Hi everyone, I have watched the discussion with some interest. There are a range of issues here and it is very hard to solve all of them.
Ideally, according to some... A communications system should... Interconnect with all other systems via open interfaces Be useable by dummies and totally reliable under all circumstances Embrace all forms of security; HESA PKI, PGP etc Support all ratified Australian standards Update itself automatically Cost nothing In order to provide a feasible solution some of these things are possible, generally at the cost of others. Like our colleagues we are endeavouring to provide the best mix of attributes necessary to get the job done. I have read some comments about what HealthLink does and does not do, so I thought I would set the record straight. We focus principally upon reliability, delivering information between a wide variety of end-user systems. We do not provide any end user applications. We prefer to message using AS/NZS standards (where these exist). We can and do support HESA PKI, however in some circumstances this is not easy to do, so we are working closely with HESA to achieve this. Our preferred option is use of HESA PKI. We are not a corporate! We have 45 staff of whom 1/3 run a support desk 14 hours per day, 1/3 develop software, 1/3 are sales, admin and management types like myself. We, apart from myself (89kg) are a fairly lean and mean operation. We do charge for our services where it is possible to do so. As Andrew M points out, its hard to retain good staff without paying them. Ideally we charge GPs a flat fee of $20 per month, typically paid by their divisions and we charge labs, hospitals and government agencies what is usually a fixed fee based on the number of sites we deliver to. Market conditions in Australia do not make it easy to charge GPs however, this will change over time I believe and we already have some GP clients that will pay us. In terms of interoperability with other systems, we are happy to interconnect with other systems providing they have a similar technology approach and service commitment. Unfortunately that does rule out interconnecting with some, however, we would have no issue I believe in doing so with Medical Objects nor with e-Clinic with whom we already have an informal agreement to do so when the need arises. I believe that participants in this debate should not lose sight of the importance of developing highly reliable systems. Very few of the would-be users are computer buffs. Above all, the sector needs highly dependable systems that are easy to use and can be upgraded without risk. Whether they use Gnu med, PGP, HESA PKI etc is very much a secondary consideration. Having attended the recent AMA e-Health summit in Canberra, I am happy to report that there is a growing national awareness of the importance of linking GP systems and a growing respect for the role of organisations that are working very hard to provide integration across the sector. Kind regards, Tom Bowden CEO HealthLink Ltd Tel +64 9 638 0670 Mobile +64 21 874 154 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 12:00 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: Gpcg_talk Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 Send Gpcg_talk mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gpcg_talk digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: MedObjs Open Interface (David Guest) 2. Re: Saving an email into EHR (Greg Twyford) 3. Re: Re: MedObjs Open Interface (Andrew McIntyre) 4. Re: Re: MedObjs Open Interface (Andrew McIntyre) 5. RE: Saving an email into EHR (Bruce Jenkins) 6. Re: Saving an email into EHR (Greg Twyford) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:18:15 +1100 From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [GPCG_TALK] Re: MedObjs Open Interface To: OzdocIT <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Andrew Can I reply to this on the public mailing lists, keyserver and/or ozdocit? It seems like we are getting down to the pointy end of things. David >-------- Original Message -------- >Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:54:25 +1100 >From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Hi David, > >I saw a copy of a post you sent to ?Keyserver list. > >I few corrections if I may: > >The specialist side is much more tightly integrated with Word and has >lots more options. The GP client is artificially tied to PKI keys, >which is a big hassle for us because of driver problems. PKI is not as >smooth as it should be.... > > >We also have native HL7 clients that are tightly HL7 bound. Have a look >at the presentations on our web site, they are the most informative >documents. > > >GNUPG requires GNUPG on the machine and in the path. We haven't really >used it much in magellan, so not even sure I put a config page in. > > >Our servers are at Pipe Networks in Brisbane, 300mb of connectivity. > >We are not "proprietary" - we have an open interface and its all HL7, >in fact we are the only Australian Organisation with AHML HL7 >certification. The interface is published and open and we have >developed a client, which I mentioned to you last night, that would >allow anyone to run an interface. > > >So yes we have to charge someone, or we will not survive to continue to >do more R&D, but we have an open interface and a distributed >architecture and as you have seen support Email that is argus and >Thunderbird compatible. I am not sure how much more we can do to >satisfy peoples concerns. I am sure we could never satisfy John Dooley >who wants it all free - not sure who runs it. However by having an open >interface others can write applications that can be run over the >interface so the threat of lock in is less. We do however know how much >work it took us to get where we are so there is some safety in that ;-) > > >To criticize us as Propriety is quite unfair, we may be the only ones >that can do it now, but its playing into the corporate ie Healthlink's >hands to group us with them. We are busy getting to corporate pathology >defectors setup with systems that exceed the capability of the big >corporate Path labs, but I fail to understand resistance to a system >with open interfaces the runs with Australian standard message >formats????? No its never going to be free for everyone to use, but if >you can put up your own interface then we will send to it and so can >anyone else who can write the software that's capable of doing it. > > >I don't think thats "lock in" > > >BTW - We are on the same page as health link here :-) > >DG> Attached is a link to the new GP Connect web page: >http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qhpss/gpconnect.asp > > >Andrew McIntyre > > > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:20:39 +1100 From: Greg Twyford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Saving an email into EHR To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Bruce Jenkins wrote: > The usual model is - sender pays (pathology, hospital etc) IN WA > HealthLink covers the majority GPs. System needs client software on > the GP system. Promedicus, Medical Objects and Argus also work to a > similar model. Bruce, I'd suggest this works fine where the traffic is mainly one way, and we have a semi-corporate or corporate entity, for whom there is a significant advantage in reducing their unit delivery costs via such systems, because they have the volume. On the other hand do lots of WA specialists and GPs exchange referrals and reports to each other yet? Here the traffic is two-way and the advantages for either party only becomes apparent if most of their business partners use the same system as they do. The other factor is Medicare Australia's requirement for the signing of electronic referrals with their HeSA signing keys, which are yet to be used by most health professionals. This will limit the uptake of pathology/radiology referrals electronically, as much as with other speciality areas. There is lots to be done in this area yet. Oh, and then there's standards, so everyone can play. Let's see how Healthlink goes with supporting HeSA signing keys and their proprietary encryption. Greg -- Greg Twyford Information Management & Technology Program Officer Canterbury Division of General Practice E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.: 02 9787 9033 Fax: 02 9787 9200 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL *********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files, including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is prohibited. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. *********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:21:59 +1000 From: Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Re: MedObjs Open Interface To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello David, Yes sure. we also now have our SOAP interface up and going. I am running on it today. http://203.44.75.20:2000/SOAP/?WSDL gives you the spec. Its a clone of our HL7 based interface so we know it works from a functional point of view. I want to include that in capricorn, which is a simple matter of a define, once its tested. Andrew Monday, December 12, 2005, 1:18:15 PM, you wrote: DG> Andrew DG> Can I reply to this on the public mailing lists, keyserver and/or ozdocit? DG> It seems like we are getting down to the pointy end of things. DG> David >>-------- Original Message -------- >>Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:54:25 +1100 >>From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >>Hi David, >> >>I saw a copy of a post you sent to ?Keyserver list. >> >>I few corrections if I may: >> >>The specialist side is much more tightly integrated with Word and has >>lots more options. The GP client is artificially tied to PKI keys, >>which is a big hassle for us because of driver problems. PKI is not as >>smooth as it should be.... >> >> >>We also have native HL7 clients that are tightly HL7 bound. Have a >>look at the presentations on our web site, they are the most >>informative documents. >> >> >>GNUPG requires GNUPG on the machine and in the path. We haven't really >>used it much in magellan, so not even sure I put a config page in. >> >> >>Our servers are at Pipe Networks in Brisbane, 300mb of connectivity. >> >>We are not "proprietary" - we have an open interface and its all HL7, >>in fact we are the only Australian Organisation with AHML HL7 >>certification. The interface is published and open and we have >>developed a client, which I mentioned to you last night, that would >>allow anyone to run an interface. >> >> >>So yes we have to charge someone, or we will not survive to continue >>to do more R&D, but we have an open interface and a distributed >>architecture and as you have seen support Email that is argus and >>Thunderbird compatible. I am not sure how much more we can do to >>satisfy peoples concerns. I am sure we could never satisfy John Dooley >>who wants it all free - not sure who runs it. However by having an >>open interface others can write applications that can be run over the >>interface so the threat of lock in is less. We do however know how >>much work it took us to get where we are so there is some safety in >>that ;-) >> >> >>To criticize us as Propriety is quite unfair, we may be the only ones >>that can do it now, but its playing into the corporate ie Healthlink's >>hands to group us with them. We are busy getting to corporate >>pathology defectors setup with systems that exceed the capability of >>the big corporate Path labs, but I fail to understand resistance to a >>system with open interfaces the runs with Australian standard message >>formats????? No its never going to be free for everyone to use, but if >>you can put up your own interface then we will send to it and so can >>anyone else who can write the software that's capable of doing it. >> >> >>I don't think thats "lock in" >> >> >>BTW - We are on the same page as health link here :-) >> >>DG> Attached is a link to the new GP Connect web page: >>http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qhpss/gpconnect.asp >> >> >>Andrew McIntyre >> >> >> DG> _______________________________________________ DG> Gpcg_talk mailing list DG> [email protected] DG> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk -- Best regards, Andrew mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew McIntyre Buderim Gastroenterology Centre www.buderimgastro.com.au PH: 07 54455055 FAX: 54455047 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:23:26 +1000 From: Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Re: MedObjs Open Interface To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello David, I think i types it incorrectly, this is cut from a browser. http://202.44.75.20:2000/SOAP/?wsdl Monday, December 12, 2005, 1:18:15 PM, you wrote: DG> Andrew DG> Can I reply to this on the public mailing lists, keyserver and/or ozdocit? DG> It seems like we are getting down to the pointy end of things. DG> David >>-------- Original Message -------- >>Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:54:25 +1100 >>From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >>Hi David, >> >>I saw a copy of a post you sent to ?Keyserver list. >> >>I few corrections if I may: >> >>The specialist side is much more tightly integrated with Word and has >>lots more options. The GP client is artificially tied to PKI