Oliver Frank wrote: > So now the Hunter has an awful problem - one didnt talk to the other - we > will have 130 practices with Medical-Objects and over 200 specialists > with > Argus!! > > I cannot imagine that those 200 odd specialists will want to fork out > $450 > each just to receive or send correspondence to GP's, which is what > they have > all shown interest in. > > Something has to give....... > > What do you do when contracts have been signed though?! I am not sure that I am on top of this thread as it seems to have been pulled off nat-div in fragments, but, as I understand it, Medical Objects is very similar to Argus and perhaps even more sophisticated. I am told it has a clever LDAP tree structure that starts searching for other users in the local node before escalating to ?state and national levels. Compared to Argus it is light weight and easy to install, being written in non-java. It may however be Windows only as a result. Most technically illiterate medical specialist secretaries can install it with remote help. It is very popular in our Division. It works flawlessly for us and the help desk was knowledgeable and fast on the two occasions I needed them. It is a commercial undertaking and not open source.
All data is sent through the Medical Objects servers and they can do message processing in transit. This functionality is similar to that which Argus provides in the Rules section of the software and is necessary so you can get the information in the right spot in MD3. (BP, ?Genie and others allows you to do this at the application level.) I understand that Argus and Medical Objects have setup a gateway so one group can talk to the other. I am not familiar with how this works in practice for either product. This is wonderful from an end user's point of view but a challenge for both companies' business models. We live in interesting times. David _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
