Re: [openhealth] Re: List future [was: Why are you here?]
Oz 2007 @ MedInfo? Joseph Dal Molin wrote: should have added to my previous note that. Oz in 07 would be great!!! Joseph Adrian Midgley wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 20:48 +1100, Horst Herb wrote: I would volunteer to organize it in Australia - sure, it's a long way from anywhere else, but it can be damn nice, it's safe, and it can be very cheap too once the flight has been paid. Australia between August 2006 and February 2007 would in fact be personally convenient. As the location of the OpenEHR project which may provide the theoretical underpinning of the world's medical record systems, and the GNU project medical record which has plausible promise, and based on what I hear of rumour about the state of commercial closed source medical record software and the providing companies there, and the press reports of AUstralian federal and state governmental moves in the direction of FLOSS for public administration, an OSHCA conference there might be a useful focal point and be usefully situated to gatehr interest by those who could be involved. Another place of interest is British Columbia which I understand to have actual production FLOSS EHR in use in a small number of general practices, and is grappling with interesting problems over certification and the like whcih have historically been used partly to close markets to new or cash-poor entrants by commercial interests...
Re: WSIS Tunis
Hi Molly! I'll be in TUNIS and would love to see OSHCA get together! Will look for you at the exhibit sited below. Best, Mary - Original Message - From: Molly Cheah [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 3:48 am Subject: WSIS Tunis Hi! It's almost 2 years since we last annnouced on this list about meeting up of those who were attending WSIS Geneva Phase. I will be attending the WSIS Tunis Phase from 13th November till 20th November. I am wondering if anyone else from this list is going to be there so that we can meet? This year appears to have more parallel activities on discussing open source. Health MDGs also feature strongly. In order to achieve the targets of the MDGs, we needeffective tools and I wonder if this summit can provide the opportune timing to discuss the ?revival of OSHCA. We need an open source healthcare platform to move the MDGs' agenda. Since last week, I had discussed with Brian Bray the transfer of OSHCA.org to OSHCA if we agree to start the process of reviving OSHCA and he has agreed to this. I haven't scheduled a definitive date and time for this meeting and I would be happy to take the lead to organise this and carry it forward, if there is support for the idea. My posting this is to gauge the response to this idea. You can also e-mail me privately. I will be contactable at the Sharing the Future Pavilion No: 1307.1 http://www.mediacoding.ch/ottofrei/tunis/map3/ Rgds, Molly
AMIA Meetings next week
Folks- Next Monday evening at AMIA, CPRI-HOST and Internet2 will be meeting to discuss open source based EHR collaborations. I encourage members of the list who are at AMIA to attend this session. See below for details. Also, in regards to a place to meet at AMIA. I have a spare room reserved for Monday evening from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel. The room that OpenHealth may use is Los Feliz. I knew holding onto that room would come to good use! I don't have any cycles to put any organization into a meeting . I can simply offer the room. So, I propose that we all convene at the CPRI-HOST meeting, Monday evening at 7:00 pm in the LaCienega Room of the Westin Bonaventure. If the CPRI-HOST session is not of interest, we'll cut out and head to the Los Feliz room for OpenHealth. -Mary From: Pat Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Blackford Middleton [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cooper, Ted [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kilbourne, Edwin [EMAIL PROTECTED], Forslund, David [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fields, Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED], Glickman, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED], Holtmeier, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED], Leone, Armand [EMAIL PROTECTED], Maisel,Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ned Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ned Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stafford, Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stutman, Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vaughn, Gregg [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrews, Archie [EMAIL PROTECTED], Corley Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Heard, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED], Schoeffel, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED], Crane, Skip [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kratz, Mary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GEHR Meeting Note Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:14:35 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Hello All, During the upcoming AMIA Conference, CPRI-HOST and Internet2 will co-sponsor an open session to hear more about GEHR (Good Electronic Health Record) and its acceptance in Europe and Australia. The session will afford attendees the opportunity to discuss the applicability of the GEHR concept to healthcare practice in the US as well as other open source models. The session will be held from 7:00-9:30 PM in the LaCienega Room of the Westin Bonaventure. Please don't hesitate to call or email if you have any questions. Sincerely, Pat Pat Wise ED, CPRI-HOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] 706-650-1482
Re: Open-source Salvation
At 01:18 PM 8/6/00 -0500, Tim Cook wrote: - Vastly differing requirements of payors for formats and data I've been pondering ways to draw the insurance industry into promotion of open source. What would their main objections be? They really couldn't be hurt in a business sense from open source software or standards could they? Many payor in the US are looking at web based (Internet based) tools that provide simple solutions for their customers. Customers include enrollees (patients), provider organizations (hospitals) and general practitioners. The main objective is to provide information to one / or all of these customers. The value of an open source software or standard should look at areas that intersect multiple business participants and processes. A few years back, at UMHS we developed a web based eligibility query application. From a technology perspective it worked just fine. The customers *loved* it. The issue was not one of technology, but one of policy and security issues regarding access to payor data stores. Multiple payors looked at this application as something they wanted to carry forward on internally; as it provided great value to their customers and was something they could use to further business value adds. The issue was taking something beyond one payor DB; interoperability was deemed too risky from a security perspective. Each payor feared their competition would data mine their information and use it for peril. What information do payors need most? Enrollment data from employers. What information do providers need most? Eligibility data from payors. Look over HEDIS requirements and build an Open Source tool that adds value to all the customers. -Mary
