Ian Cheong wrote: > I presume this merry go round will continue until something definitive > happens and some proper standards are legislated.
Ian, I would have thought that you might have said that this merry go round will continue until the IT-014 committees and working groups of Standards Australia extracts their collective digits and develops, circulates and then promulgates an Australian standards for interoperable, cross-platform, non-proprietary secure health messaging. Had the IT-014 bunch devoted some time and energy to developing secure health messaging transport standards, instead of just concentrating exclusively on the HL7 content of those messages without regard as to how they were to be transmitted, we'd be in better shape today and not suffer the ridiculous balkanisation which currently exists. Indeed, if you look at the terms of reference in Attachment 1 of the March 2001 work plan of the IT-14-6-3 HL7 working group at https://committees.standards.org.au/COMMITTEES/IT-014-06-03/TOR/IT-014-06-03-TERMS.HTM it says: "Vision: · To develop a national approach to the implementation of the Health Level Seven (HL7) protocol in Australia. · To significantly reduce the cost and time to implement systems that use the HL7 protocol. Mission: · Create HL7 standards that are consistently implementable in Australia with localisation where req. · Effect change to HL7 int. as required by Australian needs." Surely that includes consideration of HOW messages are to be transmitted, not just WHAT the messages ought to contain? Am I being unfair or overly harsh in this criticism? It is easy to point these things out looking through the retrospectoscope, but I dare say that the looming secure health messaging mess as on the radar back in 2001 for anyone who cared to look. Opinions? Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
