On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 07:16:38AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote: > > See http://www.linuxmednews.com/1116507509/index_html for press release > and links. I have reviewed their schema and it seems a bit better (as in sane relationally) than most that I have seen. I did point out some criticism regarding the use of MySQL which has been met with some responsed by others - eg in mission-critical deployments one should of course be careful about how to deploy it). I did not go into the criticism that - for the type of practice I know - web-based isn't suitable. It's billing is surely advanced - despite it being purely US which is to be expected.
> Of note is the fact that the medical record > component can be extended by the clinician by the creation of additional > forms, without the need for programming. "the medical record component can be extended" is misleading at best AFAICT. They don't *have* a medical record *component*. What they do have is another implementation of OIO (maybe better) forming a medical record *framework* within which people can "design forms" to store medical data - about which the data storage model knows nothing about - it could be meteorological data or shelf storage data for all it cares. There is hardly any validation to prevent garbage-in at the backend level that I can see (I may be blind there). > Of course the GNUmed project keeps plugging on, making lots of progress, That sounds a bit sarcastic :-) > although to an observer like me it feels like the distance to the point > at which GNUmed is functional is being halved every three months... If that's the case we'll get there :) There's precious few people who do any real work to help. Maybe that's part of the reason ? Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
