At 9:38 am +1000 6/7/06, David Guest wrote:
Ian Cheong wrote:
I presume the meetings of the group are confidential, like most govt
things....
and the usual idea is that all advice is taken and no power shall be
granted
and publicly, GPs will have been consulted, which gets the
decision-makers off the hook at the end of the day.
Oh well, if we cannot talk about NeHTA, Enrico Coiera would like us to
talk about software accreditation.
We can talk about NeHTA. But NeHTA's clinical advisory group may not
be allowed to talk about NeHTA. Don't shoot Michael if he says little.
http://mja.com.au/public/issues/184_12_190606/coi10287_fm.html (Urgent
debate is needed to move this agenda forward,12
<http://mja.com.au/public/issues/184_12_190606/coi10287_fm.html#0_BABBDEDI>")
I'm in two minds about it. It would stifle new innovative products since
the cost of accreditation becomes prohibitive. It would be nice if it
made the current crop of applications more reliable, however.
David
Great debate topic........
At the end of the day, what will make the regulators regulate????
High profile harm exceeding good. They are certainly *not* interested
in stifling market innovation and increasing government red tape,
unless such red tape will keep them out of the news.
Ian.
--
Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec)
Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(for urgent matters, please send a copy to my practice email as well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
PRIVACY NOTE
I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists.
Please ask my permission first if you wish to forward private email
to other parties.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
