Tom,Geoff,Andrew,
It would be more dignified if commercial interests or any attempt to serve them
were kept off a GP information exchange forum. That whas why I left it before
and will do so again if it is dominated by discussions about various
competitive positions and philosophies.
John Johnston
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom Bowden
Sent: Wed 3/21/2007 10:15 PM
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
Cc:
Subject: [GPCG_TALK] Note to Andrew MacIntyre
Andrew,
While it was tempting to ignore your last posting, it contains various
insinuations and inaccuracies that go a bit beyond the usual level of
exaggeration found in day-to-day competitive banter.
1 You say in your email below ..."I do not think you can say you have
the full support of the other vendors".
Whereas I simply (and accurately) stated..."Our paper, and the
accompanying draft code of practice (both of which are receiving support from a
range of parties including other messaging system providers)....."
2 You say "To suggest you have a contract with every player is
unworkable"...
That doesn't tally with our experience, why ever not? There are not an
infinite number of players.
3 You say "We tested the REF message support in January"
Fine but it is now March and a number of parties have been working on
the matter since that time.
4 You do not think that the relationship between messaging and
clinical vendors should be a financial one.
OK, but not everyone shares that view. Who will recognise the vendors
contribution to support, testing of systems etc, etc? Why should they support
a messaging vendor's business at no cost? With respect, that is a commercially
naïve stance. We have always had commercial relationships with our partners,
they are in place now, they are working well and we will continue doing so.
5 I am puzzled by your reference to our shareholder/joint venture
partner "Orion Health", neither they nor we sell any clinical applications to
general practices, specialists or similar providers. Part of taking a sound
commercial approach is being very clear about the fact that we won't compete
with our alliance partners (either directly or indirectly) in fact we do
everything we can to make them successful. I think this needs particular
emphasis, I do not wish to be misunderstood on this matter.
6 You say you offered to integrate your tools with HealthLink. My
recollection of the "offer" is that we expressed interest in doing so on a
proper commercial basis rather than under some form of ad-hoc arrangement, upon
which news your interest ceased.
Andrew, I think that in fairness to other list members, you should
launch any further attacks offline. Alternatively you could restrict your
correspondence to constructive and slightly more light-hearted dialogue on
these rather arcane matters.
Kind regards,
Tom Bowden
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew
McIntyre
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2007 10:53 a.m.
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Management of Messaging
Thanks Tom,
>From our discussions with the other vendors I do not think you can say
you have the full support of the other vendors.
Our position it that we we should be using common open interfaces and
that the interface to the clinical system should also be standard (Ideally the
same in fact).
To suggest that you have a contract with every player is unworkable.
The contract is that they process Compliant messages in a reasonable way and
produce compliant messages.
We tested the REF message support in January in the Hunter and it is
still not working to an acceptable extent. You had been testing it for
12 months prior.
I do not think the relationship between messaging and Clinical vendors
should be a financial one, but a standards based one, You have not responded or
given any assurances there.
We may well have software components that overlap in functionality with
other vendors but in a component based world that is always the case. As a "Son
of Orion", Healthlink also has that issue. Our components are actually in use
by other vendors and it allows them to produce AHML compliant HL7 messages
easily, and at this point in time I would argue that just messaging is not
enough to make it work, and we have demonstrated that we can make it work
between GPs and specialists now.
The actual messaging is only part of the story. Compliance with
standards and message transformation to achieve that is another layer that is
needed now.
We even offered to integrate our tools to integrate with Healthlink
sending, but you declined.
Andrew McIntyre
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
John Johnston
Pen Computer Systems Pty Ltd
Level 6, The Barrington
10-14 Smith Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Ph: (02) 9635 8955
Fax: (02) 9635 8966
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
