At 9:44 am +1000 15/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Sadly, there are ongoing serious problems with attitudes to work
happening in health informatics, which are fundamentally rooted in
government procurement policies.
The usual way is:
* draw up a request for tender
* exclude anybody who actually knows much from inputting into the RFT
because they may have a conflict of interest or may be interested in
submitting a proposal
* tender out the work on some basis
The problem with that method is:
* RFTs are poorly framed at the outset
* a poorly framed RFT is guaranteed to produce a poorly framed output
* knowledge is systematically destroyed as tenderers retain most of
the knowledge and they do not have any continuity of input
A solution to that problem in part was the GPCGs "open tender
development process", whereby experts could have input into RFTs
prior to the secret business happening. In practice, that process was
never trialled due to time restrictions.
The ongoing problem is that there is still (unless it has changed and
I missed it - anybody know anythign different) no significant core
funding for health informatics research and a puny number of
qualified health informatics researchers given the magnitude of
investment.
Core funding for health informatics research is still critical and
HISA has made that representation in the past.
Ian.
--
Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec)
Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(for urgent matters, please send a copy to my practice email as well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
PRIVACY NOTE
I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists.
Please ask my permission first if you wish to forward private email
to other parties.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
