Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Not sure my embedded links came through, so am repeating message with links spelled out: I believe a possible answer is to fly above the "certification" process, which is a shallow excuse for a meaningful evaluation process (e.g., see my eight part series (http://tinyurl.com/hostileuserexper) on the mission hostile user experience presented by many "certified" systems), and move to robust tests of effectiveness and user experience. Regarding the latter, comparison of FOSS products to CCHIT "certified" products would be most interesting. Develop a truly meaningful and open "Certification Process" of your own, keep it as free of Conflict of Interest as does, say, the ECRI Institute (https://www.ecri.org/About/Pages/InstitutePolicies.aspx) that evaluates medical devices, and push its superiority - especially to governments in other countries - over the bureaucratically-defined U.S. CCHIT "certfication." Scot M. Silverstein, MD Consultant in Medical Informatics Teaching faculty in Healthcare Informatics and IT (Sept. 2007-) Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics (2005-7) College of Information Science and Technology Drexel University 3141 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875 Email: [email protected] Bio: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/biography.htm Common Examples of HIT difficulty: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/medinfo.htm ARS KU3E, member www.arrl.org [email protected] wrote: - To: [email protected] From: Mark Spohr Sent by: [email protected] Date: 04/14/2009 04:34AM Subject: Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details Thanks to Fred and Tim for their thoughtful comments. I think we have a good understanding of the situation. It is good that the CCHIT people are listening but FOSS needs a solution that will work today. I think that Tim's suggestion has merit. We should have the option to self certify software and let the market sort out winners and losers. It is anti-competitive to have a monopoly gatekeeper. If CCHIT does not recognize self-certification then we should just do it ourselves. They could try to block this by claiming copyright, trademark or legislative authority but all of these lie on shaky legal ground. Depending on how vigorously they defend their "rights", they could make life difficult so it would be best to try to reach some sort of accommodation. They are not likely to respond quickly to our needs so it may be best to pursue a self-certification path along with negotiations with CCHIT. If they do respond positively, then the self-certification work could be used as the foundation of a CCHIT self-certification label. If not, we could move forward indepently with a FOSS certified label. All the best Mark On 4/13/09, Tim Cook < timothywayne. c...@gmail. com > wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." > > Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective. > > It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by > their rules. > > They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of > the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it. > > I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT > comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at: > > http://www.fredtrot ter.com/2009/ 04/11/towards- fair-ehr- certification/ > > Cheers, > Tim > > > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin .com/in/timothyw aynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > * * * * * * > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne .cook.googlepage s.com/home* > * * * * * * > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > - - -- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device Mark Spohr, MD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
I believe a possible answer is to fly above the "certification" process, which is a shallow excuse for a meaningful evaluation process (e.g., see my eight part series on the mission hostile user experience presented by many "certified" systems), and move to robust tests of effectiveness and user experience. Regarding the latter, comparison of FOSS products to CCHIT "certified" products would be most interesting. Develop a truly meaningful and open "Certification Process" of your own, keep it as free of Conflict of Interest as does, say, the ECRI Institute that evaluates medical devices, and push its superiority - especially to governments in other countries - over the bureaucratically-defined U.S. CCHIT "certfication." -- SS Scot M. Silverstein, MD Consultant in Medical Informatics Teaching faculty in Healthcare Informatics and IT (Sept. 2007-) Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics (2005-7) College of Information Science and Technology Drexel University 3141 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875 Email: [email protected] Bio: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/biography.htm Common Examples of HIT difficulty: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/medinfo.htm ARS KU3E, member www.arrl.org [email protected] wrote: - To: [email protected] From: Mark Spohr Sent by: [email protected] Date: 04/14/2009 04:34AM Subject: Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details Thanks to Fred and Tim for their thoughtful comments. I think we have a good understanding of the situation. It is good that the CCHIT people are listening but FOSS needs a solution that will work today. I think that Tim's suggestion has merit. We should have the option to self certify software and let the market sort out winners and losers. It is anti-competitive to have a monopoly gatekeeper. If CCHIT does not recognize self-certification then we should just do it ourselves. They could try to block this by claiming copyright, trademark or legislative authority but all of these lie on shaky legal ground. Depending on how vigorously they defend their "rights", they could make life difficult so it would be best to try to reach some sort of accommodation. They are not likely to respond quickly to our needs so it may be best to pursue a self-certification path along with negotiations with CCHIT. If they do respond positively, then the self-certification work could be used as the foundation of a CCHIT self-certification label. If not, we could move forward indepently with a FOSS certified label. All the best Mark On 4/13/09, Tim Cook < timothywayne. c...@gmail. com > wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." > > Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective. > > It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by > their rules. > > They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of > the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it. > > I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT > comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at: > > http://www.fredtrot ter.com/2009/ 04/11/towards- fair-ehr- certification/ > > Cheers, > Tim > > > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin .com/in/timothyw aynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > * * * * * * > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne .cook.googlepage s.com/home* > * * * * * * > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > - - -- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device Mark Spohr, MD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
