Hi Andrew,
Thanks for that. I guess my assessment was that there was a set of paths laid down at a very high level and that the rationale for some of the choices was really not well articulated. Not wanting to push a barrow but the whole IHE experiment should have been discussed - even as an interim approach - IMHO. - if only to be then rejected (with clear reasons)
I guess I also would have liked to have seen a discussion of the drivers of e-health and health reform - i.e. the strategic context - made explicit and then linked to the proposed framework. It lacks context otherwise in my view.
As someone else said to me - what will you do differently tomorrow because of this?
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 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:13:01 +1000, Andrew N. Shrosbree wrote:
> David,
>
> The providers of software to the HealthCare community had an understanding of the issues outlined
> in NEHTA's document long before NEHTA was established. It merely shows us that NEHTA (contrary to
> what they said they would do) is listening and learning. Their important contribution is to
> coalesce what is already known into a collaborative, rather than adversarial endeavour. We need
> this guidance IMO because the s/w industry has proven to be wholly incapable of looking beyond
> short-term profit motives. Why else do you think we can't exchange data between each other?
>
> Honestly? I received no guidance from this document.
>
>
> David More wrote: > Hi Andrew,
>
>> Glad that is clear. What impact do you see this document making on what you do and how you do
>> it..that seems to me to be where the rubber hits the road as they say.
>>
>> Put another way - what guidance other than the need to use Standards where available and
>> relevant - and to plan for a Services Orientated Future - which to document says is a few years
>> away - have you got out of this?
>>
>> Interested in your comments
>>
>> 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 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:38:57 +1000, Andrew N. Shrosbree wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> If I am not the intended audience than I must ask 'who is?'. I have responsibility for
>>> technical
>>> architecture, some API programming and for the assessment of new technology. I must advise the
>>> CEO about how things work, and how they fit into the context of the industry for which we
>>> provide
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do see Argus as having a need to conform.
>>>
>>> I cannot see the CEOs of most businesses falling in line until they can be reassured by their
>>> techies that this stuff is all doable, scaleable, won;t cost a fortune, and that we can find
>>> the
>>> staff to do it. I certainly have insufficient data upon which to base an informed opinion.
>>> A
>>>
>>>
>>> David More wrote: > Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>>> Read the document closely and you may see you are not part of the intended audience!
>>>>
>>>> Audience includes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Enterprise architects and solution architects, concerned with developing enterprise
>>>> architectures or specific solution architectures; they should read all sections of this
>>>> document.
>>>> It seems to me they are talking mostly about new solutions - and the pathway for legacy
>>>> systems
>>>> is not made clear - or would you see the Argus design as a "specific solution architecture"
>>>> that needs to conform?
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised this is not for solution developers and vendors (wonder why no mention) -
>>>> maybe
>>>> the next - less stratospheric version - the one you think may help you?
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget to send your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> 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 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 14:48:11 +1000, Andrew N. Shrosbree wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just waded through this tome and have a few opinions. These should be taken more as
>>>>> personal observations rather than a litany of criticisms, because I genuinely applaud
>>>>> NEHTA'S
>>>>> efforts to define the context within which they will be defining interoperability
>>>>> standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I have a sense that this document was written by a committee, whose motto is
>>>>> not
>>>>> "build it, and they will come", but rather "talk about it and they will follow". Yes, it
>>>>> gives a
>>>>> very thorough description of the framework within which NEHTA sees itself operating,
>>>>> defining
>>>>> a
>>>>> common nomenclature and contextual framework. It is also a good example of what you get
>>>>> when
>>>>> people are not required to work according to a commercial deadline, to produce something
>>>>> that
>>>>> actually works (or are being paid by the hour). As an experienced user of software design
>>>>> patterns, I appreciate the need to have a conceptual framework for software design. What
>>>>> the
>>>>> people who depend upon me for though is working solutions, in non-geological time. Multi-
>>>>> modular
>>>>> computer applications may start out with a statement of intent, but many evolve their
>>>>> little
>>>>> rules and regulations as the system grows in response to user needs. What this NEHTA
>>>>> document
>>>>> attempts to define is all the possible compliance and conformance rules to be faced by
>>>>> anybody
>>>>> who embraces SOA. Only by section 5 did I feel it was starting to come alive, because the
>>>>> academic waffle provides a diaphanous framework against which one could not possibly hope
>>>>> to
>>>>> benckmark a real, concrete software design.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to give NEHTA the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but I long for the day
>>>>> when
>>>>> somebody actually produces a few solid, open source components that demonstrate
>>>>> conformance to
>>>>> their standards in way that is easy to benchmark. In this document NEHTA have still not
>>>>> produced
>>>>> something that we, the developers who must build the blocks, can use as any sort of guide.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is not a standard - it is a statement of the context within which a standard will be
>>>>> defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short: this may be well received at academic conferences, but is no bloody good to me
>>>>> yet.
>>>>> This document is of even less use to consumers of IT services, like you. But I guess it's
>>>>> a
>>>>> start, because it directs our communal gaze towards the same point of light in the
>>>>> heavens.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
>>>>>> David
>>>>>> More
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 3 April 2006 10:36 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you browse the document you will see the "common enterprise language" is a high level
>>>>>> description of how language is to be used for interoperation between health care
>>>>>> entities -
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is not to do with programming languages I don't think - if that was what you were
>>>>>> asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ****************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't understand very much of the document in terms of what it means for us in
>>>>>> general
>>>>>> practice communicating with patients, each other or with the rest of the health system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can somebody who believes that they do understand what this document says please at some
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> give us a one page summary of how they think it may influence developments in
>>>>>> information
>>>>>> systems that GPs use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver Frank, general practitioner
>>>>>> 255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens
>>>>>> South Australia 5086
>>>>>> Ph. 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected]
>>>>
>>> -- Andrew N. Shrosbree B.Sc, B.Ec Technical Director ArgusConnect Pty Ltd
>>> http://www.argusconnect.com.au Suite 4, Greenhill Centre, Mt Helen Victoria, Australia Tel:
>>> +61
>>> (0)3 5335 2214 Mob: +61 (0)415 645 291 Skype: andrewshroz
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 1.1467 (20060402) Information __________
>>>
>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
>>>
>
> -- Andrew N. Shrosbree B.Sc, B.Ec Technical Director ArgusConnect Pty Ltd
> http://www.argusconnect.com.au Suite 4, Greenhill Centre, Mt Helen Victoria, Australia Tel: +61
> (0)3 5335 2214 Mob: +61 (0)415 645 291 Skype: andrewshroz
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1467 (20060402) 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
