Quoting from your previous
"Be fair, David. It is clearly not the goal of the openEHR project to create a better GP clinical informations system."
I misunderstood then - but that's what I thought Sam H. and Peter S. have as their goal. A world full of high quality interoperable GP systems. I also thought their commercial component - Ocean Informatics - was working towards just that. Seems odd to me you would spend 10 years developing something you were not then going to deploy or at least assist in deploying?
You are saying they are just designing and leaving it up to others to build. Maybe Hugh, Peter or Sam can clarify? I have been wrong before and can be again.
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:04:30 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> I thought I was being fair- it seems from the openEHR site and all the >> trials done so far >> openEHR is intended for the Ambulatory / GP market - I am not aware of >> many concrete plans >> to use it for HIS systems at this point, albeit I acknowledge the >> possibility. Of course >> it may also be useful in your public health domain. > > Yeah, but it is not up to the openEHR foundation to create the actual GP systems which use the openEHR infrastructure. You were having a go at the openEHR people for not having produced a successor to MD - and that's not a fair criticism. > >> The fact that this is the target is clear from the list of commercial >> providers to me - >> and does raise the issue of how the archetype data-base / descriptions >> etc are to be >> served to the systems in the field and at the coal face..a topic I have >> been asking about >> and getting few clear answers on. > > Probably because no-one knows what the correct answers are, yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not possible to organise the necessary social and administrative infrastructure. > >> From my rudimentary understanding of archetypes it seems to me that >> even the records for a >> simple general practice may need many hundreds when you think of all the >> possible >> observations, test results, clinical findings etc involved. Each of >> which has to be >> designed, validated, normalised against what already exists, maintained >> and version >> controlled. > > Agreed, which is why I think it is important the teh openEHR Foundation pays attention to winning over and recruiting grassroots contributors, rather than concentrating on a top-down big govt-led approach. > >> This exercise will not be free I should not imagine. Some >> one will pay...guess who? > > Dunno, who? > > Tim C > >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:11:03 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: >> > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Has not helped much - really the GP community needs something that >> works >> >> better than MD >> >> and which is stable and reliable and available. openEHR does not look >> >> like providing that any time soon. >> > >> > Be fair, David. It is clearly not the goal of the openEHR project to >> create a better GP >> clinical informations system. The aim is surely to create a better data >> infrastructure >> upon which such a GP system might be built. They are working towards >> that, albeit in a >> painstaking and hence painstakingly slow manner, but there are several >> other parts of the >> puzzle which need to be addressed before a (much) better GP clinical >> mousetrap can be >> built. >> > >> > Tim C > > ---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:04:30 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> I thought I was being fair- it seems from the openEHR site and all the >> trials done so far >> openEHR is intended for the Ambulatory / GP market - I am not aware of >> many concrete plans >> to use it for HIS systems at this point, albeit I acknowledge the >> possibility. Of course >> it may also be useful in your public health domain. > > Yeah, but it is not up to the openEHR foundation to create the actual GP systems which use the openEHR infrastructure. You were having a go at the openEHR people for not having produced a successor to MD - and that's not a fair criticism. > >> The fact that this is the target is clear from the list of commercial >> providers to me - >> and does raise the issue of how the archetype data-base / descriptions >> etc are to be >> served to the systems in the field and at the coal face..a topic I have >> been asking about >> and getting few clear answers on. > > Probably because no-one knows what the correct answers are, yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not possible to organise the necessary social and administrative infrastructure. > >> From my rudimentary understanding of archetypes it seems to me that >> even the records for a >> simple general practice may need many hundreds when you think of all the >> possible >> observations, test results, clinical findings etc involved. Each of >> which has to be >> designed, validated, normalised against what already exists, maintained >> and version >> controlled. > > Agreed, which is why I think it is important the teh openEHR Foundation pays attention to winning over and recruiting grassroots contributors, rather than concentrating on a top-down big govt-led approach. > >> This exercise will not be free I should not imagine. Some >> one will pay...guess who? > > Dunno, who? > > Tim C > >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:11:03 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: >> > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Has not helped much - really the GP community needs something that >> works >> >> better than MD >> >> and which is stable and reliable and available. openEHR does not look >> >> like providing that any time soon. >> > >> > Be fair, David. It is clearly not the goal of the openEHR project to >> create a better GP >> clinical informations system. The aim is surely to create a better data >> infrastructure >> upon which such a GP system might be built. They are working towards >> that, albeit in a >> painstaking and hence painstakingly slow manner, but there are several >> other parts of the >> puzzle which need to be addressed before a (much) better GP clinical >> mousetrap can be >> built. >> > >> > Tim C > > > __________ NOD32 1.1351 (20060103) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com |
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
