Jon, In brief the value of SCT will need to be looked at in terms of functionality of their current IT systems and where the users expect to be in future. (The aim is that the end user should not be making decisions or even knowing that they are using SCT (once appropriate interfaces have been developed- we might be a bit away from that at present.)
The transfer of the general case for the use of structured and standard knowledge representation in health IT systems to specific situations such as you describe requires an analysis of the above issues and a degree of input from clinical informaticians/terminologists who can bridge the divide between the users and the technology. Happy to assist. Having joined this thread after the start I apologise if I have missed some key information. Regards Peter MacIsaac MacIsaac Informatics www.macisaacinformatics.org Consulting in Health Informatics, Terminology & Data management and Health Policy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0411403462 (mobile) 61611327 (office) peter_macisaac (skype) 8 Ewart St. Yarralumla 2600 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Churches Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 7:48 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: [GPCG_TALK] Arguments for the use of SNOMED CT (SCT) 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 9/08/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 11/08/2006 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
