> David Guest wrote: >Despite our failures over the last seven years, the parlous state of >Australian medical software makes me think we should try again. > >I am all for autocracy but an oligarchy rather than a dictator may >suffice. I am taken with Dave Clark's aphorism, “We reject: kings, >presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code.” > >It should be open source and probably run on postgres, unless somebody >can convince me of a better alternative. It should steal ruthlessly from >gnumed, Oscar and any other open source project that could be of >assistance. > >It needs to operate efficiently over a wide are network and have an >authentication model for doctors, allied health and patients for remote >data input and extraction. > >It needs to be modular. > >It may well benefit from associating itself with the Health openWare >Foundation now that they seem to understand open source. > >It should relentlessly seek funding from the few millions sloshing >around in the Feds' Health IT budget which the Feds do not know how to >usefully employ. > >It should work closely with government health departments and academic >institutions dedicated to health care research. > >It should be undertaken as a commercial operation and as a rough guide >it should cost users $A1000 per year. > >It would have to have the minimal functionality needed to operate from a >GP practice within 6 to 12 months. It would have to have a high >likelihood of a user base of twenty or more within 18 to 24 months. > >It needs to be done. > >It should be done. > >David >
And it should be cross-platform, and it can be done - but not by altruistic doctors coding in their spare time. This is a job for a professional software development company. Those holding the purse-strings should talk to Peter Richardson: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Mac _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
