HL7 V3 goes a long way to eliminating variability, but this is no small task and real implementations are sparse.
See this is where I think the disconnect between proponents of HL7 and I are.. I have spent the last 2 weeks "outputting" HL7v3 from a clinical system and from my point of view the specs go nowhere near eliminating variability - I was left with about 50 "choices" as to how the HL7 would be structured (is a 'progress note' an observation and how should it be coded - if I have a set of 'allergy' observations, where do I put them in a patient record and how do I distinguish them from other observations). So here I am, making choices as a technical person that I don't feel at all comfortable making. I don't want to make those choices - I want to be told what to do in the areas that I have no expertise. I want to know that HL7 as an organisation has locked 400 doctors in a room and told them they can't come out until they make some decisions on stuff like this. Because if the standards organisation isn't going to make these choices, who is? And HL7v2 is worse than this? I am worried that the organisation as a whole doesn't see this as an issue? How can you have a 20 year old messaging format where people can't point you to an unambiguous definition for a pathology response?
The major advantage of HL7 is industry participation - there are hundreds of participants working together towards a common goal. Standardisation is informed by implementation.
Its more than informed by it - standardisation without parallel implementation is completely useless in my experience.. Andrew _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
