Thomas Beale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > published evaluations are hard to come by; there are several > incarnations of GEHR which had (and still have) commercial success; > evaluations of the work we did in Australia do have reports > associated > with them, which the commonwealth owns, and we are not allowed to > give > out. Probably the most available reports would be on the UCL systems > (pre-openEHR but archetype-based) which have been in production for a > couple of years or so; I would have to find out what reports are > available. > The openEHR implementations in the works will come online in the next > year or so; evaluations of them come during/after that of course.
Even in the absence of readily available working implementations of openEHR back-ends and other tools, I think people will still be influenced by informal and formal evaluations and reports on pilot implementations. But these do have to be published (online is fine). Assurances in an email message from members of the core openEHR team that "it worked well when we tried it" don't cut the mustard with managers (like me) who are deciding if and when to invest resources in openEHR, or something else. Tim C
