Ian Haywood wrote: > > Tim Churches wrote: >> Peter MacIsaac wrote: >> ... >> >>> Under a full web service model the IT systems of small business enterprises >>> (like GPs) would need to have the capacity to be always connected to the >>> internet ... >> >> As discussed previously, I am not at all convinced that this is true. >> >> Why does a Web service running on, say, a GP practice system, always >> need to be available, 24x7? Is the practice open 24x7? Nope. So why does >> the practice's Web services need to be available all the time? > > So we can get some info when the patient rolls into A&E at 0200 on a Sunday.
Yes, although that presumes some pre-existing authentication and access control mechanism, by which the GP's Web service can assure itself that it really is the resident in local ED trying to find out what Mrs Furtwangle's medications are supposed to be at 2 am, and not a hacker from Bulgaria. > Of course this is probably best done by having GPs upload a summary at regular > intervals to a Divisional server which is up 24x7, as others have said, giving > finer control over what is sent. Which is the Scottish EHR model, and very practical to run and economical to set up it seems to be. > What I don't understand is how running this over HTTP magically improves the > process. > SMTP *is* a webservice, albeit with a long track history and extra features > for dealing with redundant servers and poor connectivity. > > A weservice is needed for 'pulling' summaries off the central server, but the > GP > doesn't need to get involved - there's no benefit for them over sending the > summary in though > plain e-mail. Apart from the immediate verification of delivery, Web services are only an advance when you start to do more than just lob documents around. Try to do anything in real-time or near real-time via email and it becomes very cumbersome very quickly. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
