I say ignore the old walls
The individual would be identified by name/DOB/access code/PIN - the
data would only be accessed in his presence in any case.
Dont code anything - code is after all only a shorthand for a disease state
We are not going to use the record as a automatic decision support tool
- it is a plan which will be read by a human, or possibly imported into
another record as free text/uncoded, which is essentially what we have
now. OK it should be designed with these ultimate aims in mind, which is
why I would design the data model and format as rigorously as possible.
If it is web based there is no need to get tangled up in messaging
formats such as HL7 - it doesnt have to be asynchronous. Most people
have web access (or could have) and server space is cheap. There are
standard secure protocols such as SSH and address infrastructure is also
universal and standardized - no need for LDAP servers etc
The gold standard approach appears to have delivered little in 10 years
or so - just get something out there. The whole point would be a proof
of concept to embarrass the big boys into actually delivering something
R
Ian Haywood wrote:
Richard Hosking wrote:
I think this should be an additional item to the GPMP - it does seem to
be the way to get things done however.
Probably more important is the need to establish potential use of the data
Stipulate an open standard with certain components including medication
list
We quickly start running into all the old walls. We have no reliable way to
identify individuals.
we can't agree on coding systems for diseases, and don't have any real
candidates for coding medications, NETHA are
still thinking about forming a committee to discuss a work plan for key
deliverables.....
Ian H
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
