Peter Machell wrote: > Unless I am reading the context incorrectly, the current discussion > is all about the desire for an open EHR, not necessarily a better > one. For those willing to pay a bit more than the market leader's > rates, there are already very good products available, that have (I'm > guessing) 95% of users 95% satisfied.
> regards, > Peter. Hi Peter I started this to capture the essence of what people have been saying on this list over many years in a manageable way. Doing some of the R of R&D. Already people had thrown around ideas of not just mimicking the market leader, different development languages, product requirements, business models etc. Unless I have misread the context there is opinion that there are other things as well that needs improvement. So do you believe that an Open EHR will make an improvement for General Practice? Is this more important than say some other IT/IM development for General Practice in your mind? What other 4 things would you want? I am wondering whether everyone is happy with the current products functionality or wants something else beyond an Open EHR. Otherwise there is a single item on the list :) Item 1: Open EHR - we will need to define what that means for wider consultation of course. Thanks Geoff _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
