Hi Tim
>If they were smart, NEHTA would engage you, David, to help them with
>this task. At this point I am reminded of something LBJ said:
Thanks for the quote!
I am not holding my breath with NEHTA, they are going their own way so live and let live..I am not hard to find if they change their mind (see signature on every e-mail).
In passing I must say I am impressed thay the CCHIT did what they have done for a budget of just a few million US$ and in such quick order.
I do think the HL7 DSTU work for EHRs gave them a good head start on the spec to workshop. The townhall approach was very foksey.
In Australia I suspect the fees would be a barrier - but even if Government paid - its not that much ($28,000 x30) = less than 1 mill
So in OZ we could do it for well under $10M...so no idea why we don't.
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:13:03 +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
> David More wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Not quite what Enrico has in mind - but better than nothing - as largely functionally based - ie must detect interactions etc.
>>
>> The US only started this effort about a year ago..so I wonder why all the claims it is too hard to do.
>>
>
> It seems (to me) that there is an article of faith amongst health
> informaticians that it is really hard to do things. Also that it will
> cost a lot of money. "Things" and "it" refer to any and every health
> informatics-related project ever done or contemplated by anyone, anywhere.
>
>> Next year initial list of hospital systems approved - and an upgraded and richer set of ambulatory requirements to keep certification.
>>
>
> Yes, including interoperability requirements, which (wearing my public
> health hat) I was pleased to see included data exchange with public
> health agencies using CDC standards and protocols.
>
> I also note that the CCHIT criteria contain not-so-veiled criticism of
> the various health informatics standards agencies eg with respect to
> public health data exchanges, the criteria states that CDC needs to get
> its act together to harmonise its (sprawling) suite of standards and
> protocols, ASAP.
>
>> Very reasonable steps which NEHTA should be emulating - along with all the future stuff they are working on.
>>
>
> If they were smart, NEHTA would engage you, David, to help them with
> this task. At this point I am reminded of something LBJ said:
>
> Tim C
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:31:25 +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
>>> Ken Harvey wrote:
>>>> Editorials: Should clinical software be regulated?
>> http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_12_190606/coi10287_fm.html Enrico W Coiera and Johanna I
>>
>>>> Westbrook MJA 2006; 184 (12): 600-601
>>>>
>>> The Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT) in the US has
>>>
>> just announced the first batch certified "EHR systems for ambulatory
>>> care", a category which I would think includes the US equivalents of the primary care
>>>
>> clinical systems which are in widespread use in general practice inhere
>>> in Oz:
>>>
>>>
>>> The certification criteria are all available from the same Web site. Not the sort of
>>>
>> regulation which Enrico and Johanna had in mind, perhaps?
>>> Tim C
>>>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1674 (20060722) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
