Tim These transfers of notes in Australia is possible not due to government funding, but because some software developers did it because we asked. Also MD2 to BP transfers can occur with individual patients. Thirdly as mentioned to Horst, the data from MD3 to BP that don't transfer is things like recalls. And the reason why is not because BP can't, it is an MD3 export problem. Thus so far as MD2 exporting goes you can either do the whole datyaset or individual patients.
Cedric -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Churches Sent: Sunday, 1 April 2007 5:14 PM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] backup! - FOSS databases vs entrenched solutions Cedric Meyerowitz wrote: > Horts & Greg > > BP will export & import patient files from BP. BP will fully convert > a whole MD2 dataset from MD2 & import it (& does it so easy and > perfect, that you don't need some-one to hold your hand), BP will > import patients singly from MD3 with all past notes etc present. A > few items don't convert like recalls (because of HCN problems). Now > the opposite does not apply. MD2 won't import patients from BP, nor will MD3 import MD2 as far as we know. > MD3 can't import BP data as far as we know. So some players have tried to > make things work, but others hasn't. > > As you know some other players also have conversion programs from MD2 > to theirs, but the reverse again doesn't apply. > > We were all given a link to an article from the UK. I give the link > again. http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2546 > > Now some feedback from the UK says & I quote: "I guess any good news > has to be promoted by NPfIT but the GP2GP figures don't make as good > reading when you realise it only includes EMIS and INPS systems and > 80% of those are EMIS. Where's TPP, iSOFT, etc? OK if you transfer > from on EMIS practise to another but not if you move to a non-EMIS > practise". > > So in Australia if a patient moves from BP practice to BP practice - > we are okay, if from MD2 to BP and a few others, then we are better > than the UK as coversions from MD2 to a few software packages already > exist(in UK currently only has 2 systems involved). And if patient > moves from MD3 to BP we are also okay - and this is without government > funding. Yet this list got rather excited about the UK development, > forgetting that here down under things are not so bad. Cedric, If I am reading what you say above correct, it seems that *no* heterogeneous pair of Australian GP clinical systems can completely transfer data for a single patient from one to the other: MD2->BP: whole database only MD3->BP: single patient data transfer possible but not everything is transferred. BP->MD2 or MD3: nope So how exactly is that better than the UK? BTW, whole database conversions between other packages in the UK do also exist - however the GP2GP programme is all about on-demand transfer of all data about an individual patient, via the NHS network backbone, and the completeness and integrity of the transfers is independently and fairly exhaustively tested and validated by the NHS IT authority. Tim C > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Greg Twyford > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 4:31 PM > To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] backup! - FOSS databases vs entrenched solutions > > > Horst Herb wrote: > >> There is choice as long as you are not locked in - and currently >> virtually every single GP you ask when questioned why not chnagng the >> product they seem to detest so much is that there is no safe and easy >> migration path to alternatives > > Horst, > > This is an interesting but depressing observation in the context of > the > discussion in hand. > > What you have really touched on is the stagnation of the GP clinical > system marketplace because a real path forward can't be identified. All > the paths on offer seem to risk leading back to a similar quagmire. > > I think that any new players will have to look very carefully at what > they offer, and it seems to me that if Simon's two new players end up > producing two new versions of the 'same-old, same-old', then their > chances of surviving are very poor indeed. > > Every new player claims revolutionary new features and unparalleled > functionality and stability, but I think the market has become jaded by > such claims, which they've heard ad nauseam, hence the stagnation. > > Contrary to what Simon has asserted, a really radical FOSS solution > might work in gaining market share, but that leaves us wondering where > it will emerge from. > > Greg _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