I thought it was ironic though that the preceding hour CCHIT demonstrated how they have leveraged open source community created components to build their testing software. They saved a huge amount of money using 'our' (Mirth etc) software but then are turning around and charging 'us' for the product of that work. Mark had said that it would not be fair for the commercial companies to pay for the open source companies but I think it is the business model that is unfortunate not necessarily their intentions. SureScripts-RxHub, clearing houses and other software companies provide free certification and it sounded like the previous CCHIT certifications have been done very cheaply - webex sessions just 'showing' the software 'works' and emailing data back and forth. If a discounted certification that does not require special sponsorship is not forthcoming then I would agree that alternative measures - whether self-certification or development and promotion of an Open Source certification that is free may be the way to go. I would not underestimate the number of physicians we could gather to participate in such an effort. Greg -- Gregory Caulton Principal at PatientOS Inc. personal email: [email protected] http://www.patientos.com corporate: (888)-NBR-1EMR || fax 857.241.3022 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Mark Spohr wrote: > > > Thanks to Fred and Tim for their thoughtful comments. > I think we have a good understanding of the situation. It is good that > the CCHIT people are listening but FOSS needs a solution that will > work today. I think that Tim's suggestion has merit. We should have > the option to self certify software and let the market sort out > winners and losers. It is anti-competitive to have a monopoly > gatekeeper. > If CCHIT does not recognize self-certification then we should just do > it ourselves. They could try to block this by claiming copyright, > trademark or legislative authority but all of these lie on shaky legal > ground. Depending on how vigorously they defend their "rights", they > could make life difficult so it would be best to try to reach some > sort of accommodation. They are not likely to respond quickly to our > needs so it may be best to pursue a self-certification path along with > negotiations with CCHIT. If they do respond positively, then the > self-certification work could be used as the foundation of a CCHIT > self-certification label. If not, we could move forward indepently > with a FOSS certified label. > > All the best > Mark > > On 4/13/09, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote: > >> > >> > >> Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." > > > > Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective. > > > > It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by > > their rules. > > > > They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of > > the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it. > > > > I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT > > comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at: > > > > http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > > > > > -- > > Timothy Cook, MSc > > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > > Skype ID == timothy.cook > > ** > > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > > ** > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Mark Spohr, MD >
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Thanks to Fred and Tim for their thoughtful comments. I think we have a good understanding of the situation. It is good that the CCHIT people are listening but FOSS needs a solution that will work today. I think that Tim's suggestion has merit. We should have the option to self certify software and let the market sort out winners and losers. It is anti-competitive to have a monopoly gatekeeper. If CCHIT does not recognize self-certification then we should just do it ourselves. They could try to block this by claiming copyright, trademark or legislative authority but all of these lie on shaky legal ground. Depending on how vigorously they defend their "rights", they could make life difficult so it would be best to try to reach some sort of accommodation. They are not likely to respond quickly to our needs so it may be best to pursue a self-certification path along with negotiations with CCHIT. If they do respond positively, then the self-certification work could be used as the foundation of a CCHIT self-certification label. If not, we could move forward indepently with a FOSS certified label. All the best Mark On 4/13/09, Tim Cook wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." > > Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective. > > It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by > their rules. > > They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of > the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it. > > I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT > comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at: > > http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ > > Cheers, > Tim > > > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > ** > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > ** > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device Mark Spohr, MD
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote: > > > Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective. It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by their rules. They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it. I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at: http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ Cheers, Tim -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook ** *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* ** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you." -- SS Scot M. Silverstein, MD Consultant in Medical Informatics Teaching faculty in Healthcare Informatics and IT (Sept. 2007-) Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics (2005-7) College of Information Science and Technology Drexel University 3141 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875 Email: [email protected] Bio: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/biography.htm Common Examples of HIT difficulty: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/medinfo.htm ARS KU3E, member www.arrl.org [email protected] wrote: - To: [email protected] From: fred trotter Sent by: [email protected] Date: 04/13/2009 10:37AM Subject: Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details Mostly it was just the fact that they seemed willing to listen and recognize that FOSS really was different, and to see how their current structure did not really work for us. -FT On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Mark Spohr < [email protected] > wrote: > Thanks for posting this, Fred. > It is a good overvirw of the situation and description of the problems. > I was wondering what CCHIT said that gave you hope that the FOSS > certification problems could be solved under their framework? > > Regards, > Mark > > On 4/12/09, fred trotter < fred.trotter@ gmail.com > wrote: >> I have been writing a summary of the meeting.. I just posted it. >> >> http://www.fredtrot ter.com/2009/ 04/11/towards- fair-ehr- certification/ >> >> It includes the link to the audio for the sessions. >> >> -FT >> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Tim Cook < timothywayne. c...