Tom Bowden wrote: > > Andrew, > > I think its time we called a halt to the polemics, or we'll get > ourselves biffed off this list. BTW For the record, HealthLink does > have AHML accreditation for our AS4700.2 - HL7 v2.3 (lab messaging) > validation system and we are currently upgrading that accreditation to > accommodate changes to the lab standard with the move to HL7 v2.4. We > are also working with them on the REF messaging. It needs to be > understood that we do not create messages, we just check them for > structure. So can we let that whole argument drop for now please??
I think letting it drop is the best idea, as you continue to make false claims that you have AHML accreditation for your validation system and AHML assure us that this is not the case. The validation system you have may prevent you from sending your shopping list but that's about it. All this talk of healthlink validating messages is an obstacle in the road to standards based interoperability. As I have asserted what we need is independent accreditation of messages produced and an expectation that systems will reliably import valid messages and deal with them appropriately. A messaging system with a standard open interface would also good protection from monopolistic cartels developing. PMS vendors have an obligation to their customers and in turn to the Customers patients to improve their ability to consume and produce valid messages, Its a quality issue that I cannot believe is left to so much chance. This may not fit well with your vision of an Australian monopoly but the fact remains that the current crop of messages you are delivering are non standards compliant and have serious flaws wrt the escaping of HL7 reserved characters that would concern me greatly. A whole pile of contracts is not going to get us out of this mess, but standards compliance and open interfaces just might. What we do now really mirrors what the pathology labs do now, they have extensive interface engine abilities etc etc and I am yet to here of successful wide scale successes using healthlink for provider to provider messaging. I suggest talking about that rather than attacking other peoples success stories. Andrew McIntyre > > I have given some thought as to how we might debate what I still think > is quite a serious issue in a more dignified manner. I am starting the > ball rolling by outlining the issue a bit more objectively. Please do > feel free to modify what I have written below if you believe it is > factually incorrect or incomplete or if you'd like to add anything. > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
