On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 17:27, Tim Churches wrote:
> Alas, Dave is correct. ZODB is fine but its scalability is not that ... > or at least in the middleware. Dave will > argue that that is what the OMG HDTF corbaMED RAD (resource access > decision) service specification is for - and he is right:
100% agreement there.
> Yup. Individual clinic systems should not be physically located in > individual clinics - they should be hosted in large data centres > designed to run 24x365. But that doesn't mean that the data stored in > the hosted individual clinic systems can't be under the sole control of > those individual clinics.
I'm interested in the implementation plan for this concept. Especially when related to your other post about privacy concerns and database administrators.
Doesn't consolidating multiple clinical systems in one location put more records at risk of theft at one time?
This is akin to the ASP model which increases the risk that my physician can't get to my record due to some service interruption outside of my geographical area. If the power is out in my local clinic then getting to my record isn't the only problem we have. If a backhoe cuts a fiber 100 miles away it'll be darn frustrating.
Availability is one of the big arguments why a local hospital wants the
data in their total control. Even then it might not be accessible, but it
makes them feel in control. I had to give a talk at a hospital the other
day and the network wouldn't let them move a file to a machine across the hall.
We had to resort to burning a CD! I think caching servers that can coordinate
to make sure they are up to date at some time interval can deal with
most of the problems associated with availability of records. Obviously
high availability is critical for records and is why some still believe in paper records.
Dave
Later, Tim
