Richard Hosking wrote: > I reckon get *something* going as an OSS program without worrying too > much about the design. Make sure it is easily extensible and then > improve it later as there is takeup.
I'm not sure that one can have the latter (easily extensible) without the former (worrying too much about the design). However, it is certainly possible to do quick-and-dirty systems and then discard them, treating each iteration as a more advanced prototype than the last - but it takes a certain dispassionate ruthlessness to toss hard work in the rubbish bin after extracting the useful lessons from it. But it is better than extending badly designed systems ad infinitum. Tim C > Andre Duszynski wrote: > >> >> >> Oliver Frank wrote: >> >>> john hilton wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I don't think governments should dictate the software and I don't >>>> think it is up to "us" to write the programs, but if someone (I >>>> guess it comes back to governments) set the standard ( These are the >>>> database fields- you must conform to them) then the softwares would >>>> be a degree of magnitude more open. >>> >>> >>> I would be happy for government to set the standards, as long as the >>> standards are developed in conjunction with our professional >>> organisations and medical software providers (commercial and >>> non-commercial), and those professional organisations and software >>> providers agree to the proposed standards. What we don't need is a >>> bunch of government bureaucrats who are not GPs sitting around, >>> consulting secretly with expensive non GPs, and then trying to >>> dictate standards for which there is not widespread support or which >>> are unworkable. NEHTA is working on standards, but I haven't yet >>> seen anything come out of NEHTA that seems very relevant to general >>> practice informatics. Ian Cheong and others who are better >>> acquainted with NEHTA's activities may be able to tell us if I am >>> wrong about this. >>> >> >> In late-February 2006, NEHTA released the “Review of Shared Electronic >> Health Record Standards”. >> >> In respect to the use of CEN EN13606 as the Australian Shared EHR >> Architecture Standard, this can only be regarded as “a specification >> for exchange of EHR Extracts” and cannot act in the capacity as a full >> EHR system; hence the nomenclature of Shared EHR Content. >> >> The CEN EN13606 standard through the absence of a complete reference >> model is unable to furnish functionality to an electronic health >> record set. The base ontology of CEN EN13606 is therefore considered >> to be limited in its ability to define clinical concepts within a >> pre-existing and robust ontology. >> >> I'm thinking that no further progress will be made in defining a >> standard complete EHR model for use within primary care; more so that >> a clinical information system should be capable of outputting an >> extract based on CEN EN13606. Game on... >> >> Andre. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gpcg_talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >> > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
