Hello Ian, I am not suggesting that the labs be all exactly the same, but that the bar be AHML compliance, as it is built on the standard, it is available now (in fact testing is free, compliance certification is not expensive) and if all HL7 from path labs passed that test then things would be a lot more standard than they are now.
As for examples, we have made available the files that passed AHML accreditation and have been on the Australian HL7 Meeting CDs http://download.medical-objects.com.au/TrustedHL7.zip You can view what compliant HL7 looks like here http://download.medical-objects.com.au/trusted/index.html We actually make modifications to the format dynamically to suite specific PMS, but life would be much easier if that was not necessary. (An each new build has new bugs so you chase your tail) I think calling for the government to do something repeats the folly of the last 10 years. We need to call on commercial organisations to meet standards, hardly an unreasonable call. The fact is that the state Government messages do not meet the standards, so they have an opportunity to lead the way, but in this crazy world where money is the the only measure and patient care comes second they also need a "Business case" to justify spending money to meet Australian standards. We need to be the business case. The local council will tell you the pull down a house because the foundations do not meet Australian standards, but its OK for Governments and labs to use non compliant messages to transmit critical patient data. And this is not outrageous????? I suspect that some labs worry about making the messages compliant because it may upset fragile import routines in existing packages, so its up to the end users to start insisting on standards. For ages there have been rumors that NEHTA might try and insist on standards but no one seems to have the guts to actually do it, so its up to end users. Producers should be transmitting AHML compliant messages and consumers should actually test that their packages import AHML compliant messages in an error free way. If we get to that point then we can work on improving the quality of the content. Saturday, May 13, 2006, 8:07:56 AM, you wrote: IC> At 7:35 am +1000 13/5/06, Ian Haywood wrote: >>Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> >>> 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. >>Agree with these points but would add that the standard is not as >>well-drafted as it could be >> and has multiple points of 'interpretion' where the programmer can >>do X or Y and still be within the standard. >>This is probably inevitable given the standard is a 'blue-sky' >>document: it's not referring to a real implementation >> >>Again, as many others have, I make the call for a reference implementation >> >>Ian IC> The latest version of AS4700.2 is substantially based on real IC> implementations, excepting that there are many places where real IC> implementations differ from one another and one has to compromise IC> somehow when trying to get towards less variance. IC> Every pathology lab does tests a little differently - so making them IC> all report consistently is not a small cost-free task. IC> HB262 provides more guidance on implementation. The version for the IC> latest AS4700.2 is still in the works. IC> Reference implementation is in the works - pending funding approval. IC> The radiology messaging standard is a "blue-sky" standard. It is IC> actually easier to document "one way" in a blue sky environment where IC> there are fewer toes to tread on. We are still waiting on IC> implementations. IC> A "standard" *cannot* be written based on "one real implementation" IC> without giving undue market power to the owner of said IC> implementation. Hence it does *not* happen in a consensus environment. IC> The prospects of harmonisation of real different implementations are IC> slim - EG beta/vhs; DVD standards. It can only happen through IC> negotiation where both camps have to give ground - ie no real IC> implementation can be the answer. IC> Ian. -- 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
