> Oliver Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've been pointed to: > > > > http://australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,21848256-15317,00.html > > > > E-health standards advance > > > > Karen Dearne | June 05, 2007 > > ... > > Meanwhile, NEHTA clinical product design manager Kate > Ebrill said the > > draft medications terminology for health messaging created by HL7 > > Australia and the MSIA for the federal Health Department in > 2004 (to > > support basic clinical communications) was being further > developed as > > an extension to SNOMED CT. > > > > "A lot of the work we're doing is focused on taking that model and > > looking at what is required to make that sustainable, > quality assured > > and deliverable in Australia," she said. > > > > "We're also trying to co-ordinate various inputs around the > > Therapeutic Goods Administration and the PBS." > > > > Ms Ebrill said the model was initially intended to provide a > > terminology for health messaging, but "it could also be used in > > e-prescribing and dispensing applications, as well as > shared electronic health records". > > > > "We're developing a whole lot of products that will > actually support > > health messaging, and terminologies is just one component of that," > > she said. > > Hold on.... "draft medications terminology for health > messaging created by HL7 Australia and the MSIA for the > federal Health Department in 2004"... "being further > developed as an extension to SNOMED CT. " > > So, 3 years later, a national medications terminology is > *still* being developed? A completely fundamental > building-block of clinical communications! I don't have any > problem with NEHTA doing further work on a national > medications terminology in order to integrate it with SNOMED > CT, or with NEHTA aligning inputs from the TGA and PBS, > whatever that means. But is NEHTA saying that the 2004 > medications terminology was so crappy that it was unusable? > Is that the message? So crappy that it was better for people > to use no medication terminology for the last three years, or > to just make up their own idiosyncratic medications lists and > codes. Really? > ------------
To be fair there has been serial tasks to undertake prior to the actual rollout of the medications extension to SNOMED-CT; these being the aggregation of the various Australian terminologies (government and industry) in use to describe medicines (and presumably medical devices; TGA are you listening??) from many a jurisdiction. I can't imagine the Australian Catalogue of Medicines (ACOM) would have been an easy task considering the degree of each player wishing to protect their turf/IP. I believe it has taken the TGA quite some time to actually embrace the concepts of what NEHTA is trying to achieve; the PBS has been more willing. So in this respect having this player (TGA, one of many) on board for obvious reasons is going to hold up what seems to be an easy process. Remember also that the SNOMED signoff is a relatively recent phenomenon; tasking the migration of ACOM into a congurent SNOMED dataset in itself a task to behold. However I was under the assumption that the basis of ACOM was SNOMED - any clues re this? The third stream of confusion has been the basis of ACOM, in that I had assummed that it was based on the evolving UK NHS Dictionary of Medicines and Devices. The movable feast of DM+D in itself may have added/aided to the slow progression of our own terminologies... So is the hold up the terminology, the transport of the terminology or both? Andre. PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this e-mail by mistake please notify us ASAP, and then delete this email (and any attachments). We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. Any views expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Adelaide Western General Practice Network. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
