Duncan Guy wrote: > >>> What system do I need to install to communicate with you securely? >> >> >> A closed, proprietary one, I suspect, judging by the following exchange >> between Duncan and Ian: >> > > Yes Tim, > > Proprietry and closed but using HL7 messaging based on the Australian > standard so messages can be exported easily to any other system in > future if we decided to change. > > The division and our group tried to get open source "free" systems set > up but it was too hard. > > At present it seems that there is no "free solution" - either the > doctor or the division has to pay - the costs are just hidden.
Please understand that the "free" in "free and open source software" (FOSS) is and has always been "free" as in "freedom" (to do your own thing, vote with your feet, not be locked in to a proprietary system etc) rather than "free" as in "with cost". Advocates of FOSS have always made this abundantly clear - it is the commentators and the naysayers who keep spinning the line "there ain't no free lunch" and the like. yes, no-one disagrees. But it is useful to know that a cluey, well-motivated person found the open source or open standards (the two are different, as Ian Haywood explained, and although both are desirable, its the open standards for comms which is really vital) paths too hard to set up. Could you elaborate on where you encountered difficulties, and what you tried or investigated? > We as the specialists are willing to pay a vendor for their services - > which includes installation at GPs, 1800 help number etc. > > By paying a vendor we have also enticed them to work closely with our > EMR vendor and our online dictation provider to create an integrated > solution that improves workflow and decreases staff time. ... > I shall arrange for the provider to have the necessary installation > performed for you. My understanding is that it will however require a > Windows machine. I suspect that David is, like many of us, curious to know exactly which messaging provider you have chosen, and what bits of proprietary, closed-source software it is that has to install on his system, and what that software does, exactly. There are, of course, increasing (hidden) costs for the GP in having more and more proprietary secure messaging client software installed on their systems (and having to be constantly re-installed every time a new PC is acquired or a machine dies). An obviously better solution is to use a set of open messaging standards, and thus need only one secure messaging "client" to be installed in each practice - as Ian said, doesn't matter if that messaging client software is open sourced or not, as long as it uses open standards. Of course, the choice of secure messaging provider/protocol should not be the sole or even the principal factor in deciding to whom to refer, but it is nevertheless a factor. Unless your specialist group plans on asking all referring GPs to sign a non-disclosure agreement with respect to the identity of your chosen messaging provider, you might as well let the cat out of the bag and tell us who you have chosen, because someone who refers to you will eventually tell. > With regards to clinical competencies, as you can see from the website > the selection criteria for joining our group are rigorous and the > credentialling committee is chaired by a Professor of Medicine at > Sydney Uni - and yes some applicants have been be rejected. Sounds good to me - I'll get my GP to refer me if I am every in need of any of your services (especially since I live in your area). Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
