Hi Ian I don't think that anyone is suggesting that time poor amateur clinician programmers should be the ones to implement all the openEHR software. What we believe will happen once version one is released is that there will be a number of open source engines available that will not require a detailed understanding of how things work under the hood. Indeed this is analogous to developers using a database engine without writing the database engine itself. Our current .net kernel is quite simple to use as a 'black box'.
I do believe that unless we try to do it right, we will continue to waste resources on systems that lead to dead ends. The openEHR design is all about interoperability and future proofing of data. openEHRs design lets clinicians concentrate on describing what they want to describe clinically i.e. the archetypes, while letting the software engineers build systems without having to have any understanding of the health environment. Regards Hugh __________________________________ Dr Hugh Leslie MBBS, Dip. Obs. RACOG, FRACGP, FACHI M: 0404 033 767 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2006 7:43 PM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: RE: GP Requirements - was [GPCG_TALK] Re: The Dreaming 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 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
