Tim Churches wrote: > > Personnally I am dubious that a volunteer-only, "traditional" open source > project, as GNUmed has been, can succeed in creating a > production-readyhigh-quality primary care EHR/EMR in a reasonable timeframe > (or any timeframe). All of the extant, in-production open source EHR/EMR > systems have been funded projects with a core of full-time developers, aided > and abetted by volumteers and supporters. > That's true, but two points: 1/ Currently funded or volunteer-only is really a hypothetical question as there is no funding. It would be a fairly major ideological shift for our government to intervene in the market (such as it exists) and fund an opensource EHR. 2/ Is an EHR more or less complicated than a Unix kernel? [Torvalds' advantage was the requirements of the system were fairly well specified when he started, we have to do requirements as well. However, you can't professionalise out the requirements phase anyway.] > I suppose I am a bit unclear what "our situation", as you put it, actually > is. I think our situation is a group of clinicians who want to see an open-source EHR in Australia, with some idealism, but largely for solid pragmatic reasons, who can either wait a very, very long time for Government/Divisions/vendors to 'do something' or take the initiative ourselves (I agree this in no way preclude a formal structure coming in later)
Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
