On 9/13/05, Matthew King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hardhats,The Community Health Centers in AZ are forming the Arizona Integrated Network (AIN) to formally integrate information technology services, financial management, and clinical initiatives. We are have included VistA Office in our EHR evaluation. Last Wednesday we met in Page, AZ and I was shocked when one of the lead collaborators to the CMS project (by conference call) basically concluded her VistA product evaluation by saying she couldn't recommend it. Her reasons included poor interfacing capabilities, out-dated language (M) and missing modules needed for community health centers. She also believed the costs to implement and support it would pretty much offset any software cost savings. (She did say it was wonderful for the VA.)Later, when evaluating a second (commerical) product, she mentioned many of the same problems, but was optimistic they would be easy to achieve by working with the vendor. During the discussions this became clear:1) Everybody has an opinion of VistA, of most of it based on incomplete or faulty information.2) Commercial Vendors have a lot of influence on the decision-makers in my health-care setting.3) Our IT experts really don't understand Mumps or Open Source philosophy or software. They either feel threatened or that it is not reliable or compatible enough to run in our healthcare environment.The resulting baised view means it is difficult for Stakeholders like myself to make informed decisions. With the interest in VistA increasing exponentially, this problem will increase.I wonder if we could start a Wiki that (non-techie) decision-makers can ask and receive accurate information regarding VistA and its flavors. Maybe compatibility issues, support cost issues and the like can be addressed. Ultimately, this would save a ton of work and help straighten out all the misconceptions flying around.Thank you,Matthew King, MDMedical DirectorClinica Adelante, IncSurprise, AZ
