> -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Frank > > That is not my attitude at all and I don't think that my message gave > that impression. I was pointing out that we thought we had learned > from what the HIC had done with the HIC Online interface. After that > experience, Horst Herb went to a lot of trouble on GPCG to propose a > more rational and less wasteful way for government to fund software > developments. Despite his clear and sensible suggestions, we are > seeing the same wasteful approach being used again by the NSW State > government.
I'm not even going to start on my opinions of the HIC Online java interface thing. The NSW Health approach is quite different tho, being based on the HL7 RSD specification, which allowed them to concentrate on developing their end of the service, and let the vendors do the necessary work to get the HL7 out. In this case I don't think there would have been an advantage to produce a single API for each vendor to interface to directly; in the long run, once you get down to the level of extracting all the relevant data that needs to go into the HL7 transactions, you may as well format it into that structure yourself, as you would spend just as much time and coding effort extracting that data and then feeding it to somebody else's API in any usable format. > Do you believe that the way that NSW Health is going about making it > possible for GPs to connect to Healtelink representts the best use of > public money? Hmm.. That's a tricky one. I believe that addressing the issues of patient identity across numerous data stores is very useful, and that was money well spent. The exercise of determining how well each vendor could meet the Australian RSD specification was worthwhile, and may lead to better implementation of coding systems and/or enhancement to the RSD spec. What you, the end-users, get back out of it will probably be debated until you grow bored with the subject, but the concept is sound. I don't know if you would find it useful to see the recent history of lab results for a patient that you were not treating previously, or the various screening measurements etc. that were recorded by another GP... do you trust this data or just start you own round of measurements and lab tests? The value will be in getting good information into the EHR, so that those making enquiries get relevant supporting information back out. In my position I do not have access to the query system, so I have no idea how well the EHR is presented to those with legitimate access to it. I am hoping it is user-friendly and well designed, and that the project proves valid in concept, even if the smallish sample group does not provide a huge database. -- Les Ferguson Business Analyst MedTech Software Ltd. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
