David Guest wrote: > > > However, the only way we can get buy in, even from the enthusiast's on > this list, is if we can get to a primitive but usable EHR within a > defined period of time. > > All this is dependent on Ian's acceptance. If he does I have pretty > well mapped out his next few years. > > Wow, thanks for that, David. Although I am a man of leisure in comparison to Horst and others, I'm not sure I have the time (let alone the experience) to do what some are proposing with my current job. [but then I'm not sure exactly what's being proposed]. I am locked into full-time clinical work until Feb 2008.
What I would be happy to do is co-ordinate an effort by listmembers to formulate exactly what a "primitive but usable EHR" is and do the design and software architecture, on a voluntary/informal basis, using the ozdocit wiki. This process needs to happen no matter what business model is used, probably can't be done any faster with other models, and can't be delegated to non-clinicians to any real extent. Then (IMHO) we have a crack at implementation using deliberately "easy" options such as Rails, possibly augmented by contract programmers using donated money. Personally I think this is quite doable, despite my gnumed experiences, but I'm an idealist. If in the meantime official $BIG_DOLLARS appear to use Real Programmers to do the actual coding work, fine. I am seriously *not* qualified to play any real role here however. On question I'm keen to answer (which doesn't have to be answered ab inito) is whether we should have some form of company set up, mainly so we can write off our 'investments' (we've been through this before I know, but never got an answer IIRC) Ian H _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
