They did it for business reasons - it had nothing to do with govt funding
You dont see a BP -> MD3 transfer for the same reason
R
Cedric Meyerowitz wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