@gmail. com > >> wrote: >>> >>> So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that >>> could not be there? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tim >>> >>> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: >>>> Hey, >>>> Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. >>>> >>>> It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. >>>> I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to >>>> attend this meeting. It is open to the public! >>>> >>>> If I find a room change or have other relevant information I >>>> will update this message. >>>> >>>> -ft >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fred Trotter >>>> http://www.fredtrot ter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Timothy Cook, MSc >>> Health Informatics Research & Development Services >>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin .com/in/timothyw aynecook >>> Skype ID == timothy.cook >>> * * * * * * >>> *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * >>> *from this link http://timothywayne .cook.googlepage s.com/home* >>> * * * * * * >>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >>> >>> >>> - - -- >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrot ter.com >> >> >> - - -- >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Mark Spohr, MD > > > - - -- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrot ter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Mostly it was just the fact that they seemed willing to listen and recognize that FOSS really was different, and to see how their current structure did not really work for us. -FT On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Mark Spohr wrote: > Thanks for posting this, Fred. > It is a good overvirw of the situation and description of the problems. > I was wondering what CCHIT said that gave you hope that the FOSS > certification problems could be solved under their framework? > > Regards, > Mark > > On 4/12/09, fred trotter wrote: >> I have been writing a summary of the meeting.. I just posted it. >> >> http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ >> >> It includes the link to the audio for the sessions. >> >> -FT >> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Tim Cook >> wrote: >>> >>> So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that >>> could not be there? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tim >>> >>> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: Hey, Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to attend this meeting. It is open to the public! If I find a room change or have other relevant information I will update this message. -ft -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com >>> -- >>> Timothy Cook, MSc >>> Health Informatics Research & Development Services >>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook >>> Skype ID == timothy.cook >>> ** >>> *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * >>> *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* >>> ** >>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Mark Spohr, MD > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Thanks for posting this, Fred. It is a good overvirw of the situation and description of the problems. I was wondering what CCHIT said that gave you hope that the FOSS certification problems could be solved under their framework? Regards, Mark On 4/12/09, fred trotter wrote: > I have been writing a summary of the meeting.. I just posted it. > > http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ > > It includes the link to the audio for the sessions. > > -FT > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Tim Cook > wrote: >> >> So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that >> could not be there? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: >>> Hey, >>> Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. >>> >>> It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. >>> I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to >>> attend this meeting. It is open to the public! >>> >>> If I find a room change or have other relevant information I >>> will update this message. >>> >>> -ft >>> >>> -- >>> Fred Trotter >>> http://www.fredtrotter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Timothy Cook, MSc >> Health Informatics Research & Development Services >> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook >> Skype ID == timothy.cook >> ** >> *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * >> *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* >> ** >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device Mark Spohr, MD
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
I have been writing a summary of the meeting.. I just posted it. http://www.fredtrotter.com/2009/04/11/towards-fair-ehr-certification/ It includes the link to the audio for the sessions. -FT On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that > could not be there? > > Thanks, > Tim > > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: >> Hey, >> Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. >> >> It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. >> I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to >> attend this meeting. It is open to the public! >> >> If I find a room change or have other relevant information I >> will update this message. >> >> -ft >> >> -- >> Fred Trotter >> http://www.fredtrotter.com >> >> >> >> > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > Skype ID == timothy.cook > ** > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > ** > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
So. anyone care to report any results for those of us that could not be there? Thanks, Tim On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 09:46 -0500, fred trotter wrote: > Hey, > Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. > > It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. > I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to > attend this meeting. It is open to the public! > > If I find a room change or have other relevant information I > will update this message. > > -ft > > -- > Fred Trotter > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook ** *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* ** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Hey, Just a reminder. The foss/cchit meeting is today at 2:00 p.m. It is in room 10d at the McCormick Hyatt in downtown Chicago. I have been assured that himss registration -is not- required to attend this meeting. It is open to the public! If I find a room change or have other relevant information I will update this message. -ft -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com
