Quoting Hugh Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear David, > > Thanks for your comments, but I would just like to make the following > points: [snip]
Hugh, no-one denies OpenEHR isn't fundamentally a good idea, nor that potentially exciting stuff isn't being done with it. The question is, it is a suitable basis for the problem at hand? If your desire is the Ultimate Solution, then, yes, OpenEHR is good, but it simply isn't feasible for time-poor amateur clinician-programmers to undertake this task: it needs to be a proper govt funded setup with fulltime PhDs and BCompSci's on board. For which we've been waiting a long, long time, as you know. Should we simply keep waiting? Or try to formulate something achievable? "achievable" not only means limiting requirements, but also selecting a technology that's within our intellectual capacity to actually program. (which, speaking personally, rules out OpenEHR ;-) You may ask: well, if you're too busy and simple-minded to do it properly, why do it at all? To which I refer you to the current crop of medical EHR programs: these guys didn't exactly win Nobel prizes when they designed this stuff. Could there be middle-road which is both significantly better than current offerings, yet accepts being short of theoretical perfection? Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