keys, >>which is a big hassle for us because of driver problems. PKI is not as >>smooth as it should be.... >> >> >>We also have native HL7 clients that are tightly HL7 bound. Have a >>look at the presentations on our web site, they are the most >>informative documents. >> >> >>GNUPG requires GNUPG on the machine and in the path. We haven't really >>used it much in magellan, so not even sure I put a config page in. >> >> >>Our servers are at Pipe Networks in Brisbane, 300mb of connectivity. >> >>We are not "proprietary" - we have an open interface and its all HL7, >>in fact we are the only Australian Organisation with AHML HL7 >>certification. The interface is published and open and we have >>developed a client, which I mentioned to you last night, that would >>allow anyone to run an interface. >> >> >>So yes we have to charge someone, or we will not survive to continue >>to do more R&D, but we have an open interface and a distributed >>architecture and as you have seen support Email that is argus and >>Thunderbird compatible. I am not sure how much more we can do to >>satisfy peoples concerns. I am sure we could never satisfy John Dooley >>who wants it all free - not sure who runs it. However by having an >>open interface others can write applications that can be run over the >>interface so the threat of lock in is less. We do however know how >>much work it took us to get where we are so there is some safety in >>that ;-) >> >> >>To criticize us as Propriety is quite unfair, we may be the only ones >>that can do it now, but its playing into the corporate ie Healthlink's >>hands to group us with them. We are busy getting to corporate >>pathology defectors setup with systems that exceed the capability of >>the big corporate Path labs, but I fail to understand resistance to a >>system with open interfaces the runs with Australian standard message >>formats????? No its never going to be free for everyone to use, but if >>you can put up your own interface then we will send to it and so can >>anyone else who can write the software that's capable of doing it. >> >> >>I don't think thats "lock in" >> >> >>BTW - We are on the same page as health link here :-) >> >>DG> Attached is a link to the new GP Connect web page: >>http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qhpss/gpconnect.asp >> >> >>Andrew McIntyre >> >> >> DG> _______________________________________________ DG> Gpcg_talk mailing list DG> [email protected] DG> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk -- Best regards, Andrew mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew McIntyre Buderim Gastroenterology Centre www.buderimgastro.com.au PH: 07 54455055 FAX: 54455047 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:26:04 +0800 From: "Bruce Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [GPCG_TALK] Saving an email into EHR To: "General Practice Computing Group Talk" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The most significant two way system in WA is likely to be the EGRRS experience with Medical Objects but it's very early days yet. Uses HeSA PKI. I guess I'd make the comment that you can only use what's available to you at the time. HealthLink works well now, is already installed in a high percentage of practices in WA and is cheaper, faster and more convenient than post or fax. I don't think it's the "final solution" by any stretch of the imagination. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Twyford Sent: Monday, 12 December 2005 12:21 PM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Saving an email into EHR Bruce Jenkins wrote: > The usual model is - sender pays (pathology, hospital etc) IN WA > HealthLink covers the majority GPs. System needs client software on > the GP system. Promedicus, Medical Objects and Argus also work to a > similar model. Bruce, I'd suggest this works fine where the traffic is mainly one way, and we have a semi-corporate or corporate entity, for whom there is a significant advantage in reducing their unit delivery costs via such systems, because they have the volume. On the other hand do lots of WA specialists and GPs exchange referrals and reports to each other yet? Here the traffic is two-way and the advantages for either party only becomes apparent if most of their business partners use the same system as they do. The other factor is Medicare Australia's requirement for the signing of electronic referrals with their HeSA signing keys, which are yet to be used by most health professionals. This will limit the uptake of pathology/radiology referrals electronically, as much as with other speciality areas. There is lots to be done in this area yet. Oh, and then there's standards, so everyone can play. Let's see how Healthlink goes with supporting HeSA signing keys and their proprietary encryption. Greg -- Greg Twyford Information Management & Technology Program Officer Canterbury Division of General Practice E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.: 02 9787 9033 Fax: 02 9787 9200 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL *********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files, including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is prohibited. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. *********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:45:24 +1100 From: Greg Twyford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Saving an email into EHR To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Bruce Jenkins wrote: > The most significant two way system in WA is likely to be the EGRRS > experience with Medical Objects but it's very early days yet. Bruce, I'm sure it is very early days, but that hasn't stopped the Minister from trumpetting it as a major success "already demonstrating the benefits of this advanced broadband technology", in his recent Broadband For Health - Managed Health Networks Funding announcement. Oh well, it could be worse, I guess. Greg -- Greg Twyford Information Management & Technology Program Officer Canterbury Division of General Practice E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.: 02 9787 9033 Fax: 02 9787 9200 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL *********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files, including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is prohibited. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. *********************************************************************** ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk End of Gpcg_talk Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 **************************************** _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
