>> (715) 389-3826
>> FAX:  (715) 387-5240
>> email: geislerw@mfldclin.edu
>