Horst Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I want: > 1.) a ***guarantee*** that I still will be able to use my EHR software > when > - the vendor disappears from the market > - the currently supported hardware platform becomes obsolete > - the currently supported software platform becomes obsolete > > 2.) a ***guarantee*** that if I feel some changes to the software are > necessary to fulfill my needs, they ***can*** be done at a reasonable > price > > Those two points will only be fulfilled if the EHR does not depend on > any 3rd > party tools or modules that don't fulfill 1 + 2 > > 3.) I am used to a particular software platform that allows unparalleled > ease > of administration - I want my EHR software to run on that platform. But > if > one day I change my mind and prefer another (comparable) platform, I > want a > ***guarantee*** that this can be done at a reasonable price > > 4.) I want to be able to reliably back up my EHR while it is in full use > > without depending on any third party tools that may or may not become > obsolete or unsupported > > 4.a) The EHR data storage has to be replication-able without depending > on any > third party tools that may or may not become obsolete or unsupported > > 5.) I want to be able to remotely access my EHR without need for any 3rd > party > tools that may or may not become obsolete or unsupported or of dubious > security > > 6.) I want to be able to freely data mine my EHR as I see fit without > any > restrictions by the vendor > > 7.) I want to be able to export any record or ***batches of records by > my > selection criteria*** in a well defined open format any time I want > > 8.) I refuse to be forced by my EHR to unethical behaviour like watching > drug > advertising at prescribing time or similar unacceptable user coercion > > 9.) I want my software to adapt / be configurable to my preferred > workflow on > a *per user* basis, because I know the doctor next room has different > preferences > > 10.) I want to be able to outrightly purchase this software without > being > locked into any contracts (one-off payment) - if I want support I must > be > able to purchase it, but must not be forced to do so. I see no reason > to pay > a fixed yearly fee - I want to pay if and when I want more features or > support etc.
Agree with all those points, but would add (and Horst probably took this as read anyway) that the ability for third parties add functions to the software (or indeed to completely transmogrify it if they choose) without restriction - and that can only really be acheived through open source licensing. Without this ability, we are just setting up an innovation bottleneck. It is interesting to consider what the Australian GP software scene would look like now had Medical Director been open source, or even if it had had a published API and allowed third parties to develop plug-ins and extensions to it? Would we be better or worse off? I know what I think the answer to that question is. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
