Hello Andrew, brief comments inline.
Thursday, May 11, 2006, 10:44:53 AM, you wrote: >> In the Web services hype there is a tendency to try and reinvent the >> wheel. We have a messaging specification that supports Orders and >> results and medications with atomic data. It is responsible for the >> majority of Data transmission that occurs today - and it occurs >> millions of times a day now and seems to work. That is of course HL7 >> V2, and we already have international and local standards that are >> published and actually available for free. HL7 is not a document >> structure it is a full blown messaging specification that has survived >> 20 years... and will continue to survive because it works. If you want >> XML documents, no problem, HL7 V2 has well defined XML encoding specs. >> >> All we lack is the transport layer to move this around and the >> terminology and standards on how to use the terminology to achieve >> more semantic interoperability. AP> Andrew, if I can make an observation about HL7 as an outsider AP> to health informatics, but as someone who has seen standards AP> work in more technical areas - I'm interested in the lack of AP> 'definitiveness' about hl7, which to me seems at odds with AP> successfully using it as a message standard in completely AP> distributed environments i.e. between a GP and a path lab AP> that have never talked to each other before.. As an outsider you need to understand the standard and if you don't it will take a lot longer. It something that does take effort and time to digest. AP> I can recount a tale of a recent software development - when AP> a path lab was asked for an electronic feed of hl7 results, its AP> reply was "how do you want the HL7 done", to which the AP> reply was "the standard way", at which point they laughed AP> hysterically.. is this the wonderful 20 year old message AP> specification that we are banking on - one where a three AP> week negotiation period is needed between two vendors AP> in order to align their "standards". Where interoperability AP> demos need to be planned 3 months in advance so that AP> the systems can actually handle the data of either side. They "should" be able to send you their HL7 V2.3.1 as per the Australian standard, certified by AHML and using LOINC codes specified by IT-14-6-5. The fact that cannot is a problem, A compliance problem. They may have laughed a lot longer and louder if you asked them for Data in the 'Andrew Patterson XML Format' you had just devised. Maybe you should have talked to us, I am sure we could have done it in a day ;-) Seriously, 3 weeks is a lot better that the performance of the Healthconnect format we are all supposed to have by now. How many years have we been waiting.... AP> Technical standards work because the _goal_ is to AP> remove ambiguity - so whilst they aren't always perfect, AP> the end game is to have a standard where all parties AP> know that this bit goes in that spot.. but I don't need to AP> have a week long interoperability chat before my AP> RFC822 emails can be parsed.. I think health is a bit more complex than EMail!!!! AP> HL7 seems not to have that as a goal - I don't know AP> if that's because medical AP> data modelling is inherently complex (which I believe AP> it is) or whether it's just not even seen as a goal given that AP> its mainly used between large hospital systems etc where AP> there is always that time to have an interoperability AP> discussion. I have seen various sites describe HL7 AP> as a "framework for negotiation" - if we want to avoid AP> centralised infrastructure in australian health messaging AP> (where the central server can 'fix' things up for us) AP> surely we need a standard that definitively tells us AP> how things are done, not 'heres a starting point AP> for negotiation'. That a lot better than starting from scratch every time! AP> Obviously as a company that has invested heavily AP> in HL7v2, you guys are keen to push Hl7 (as is AP> your right). I don't want to put you in the position of AP> having to defend the whole of HL7 by yourself, but I AP> was wondering if you had any thoughts on this AP> issue and whether you think its a problem, or whether AP> I've completely misunderstood HL7 as a standard?? I think you will find that every path lab in the country and every vendor has invested heavily in HL7 V2. I think its your position that is on the outside. AP> Andrew -- Best regards, Andrew mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew McIntyre Buderim Gastroenterology Centre www.buderimgastro.com.au PH: 07 54455055 FAX: 54455047 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
