Your idea of tipping the database fields into the pot is exactly what I thought of years ago but had no idea how to describe it so succinctly.
Well done. Now all we need to do is to get NEHTA (or whatever they are called this week) to achieve it. Or We could go to the next conference were most developers will attend, Jointly sponsor a dinner for them, Get them all tipsy and work it out in one evening. Much cheaper for the Australian taxpayers, and as long we only serve red wine at the dinner , better for everyone's health. Andrew.C PS: who's up to sponsor ? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Machell Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2007 12:26 PM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Spectrum Classic to Medical Director conversion On 26/06/2007, at 11:51 AM, Greg Twyford wrote: What is best for our users? A single big, increasingly unresponsive corporate-owned product? A range of boutique clinical products each with low market-share and the potential for takeover, market annihilation, or disablement of a single, key developer? Hyundai isn't going to go broke anytime soon. This doesn't mean that Jaguar and BMW will. How will most Divisions, with no, little or decreasing IM&T staff time and expertise support a range of clinical products, let alone one predominant one? How is the market going to resolve any of this? How will government or Divisions resolve any of this? I can't speak for how or why divisions are or should be doing IT support, but I can tell you how I do it - hire great technicians, train them well and pay them well. Can we really recommend to anyone that they place their patients health records in any of the products in the market under the current circumstances? Possibly yes, if you have a narrow commercial self-interest. Probably no, if you have an interest in the nation's health outcomes in the long run. Leaving any interest out of it, what is the alternative? Provided the data can be extracted from the product, it's a hell of a lot better off in there than on paper. As previously discussed, we just need a meta database format that vendors are "encouraged" to support. Doing this is really easy - you put all of the existing database fields into the pot, remove the duplicates, merge where necessary, decide on a sensible naming convention and voila - there is your standard. All vendors do not have to use all fields but they must be able to export all their fields into this format. It's a couple of days work for a good DBA at most. That's the easy part taken care of. Now how do we go about getting vendors to comply with exporting? Peter.
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
