Tom Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>> And there is an increasing volume of real, standards adherent > messaging getting done in every state. There is nothing that should hold > you up, although I'd urge putting in sufficient effort to do it > properly. You must mean Medical-Objects messaging then Tom as thats the only standards compliant messaging that is out there. The errors in the current crop of REF messages are so serious that they are quite unsafe. The RTF/Free Text is not escaped and provider numbers are in wrong fields etc etc. >>>>>>> I think we have to agree to disagree here Chris. To really do > scaleable messaging, crystal clear demarcation is really important, > besides, as our table now shows, there is really no need to pursue > work-arounds. > > 3. We don't live in perfect world and have to get on with it. > >>>>>> Yes , but not at the risk of harming patients by taking needless > shortcuts. The ability to do Digital signatures and have interface engine functionality are added features. It seems strange that you are proud of a lack of features. I think if people are really honest then all interoperability requires some fiddling at the margins to really work. This is especially so with the lack of ahml compliance. This is the real world experience rather than the "Ivory tour" propaganda. > > 4. This country needs standardisation and is well behind. > >>>>>>>> I agree with you and I am proud that we are in the forefront of > getting standardisation happening. Again, take a look at the matrix in > the URL above. We have as you know, been working diligently on that for > years. And we are getting there. What we now really need is to have > influential user groups such as Divisions at the forefront demanding > both stringent format standardisation and high quality standards... Well you have been talking a lot but there is a long way to go and you are not carrying standards compliant messages at the moment, but Medical-Objects is. There are a lot of errors in the current messages and while we attempt to get these fixed at the source the large PMS vendors are not very good at fixing errors of listening to external parties comments or reading standards. We are happy to help them but they have to be willing to listen. We have had AHML compliance for 2 years. > While I think it is now about time that we knocked this debate on the > head for now, I have to say that I have yet to read one convincing > argument against maintaining a standards-based messaging system that is > free of short-cuts and work-around. > I agree, just as you would not deliver messages in the HIC interoperability demo unless they were AHML compliant (and in the end you did not deliver any), you should not deliver any messages until everyone else has AHML compliance as I can assure you that your message checking is deficient and the ones you transport now are not interoperable and are unsafe. Once we have perfect AHML compliant messages then we can use the simple healthlink transport safely. By the way Medical-Objects now supports Application ACKs and provides ACKs for Transport, File consumption, Application Acks and have support for View ACKs already. Andrew McIntyre Medical-Objects _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
