Discussion about the need to put money into research has prompted me to write to the list to itemise our current research activities and their funding. 1. Mapping of ICPC2PLus to SCT - 60% of terms completed computationally and manually verified, 20% computed but highly ambiguous and needs resolution, 20% not a match, to be manually mapped. (1 scholarhsip $4000, FMRC) 2. ICD-10AM pilot done over summer of 2005-06 indicated basic strategies to be taken, now continued this year concentrating on mapping melanoma and SCT-O3 to ICD-10AM (2 scholarships $10,500, NCCH) 3. TextToSCT in progress and Version2 completed and about to be released on our website. (2 scholarships, $8000, NCCH & SchoolIT, 1 USyd APRA, $18K) 4. Terminology server for SCT and other mapped terminologies for delivering SCT to Information Systems;in progress (2 scholarships, NCCH, 10,500)
So you can see that we are well supported by NCCH but not much from others, and we have no systematic funding, everything is on a very small project budget and really we are garnishing internal resources. Furthermore it is unclear as to whom we can turn to get systemic funding as "developing software" has no niche funding source. NeHTA have told us they are not a granting body although they agree we would be candidates as contractors for the appropriate type of work. Nevertheless we hope to have a good crop of outcomes by the end of the year. jon > > I agree that seed funding and pilot or demonstration projects are > needed, but projects in the $20k range are way too little given the time > pressures you mention to produce results. rather larger investment in > the development of SCT interfaces is needed first up. When such > interfaces are ready - and if paid for by public funds, they *must* be > open sourced - then $20k demonstration grants to practices to start > trialling them might be in order, although larger coordinated studies > would be better. > > > When one invests a seven digit sum of public money, the clock is > running > > to demonstrate effectiveness within a political cycle. > > Does that also apply to the nine-digit sum of public money invested in > HealthConnect/MediConnect? I suppose it does, since these programmes > have undergone a very quiet involution some two electoral cycles are > their inception. > > Tim C > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
