Horst Herb wrote: > You can stop right here, because you are wrong. Completely. I am > *not* saying that there is anything wrong with pathology companies > providing download clients. What i wrong is that these clients do > *not* use standards or openly published protocols, and the servers do > *not* allow other than proprietary clients to connect and fetch the > data > > The *right* way to do it is to use an openly published protocol, > preferably an already established standard, then to produce client > software adhering to these specifications - and let the end user > chose whether they want to roll their own or use yours. > > I am sick to death of being bullied into running crappy software or > being bullied into running specific platforms for no good reason at > all. All I am asking for is to open the field for all players, not > just those who buy and wear your uniform > > Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk > mailing list [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >
Horst I didnt mean to imply you were against downloads. I also strongly support standards based delivery and I totally agree with you on everything except the bit about accessing my results delivery server from outside with your own software ;) Would you let me access your database from outside with my own software? Horst surely you realise Im after the same outcome as you,? I've tried to take this to the College of Pathologists, Ive tried speaking to NEHTA, Ive tried helping here on this list and as much as I can in my limited way with limited skills even in the python arena. Im very pro open and standards based approaches. I was pro a simple solution using pit 3yrs ago if u search the list. I dont want to bully anyone into using anything they dont want, I would love to see an open interoperable client program and have just one little program on my wifes server (yes Im pro the monolithic box -if its low on ram just buy more! if its low on cpu cycles get a bigger cpu) and I just want everyone to ease off on finger pointing at pathology as if its been a technical conspiracy to lock everyone in. I would also appreciate everyones recognition that the bullying happening is very much two way and that Pathology to some extent has ended up where it is because of pressures generated from behind your desks to supply post haste some (any) software to just get the job done reliably. Thats what I was getting at above, not that I thought you were against downloads or anything. I am literally getting demands to install software on GP computers completely at my expense for practices who have no intention of sending me one specimen. If I hesitate they implicate they will pressure the specialists (whose gp copy reports I am sending to them) to change pathology providers. Next, I am seeing IT support guys significantly pressuring medical practitioners to change providers if they have to install the clients on the servers and I dont think that that simple reason alone is a good enough reason to pressure to move providers. While I agree with the sound reasons for this, I also seek acknowledgement that a very large proportion of the current user base pretty much not represented on this list is not up to the challenge of problem solving install/download client issues and the most robust way to install these clients for the masses is in fact on the server even agreeing that there are rare issues on performance for some clients which some practices *might* experience (- but I cannot see any reason why it results in having to break down the server box into bits at 2am Peter) Im feeling that the whole pathology download thing is being taken a bit for granted and that people who should know better the difficulties in satisfying everyone in a big user base of different platforms and programs are finger pointing and witch hunting just a bit too much. Where we are at with multiple proprietary non interoperable solutions is a place thats come about due to a complex series of events: Heres a few influences: The interaction between pathology competitors trying to keep an edge and solve internal IT issues, evolving technology (from dialup to broadband), rising GP expectations (for both technical solutions and interoperability), a lack of applicable standards (which has changed), some bad technical solutions (ie proprietary code which have been continued in service and built on increasing the dependency on the solution and the $ invested), proprietary third party involvement (with further proprietary solutions- and themselves a response to needs and a business/proprietary incentive) and extreme variations in IT competency in general practice (its my opinion that GP IT literacy is sadly broadly relatively low, and its been pointed out before that IT support quality is similarly "challenged" in many places). Its a complex mix. I think that despite all those pressures mostly GPs have a pretty damn good deal with pathology companies providing, supporting and developing their download software. For the most part it works reliably, I havent really been convinced it "kills servers" left right and centre though do admit a minority of installs have trouble and I can't say Im overwhelmed by the positive comments about what everyone *does* have and thats a bit dissappointing. Oh, you dont need to point me at the big companies like nasa use python link. Thats irrelevant. What is relevant is what the local pathology companies are using to write their clients and what backend systems they are running that need interfacing into. Afaik there is no python client aside from wagtail Fetch is java QML I dont know but it seems to have qmodem in there somewhere promedicus is java healthlink i dont know equery i think is delphi (not sure) eclinic (dont know) snpmail (I think now retired -used to be vbasic) argus of course is java MO is java (i think completely but not sure) As yet aside from the valiant efforts of a few GPs on and off this list and involvement of some GPs with IT 14 5 I have yet to see much postive leadership over these issues. JD -- ================================================= dr john dooley mbbs frcpa aka "ron" _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
