On 01/09/2006, at 12:57 AM, john dooley wrote:
But, just to correct you here....the average GP definitely does not install their own download proprietary crap (you do but you are the vocal minority). They just snap their fingers and the path firm sends out a minion and does it for them ...I'd value that service at $300 a site per visit - money well spent?
I need to come and work for you. In our case, the maximum cost for a half hour on-site visit (in which time we could install several of these on multiple machines, and Argus too) would be less than $110, assuming it was an ad hoc request for which we had to travel. Local or contracted sites would pay less.
well on this list I think its not been appreciated over the years. As for the cries of instability, Im a bit over that too. Im no IT guru. I know just enough to get by, but my wifes server has quite happily ticked along with practically no interruption to the pathology results flow with a half dozen download clients clogging its brain. Christ if I can get it to run stable then some smart IT fellas ought to have it beating Kasparov in the background.
Your sample is of one. It's typical, and although performance will suffer (particularly if they each run in their own JRE) reliability won't usually suffer. I have seen many installations where reliability has suffered, regard Java as a still unstable platform, and prefer not to have it on a server.
I have numerous situations in recent memory where the result got to the target import directory in AHML compliant HL7 or PIT and the clinical package choked on the import. I suppose you want me to contribute to the clincial software packages so that the import works too.
I'm sure you have John as you are the concentrating factor for these concerns. When I was working for a health software vendor and HL7 was being implemented by the big labs up here, we got more calls than the labs did, simply because we were more accessible. We would usually end up fixing the formatting of the HL7 for them and sending them an email detailing it, because this was quicker and less frustrating for the user. So it goes both ways. I assume it's easier for clients to call you than the leading software vendors.
Sure Ive got an axe to grind here. And I have tried so hard not to read this list lately too, I just get so depressed for the image of my discipline and these posts add to a long day.
<snip>
Bring on an open standard so you can use what you like and I can use what I like and we can all communicate reliably. You know I want open interoperable communication.
As do we all. You are right in calling this group a vocal minority, so I can't see this issue affecting your business in the short term. Hopefully though we are contributing to future standards and I don't see the big guys contributing or listening to this list (or any other). You will be better off than them if you take heed of these discussions.
I don't see anyone bashing you for making a business decision for which you have explained your motives. You obviously need to let this run its course when alternatives like Argus are going to cost more. But surely you can understand the frustration when doctor is asked to install or have installed his seventh or eighth proprietary, non- inter-operative download client?
Peter. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
