To err is human. To really screw up requires a computer. I presume every one on this list has heard this trite little phrase. Sadly, medicines widespread variation allows almost anything to be an improvement. Not that I think we should lower standards as we sorely need all the help we can get. Most telling is the history of Medicare's annual mortality reports in the 80's. AMA and AHA were successful in killing the reports because they were "flawed." Admittedly they needed improvement - which was in the plan. However, their flaws were less than a good many new surgical procedures and drugs coming on the market.
Certainly, VistA is an advance. Hopefully, the naysayer critics won't kill its advantages. Computer error checks and reminders create a lot of quality improvement. Thanks, thurman > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardhats- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory Woodhouse > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 9:23 PM > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com > Cc: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Hardhats-members] Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards > proprietary software?? > > > On Mar 25, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > > > ....and...at the risk of stating the obvious there should be some > > mechanism for evaluating the certification authority and the > > criteria... > > > > Sadly, I don't know how many people are even thinking in those terms. > What we are discussing here is software quality (meaning fitness for > a particular purpose), and it may well be that people with the > appropriate expertise are not well represented in this process. > Worse, the current standard (in medicine, one might say "standard of > care") in this area is heavily biased towards testing and informal > (if any) requirements definition. Formal methods, automated proof > systems, rigorous specifications, and so forth are all thought of as > rather esoteric or "academic" (purposely using what Guy L. Steele > perceptively called horror quotes in his thesis!) I know I've written > correctness proofs for no reason but to satisfy myself that an > algorithm I developed was correct. It's not such a terrible thing. > Perhaps medicine is an area where we ought to start thinking about > setting aside industry standard practice and thinking in terms of > more rigorous methods of validating softwares -- which, after all is > used in patient care! > > === > Gregory Woodhouse > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "And the end of all our exploring > will be to arrive where we started > And know the place for the first time" > -- T.S. Eliot > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
