Andre,
Is this an invitation for a willing group of interested parties to take heir
own initiative to create an EHR standard that they might then promote to the
relevant parties.
jon
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:46:45 +0930
From: Andre Duszynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oliver Frank wrote:
> john hilton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think governments should dictate the software and I don't=20
>> think it is up to "us" to write the programs, but if someone (I guess=20
>> it comes back to governments) set the standard ( These are the=20
>> database fields- you must conform to them) then the softwares would be=
=20
>> a degree of magnitude more open.
>=20
> I would be happy for government to set the standards, as long as the=20
> standards are developed in conjunction with our professional=20
> organisations and medical software providers (commercial and=20
> non-commercial), and those professional organisations and software=20
> providers agree to the proposed standards. What we don't need is a=20
> bunch of government bureaucrats who are not GPs sitting around,=20
> consulting secretly with expensive non GPs, and then trying to dictate=20
> standards for which there is not widespread support or which are=20
> unworkable. NEHTA is working on standards, but I haven't yet seen=20
> anything come out of NEHTA that seems very relevant to general practice=
=20
> informatics. Ian Cheong and others who are better acquainted with=20
> NEHTA's activities may be able to tell us if I am wrong about this.
>=20
In late-February 2006, NEHTA released the =93Review of Shared Electronic=20
Health Record Standards=94.
In respect to the use of CEN EN13606 as the Australian Shared EHR=20
Architecture Standard, this can only be regarded as =93a specification fo=
r=20
exchange of EHR Extracts=94 and cannot act in the capacity as a full EHR=20
system; hence the nomenclature of Shared EHR Content.
The CEN EN13606 standard through the absence of a complete reference=20
model is unable to furnish functionality to an electronic health record=20
set. The base ontology of CEN EN13606 is therefore considered to be=20
limited in its ability to define clinical concepts within a pre-existing=20
and robust ontology.
I'm thinking that no further progress will be made in defining a=20
standard complete EHR model for use within primary care; more so that a=20
clinical information system should be capable of outputting an extract=20
based on CEN EN13606. Game on...
Andre.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
Jon
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