Re: Open-source Salvation
Can't resist...not a gross failing on the part of the OMG, but rather part of an excellent overall process. At least in the OMG you can't pay your $300 and stack the committees. Each member organization has one vote...so startup.com has one vote, IBM has one vote, Oracle has one vote, CISCO has one vote, and even Microsoft has one vote. What's that I recall about consensus processes. Sorry, I've sat through *way* to many ANSI meetings with stacked committee representation. At 02:37 PM 8/7/00 -0400, John S. Gage wrote: I should add, that the CORBAmed group is not set up to accept *individual* members. A gross failing in my opinion, but the standards/specifications are absolutely great and guaranteed to be open source. John "John S. Gage" wrote: Wayne Wilson wrote: 2) commerical vendors control the 'conceptual space' of medical computing to a larger degree. This certainly has been true up until now with absolutely catastrophic results for the user community. It is an abomination. finally, 3) the mindset space of medical informatics is largely dominated by M.D.'s who have taken up parallel careers as medical informaticians. Well, the HL7 Clinical Record Architecture (a.k.a. PRA) is the beginning of very, very useful output from this group. If there are standards, open source will carry the day without problem. Which is why any open source person who is truly motivated should spring for the $300, join HL7, and participate. John
Re: proof of the pudding
Sorry, can't resist making an OMG plug. The *beauty* of the well defined Policy and Procedures of the OMG is that the standardization process merges with the development process. It is a wonderful thing to see in action; it actually works! The end result is implemented standards...no shelf-ware here. This was one of my frustrations in implementing ANSI EDI based standards...you never can tell what is real and what is meant to collect dust on the shelf. The key is having well defined Policies and Procedures so that all the players work from the same set of "rules". At 08:30 PM 6/20/00 -0400, John S. Gage wrote: In my mind the development process and the standards process should be merged. I invite comment. Certainly, Thomas, you view archetypes as a kind of standard, n'est-ce pas? John Thomas Beale wrote: Just don't expect OS to be a silver bullet. Don't forget the development _process_. - thomas beale
Re: Patient control
It is my understanding that this is what the MOF (Meta Data Object Facility) is for. Has anyone on the list used the MOF tools? At 07:04 PM 1/26/00 -0500, you wrote: How do UML models describe themselves? Is there a concept of meta-data in UML? John Brian Bray wrote: "John S. Gage" wrote: It definitely will be different every time. I think the essential question is: model in XML or UML? What are your ideas about the advisability of each (knowing in advance that you are modeling in Eiffel)? The advantage of XML is that it is closely related to the concept of a document, which as Brian points out is very near and dear to medicine. XML is not really a modelling language. So UML is the still king here. XML is one way to manipulate data objects defined in UML. So I say full speed ahead with the modeling efforts that are already underway. -Brian
Re: HCFA forms
Ah, the perfect application of Open Source for US vendors and providers alike. HCFA mandates do not add any value to a healthcare software application (say a finance app), but ALL US vendors must embed this logic in their systems, or no provider will purchase the product offering. Trouble is, every vendor interprets the HCFA requirements slightly differently. The result is that the data going to HCFA is then hard to interpret/use. Bob Mayes at HCFA had the vision to build a toolset to address these issues. MedQuest is the name of the toolset, and HCFA makes it freely available off the HCFA web site at http://www.hcfa.gov/medquest/medq1.htm. Bob's recent efforts focus on metadata. One quickly realizes the benefits of metadata in a complex data set, such as HCFA is responsible for. I believe the metadata definitions are currently being incorporated into the MedQuest offerings, but Bob would know better than I. If you *really* want the HCFA forms, you can ask HCFA for a copy. I did this a few year back, when I took on a position as EDI Coordinator. HCFA sent me a package about 15 inches of paper in depth...at least a month's worth of reading! Very ugly!! Hope this helps. I'm sure Bob would like feedback on MedQuest. -Mary At 01:00 PM 1/19/00 -0500, Alvin B. Marcelo wrote: Question from an outsider: Which HCFA forms are providers required to submit in the US? Is there a way of connecting a HCFA electronic form to a database so that appropriate fields are extracted from the database, placed on the form, and then printed pdf-like _using open source tools_? I know this can be done with Adobe Acrobat but is there an open source counterpart? Thanks. alvin -- Alvin B. Marcelo, M.D. National Library of Medicine, B1N30 Office of High Performance Computing and Communications Bethesda, Maryland 20894 Voice: 301-435-3278 Fax:301-402-4080 eFax:603-452-3657 Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP keyID: 0x6E9941D1 PGP server: http://www.keyserver.net
Re: Open Source Standards
Hee, hee, hee :-) ... you get used to it after a while. BTW, Intersystems was at the CORBAmed session this week, and did a presentation in response to the Request for Information regarding M interoperability. Preliminary discussions regarding Intersystems submitting a Request for Consideration (RFC) to M have begun. I think good things happened here, and the RFC may provide the vehicle to open up some of our M systems. We'll see if these preliminary ideas get off the mark; too early to tell for sure. -Mary p.s. When do I get my honorary Y chromosome? At 02:35 PM 1/12/00 -0500, you wrote: Gunther Schadow wrote: Gentlemen (aren't there any females BTW?), I'll hold him down while you get him Mary! ;-) -- Greg Kreis Pioneer Data Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.PioneerDataSys.com http://www.Hardhats.org/ -- worldwide VISTA/DHCP users Linux--The ultimate NT service pack.
