Hello Hugh, You have hit the nail on the head. Apathy everywhere. Non standard messages, applications unable to import standard messages, users happy with the situation. That's why I suggested asking for standards based ones and they insisting they are imported properly.
I'm suggesting that pathology and software providers have clients who do not complain enough. Rather than lament the lack of interoperability the customers should be demanding it. It's the tone of acceptance of mediocrity that leads to the status quo. We expect medication to meet standards, we expect hard drives to have a standard connector, we are expected to pass tests to get our qualifications. Why is it that we excuse electronic medical communication from complying with published standards? I am sure that every major pathology lab and software vendor would do something if the users started expecting standards to be complied with. Legislation is one way, but has the medical profession lost its ability to make market forces work towards making eHealth safe? While PIT is easier, there is some pretty crappy PIT out then, that doesn't comply either, its just that there is less to go wrong, and less to gain from it. Ring up your pathologist(s) and ask them when they are going to have accredited standards compliant messages. Tell them the first one that does will get all your work and you might see them build a business case with their corporate masters. If a standard message fails to import ring up the vendor and tell them that this message might contain the vital piece of information that you need to make a life and death decision - which it could. Suggest they fix it quickly. If everyone on the list did that it might have more effect than NEHTA has had to date. One person doing this has little effect but hundreds have a voice. A bottom up push is far more likely to work than a top down, surely the last 10 years of health connect has proven that. Virtually every "problem with HL7" we have seen in the last 5 years is an error in a non-compliant message or a broken import routine or failure to use code sets that have been specified. Its the quality of implementation and not the standard. The labs have the ability to produce compliant messages, but given the current business model its the market that gives them the will to do it. Andrew Friday, May 12, 2006, 3:43:23 PM, you wrote: HL> But Andrew, they will then ask Liz which system she is using so that they HL> can send the right flavour of the HL7 message! HL> __________________________________ HL> Dr Hugh Leslie HL> MBBS, Dip. Obs. RACOG, FRACGP, FACHI HL> M: 0404 033 767 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew McIntyre >> Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2006 10:14 PM >> To: Elizabeth Dodd >> Cc: General Practice Computing Group Talk >> Subject: Re[2]: [GPCG_TALK] IHE and XDS - sharing of documents and >> >> Hello Elizabeth, >> >> They come in PIT because your lab is sure that it will import >> because the format is so basic. This causes less support >> calls but rules out any future machine processing of your >> data. They will most likely have a HL7 version, but will only >> give you that if you ask. >> >> This is common, the support for HL7 in practice management >> systems is less than perfect, eg: this build only imports >> single messages, this build will only import if its in a >> batch. Its quite feasible to convert HL7 to PIT on demand and >> when it happens all atomic data is lost, but if your software >> can't do anything with the data what does it matter... >> >> If you are interested in advancing the quality of Medical IT >> then ring them and insist on getting your results as HL7 and >> then insist that your practice management software import it >> properly. Ask them when they are going to have compliant HL7 >> that has been through AHML so you can be certain that the >> quality is high enough to be used on real patients. >> >> Part of the problem is that many of the players are corporate >> and they are market driven, and the market is not driving >> them, if you don't complain then they will do nothing. >> Perhaps the user base is to blame for the position, because >> they accept what they are given. >> >> They are taking the safe route because despite the advantages >> of atomic data no one seems to care, so why should they. >> >> >> >> Thursday, May 11, 2006, 7:28:23 PM, you wrote: >> >> ED> On Thursday 11 May 2006 13:02, Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> >> 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. >> ED> so why do all my results come in pit? >> ED> one lab did use hl7 but abandoned it some years ago - about 2002, >> ED> I'd say from my records. >> ED> one of our providers is part of one of the major groups, and the >> ED> other is part of major NSW Health entity. Neither are >> small players. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 HL> _______________________________________________ HL> Gpcg_talk mailing list HL> [email protected] HL> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk HL> __________ NOD32 1.1533 (20060512) Information __________ HL> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. HL> http://www.eset.com -- 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
