Evaluating vendor responses.

The process of evaluating computer vendors' responses to a request for proposal (RFP) is described. The steps involved are (1) reviewing vendor proposals, (2) attending vendor presentations (3) reviewing references, (4) visiting vendor clients, (5) reviewing vendor stability, and (6) making the decision. The primary purpose of reviewing proposals is to reduce the number of vendors under consideration. Vendors' proposals should be attended by representatives of all affected departments, and each vendor's presentation should be discussed with the RFP or RFP extension as a guide. Interviewing users of a system helps determine how the system works in practice and how accurately the vendor has represented his product. Likewise, visiting selective vendor clients, without the vendor representative being present, helps establish whether the persons actually using the system like it and find it easy to use. A vendor's stability can be best determined by examining its financial stability and its commitment to the pharmacy product. Making the selection requires elimination of vendors that do not meet minimum requirements, rating the remaining vendors numerically, and deciding which features of each system are most desirable. The vendor selection process provides an opportunity to thoroughly study an operation and helps set priorities for the department.

Establishing priorities and distributing the request for proposal.

The process of establishing priorities for a prospective hospital pharmacy computer system and distributing the Request for Proposal (RFP) to computer vendors is described. Priorities are established through the creation of three documents: (1) a priority list, (2) a categorized RFP, and (3) a categorized RFP extension. The priority list outlines important elements in the selection of a vendor; quality of software, reliability of software and hardware, vendor stability, costs, site requirements, expansion capability, vendor support, and system performance. The categorized RFP ranks each specific RFP item as mandatory, highly important, important, or "luxury." The categorized RFP extension ranks the nonimplementation items and is used to grade vendors on items not addressed by the RFP. Each potential vendor should be called and asked the same set of questions in order to quickly eliminate those with unacceptable products. The RFP is then distributed to vendors that qualify. This process helps determine if the system being considered has all the required functions, has reliable software and hardware, and whether the vendor is stable and capable of providing assistance during implementation and throughout the life of the product.

Patient response to variations in denture technique. Part V: Microscopic response of the oral mucosa.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of two different denture construction techniques on the maturation of the oral mucosa. Complete maxillary and mandibular dentures were constructed for 64 patients. Half of the subjects received dentures fabricated by a complex technique, and the remaining subjects received dentures fabricated by a standard technique. Cytologic smears were made from four regions of the denture-bearing mucosa at yearly intervals for 5 years following construction of the dentures. The smears were stained by the Papanicolaou technique. Microscopic analysis based on cytologic characteristic revealed no discernible difference between the mucosa of those subjects with dentures constructed via the complex technique and that of those with dentures constructed via the standard technique.