Ian,
A few points.
1. EDS is machine processing - hence the need for some form of terminology to improve quality and consistency in care
2. Given the cost of medical errors - the costs of having and maintaining terminology are trivial.
3. Just what is the comprehensive terminology that covers medical practice with only 2000 or so terms.. I don't think it exists. It is important to distinguish between codes and terminology in this regard - they do and support different things.
I would be interested in your view of just what is appropriate for a national clinical terminology as you seem convinced the bureaucrats have it wrong. For once I happen to agree with them.
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 Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:53:58 +1000, Ian Cheong wrote:
> At 7:44 am +1100 11/2/06, David More wrote:
>> 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
>>
> Yes, but terminology is mainly for machine processing.
>
> Detailed comprehensive terminology costs a bomb and leads to enormous downstream costs.
>
> A limited terminology with classification is probably all one needs to do most decision support -
> something closer to 2000 terms, according to various experts around the traps.
>
> It is likely that yet another tiny little bureaucratic decision will point us in a less than
> optimal direction for decades.
>
>
> Ian.
>
>
>> ----
>> 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:
>>>>
>> <http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18086337%255E>http://www.thesundaymai
>> l.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18086337%255E
>> 421,00.html
>>
>>>>> "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
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
