David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > 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_BABBDED > I>") > > 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.
On teh international openhealth mailing list some months ago, there was a discussion on this with respect open source health software and a proposed US accreditation mechanism - see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00656.html - if you scroll down you'll see the entire thread of messages. The points I made were that: a) accredittaion tests should be automated, not done by humans tapping a keyboard and clicking a mouse each and every time a test needs to be repeated (for a new version of the software etc) ; b) there should be no monopoly on who creates the test scripts; c) the testing authority merely verifies the correctness of the test scripts and runs them to perform the test - or, much better, it trusts a signed statement from accredited independent testing agencies (so that there is a competitive market for their services and no govt-created monopoly). The main point is that application developers should be able to do the leg work of creating test scripts to demonstrate compliance of their products themselves, since this is were a lot of the costs lie. Of course, the first step is to create a comprehensive set of test specs, and to publish these. Tim C > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
