David W Forslund wrote:
As I said above we need a lot more than the ability to be able to move
data from one information system to another. We should be able to have
a distributed set of resources that can be integrated on the fly as
needed. Nothing less than this will really benefit the patient, IMHO.
This is what we have been trying to do for the past 5 years. But our
success in getting people to understand what we are proposing has been
poor. We are not claiming "our" system should have all the data or that
people need to do what we are doing. We only claim that people should
be trying to agree on providing integrated information following the
various international standards. We have attempted to demonstrate a
way to do this. Most systems that have been developed appear to want to
handle all of the patient data, not be a component of a distributed
medical record system.
For the record (damn, bad pun...) we completely support this view, although
I recognise our documentation makes it look like we think all patient data should
be in
the one place. I am agnostic about where it should be, and since I know that
the technology that Dave talks about exists and works, I will remain agnostic
(i.e. I don't
have to care - the EHR can be in one piece or many).
I wish we could spend more time on synchronising with HDTF (ex Corbamed) but
we will get there. At the moment, we are spending resources on archetypes.
> I don't know if GEHR and FreePM are ready to participate but I am most
> interested in finding out from Thomas and Tim whether they are
> interested.
>
I think everyone is interested in participating. GEHR, in particular,
has been working hard on archetypes which are crucial for the success of
what I'm suggesting.
We hope to have a version of the editor ready for download in the next couple
of months, with access to an online archetype repository containing experimental
archetypes.
- thomas beale
