Ian,
I think it is important to remember the lack of terminology was a key reason for the failure of a number of the HealthConnect trials.
Spending on terminology capability and development may not be a bad investment at all in my view - it is required if any form of real inter-operation between systems is to be achieved. Communication 'by blob' helps - communication of understanding and context is way better.
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 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:59:40 +1000, Ian Cheong wrote:
> At 2:21 pm +1100 10/2/06, Horst Herb wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:32, Ken Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> "The states and the commonwealth are also expected to each pledge $65 million towards
>>> improving e-health records..."
>>>
>>> We live in hope!
>>>
>> Hope? My crystal ball suggests that half of that money will be spent on "consultancies" which
>> will invariably just repeat the messages from the past decade, and the other half will be
>> spread across just enough uncoordinated projects to ensure that none of them has enough funding
>> to actually succeed.
>>
>> If we'd use the money to buy some collection containers to be attached to bovine behinds, we
>> could collect a lot more bullshit for the money I reckon.
>>
>> Horst
>>
> Personally, I'd rather spend it on resurrecting MediConnect and making HealthConnect go in some
> form, but based around generating business value to transacting partners.
>
> But in life a great swathe will probably end up going toward SNOMED licencing, infrastructure and
> training.
>
>
> Ian.
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
