Ian Haywood wrote: > > 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.
Sure, but the answer to that question decides whether the logical next steps are cutting Ruby-on-Rails code or developing a proposal for funding and going out to spruik it. As I said, the two paths are not mutually exclusive, and they can support and co-operate with each other. > 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. Agreed, and I noted that fact previously. Private sector philanthropy (with a pinch of public relations thrown in) is far more likely a source of funding, and even then the probability is small - but so small that it is not worth trying? Not sure about that yet. > 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.] Torvalds wrote a clone of the Minix kernel, which was indeed pretty minimal. If the aim is to clone one of the existing closed source GP EHR/EMRs, then the task is a much smaller one. However, I would question whether that is worth doing. Maybe it is, and it is better to be less ambitious (but wiser). BTW, by "funded developers" I don't mean just IT professionals. Funding GPs to be able to spend a serious chunk of time working their brains really hard on the requirements is a vital part of it. Finding locums to backfill them is the hardest part, of course - something which money can't buy in many cases. >> 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) OK. We definitely share a common set of wishes and motivations, just some slightly different, but probably complementary ideas about how to get there. From a risk management perspective, all feasible paths to that end should be pursued as long as they continue to appear, well, feasible. Happy to comment on clinical functional requirements and to contribute some population health ones if you like - but not until Dec, alas - have two months of national and state level flu pandemic exercises approaching, rapidly. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
