Tim Churches wrote:
syan tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
oops, wrong here as well. It's not bad ; it is probably strongly bound
to the underlying middleware zope and plone, but the organization is
not clueless. It's a little different from gnumed .
For instance, it has a consultation and a progress note, and a
procedural report section ( eg echo, stress test). the consultation
and progress note section look identical, single text box entry
but associated with a date field and a doctor field. The procedural
report section looks like what the consultation section should look
like, e.g. with free text boxes for every aspect of a medical report
with the option of importing existing information in each section
e.g. past history, medications, allergies .
The script section does look like a database row entry, but is as
simplified as what is normally usable, e.g. free text drug name,
free text script instructions, with boxes for quantity and repeats,
and script validity date. It also adds some script mx functions such
as retirement of medication and reason for retirement.
The immunization and allergy sections look not done.
The results and documents section look like file upload screens
with metadata entry, but the results section gives the hint that an
attempt will be made to parse the file uploaded for metadata
information, such as which patient, and category of result.
There is a section for entry of vital signs;
recalls are called health maintenances , with three fields , recall
date, type of recall, and reason for recall / eh .. health maintenance.
The appointments section is adequate too - it has 3 views,
month by hour, giving rapid overview of available appointments,
multiple doctors view for the secretaries, and single doctor's view
for doctors, pretty much basically what we get in oz.
So it is better than openemr, and it looks like several months work,
given it might have gone over one iteration, unless the guy
who did it worked it out on paper first, and worked within the
limitations of his platform, which is what it looks like, so it
could have been several weeks work.
Yes, yes, fine, OK, whatever, but the political point that I am trying to make
is that building a capable and very sound open-source primary care EMR for
Australia is *not* a few afternoons work, not even for Horst, but *nor* is it a
$100 million exercise. It is, instead, about 8 to 10 person-years effort by
half a dozen smart people working full-time on the project over the course of
12-18 months of calendar time, at a total cost of $1.5 to $2 million. I can
think of no more cost-effective investment to improve of our nation's health
than that, because it would save hundreds of millions by simplifying the
creation of shared EHRs and other initiatives, and it would provide an open
platform for a whole range of decision-support, quality assurance and public
health program plug-ins. And much more.
Tim C
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 07:01 +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
Well, that's its name. It is a new, open source, Web-based EMR for the
US market, based on Zope and Plone, which are intriguing but probably
quite sound choices for infrastructure (uses an object database, not a
relational database - makes much sense for clinical data). See
http://www.uemr.com/index.html
Probably not usable as-is in the Oz setting, but yet another
demonstration that it *is* possible to create viable open source
clinical apps with very modest investment. They mention "four years of
effort", probably by one to three people - thus around 10 person-years
of effort. That's around $1.5-2.0 million of investment. Would be
money
well spent by a govt agency or even a private philanthropic concern in
the Australian setting (or even sponsorship by a private health
insurance company - what better way to promote yourself but to have
posters in GPs' waiting rooms say "the computer software used by this
practice is proudly sponsored by...". No need to wait 4 years: half a
dozen smart people could do it in 12-18 months, with increasingly
polished prototypes to show off and get active feedback at monthly
intervals along the way. That's what Australian patients and health
professionals deserve.
Tim C
_______________________________________________
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
Tim,
Maybe you should suggest this to Ian Reinecke.
All their lovely standards could be incorporated as the development goes on.
Greg
--
Greg Twyford
Information Management & Technology Program Officer
Canterbury Division of General Practice
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph.: 02 9787 9033
Fax: 02 9787 9200
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
***********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files,
including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited
from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended
recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is
prohibited.
All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
