Having derailed sensible discussion of Jon Patrick's very reasonable request with a demonstration of my obtuseness and really poor aptitude for crosswords and Scrabble, can I now encourage members of this list to seriously consider Jon's question (below) and provide a response if you have an opinion on the matter. Is SNOMED-CT really a deus ex machina, and if so, how do you think it will work its magic, or do you perceive it as a red herring or white elephant? In fact, even if you have no opinion due to lack of familiarity with SNOMED-CT in particular or clinical terminologies in general, it is helpful to say so, as it points to a need for some accessible and easily assimilated introductory and expository resources on this thing called SNOMED-CT.
Tim C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd like to piggyback on the end of this theme with a request for arguments > for the use of SCT in clinical practice. > Last week I visited a hospital and met the IT staff who were very keen to > develop the use of SCT for an enterprise wide "semantic Google" retrevial > engine. The meeting was very successful at the technical level but the > attendees were left with the signficant problem of what arguements they > could use to persuade/cajole/bl-----il clinical staff into supporting such a > proposal. It came down to being able to say how they would individually > gain from having such a facility. This has led me to address a wider > problem of how does one justify the introduction of SCT at various levels > of the health hierarchy, and the conclusion that different arguments would > be relevant to different levels. > I would be grateful if members of the list could give me arguments that > might be used to persuade their fellow colleagues to take up the use of > SCT. > thanks > jon _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
