2006/3/23, Ignacio Valdes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The goal of the http://www.mirthproject.org/ Mirth Project is to
develop an open source cross-platform HL7 interface engine that
enables bi-directional sending of HL7 messages between systems and
applications over multiple transports. By
David Forslund wrote:
I think there is an intermediate position here. In my experience these
standards, far from perfect, are
good enough to gain experience and see them work in practice. The
resulting models and infrastructure
are actually rather easy to change into new paradigms, I
This continues to be a good discussion. I highlighted some small
snippets of previous replys because I think they get at two of the other
significant factors involved in uptake of systems.
Business models
Clinical care models
(My perspective is limited to the USA).
Whatever else we might
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based
system.
Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to
consider
group action in the issue.
The first issue is pricing. It will cost a $25,000 to $35,000 one-time
fee
to perform the test. After
This is a US initiative...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based
system.
Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to
consider
group action in the issue.
The first issue is pricing. It will cost
[I hope you don't mind if I copy this to Hardhats. I think it is a
topic of interest to both communities.]
I have mixed feelings here. It seems completely reasonable to want to
have an accreditation/certification process for health information
systems (though the jurisdiction issue is certainly a
You are right we should not receive a by we do need to make concrete
suggestions as to how the same organization can accomplish open source
evaluations...
Here are the suggestions from emrupdate.com
emrupdate
1. Markedly decrease your up-front fees and eliminate the percent
royalties
Thomas Beale wrote:
Tim.Churches wrote:
Why Wikipedia doesn't have one is a mystery to me. Why it is as good as
it is (however good you think it is) is also a mystery.
It is wrong to think of wikipedia as an open source/open content
project. In fact, it is about 1 million
The evolving work-social phenomena are sure interesting. Toyota, and
agriculture research adopting the approach is pretty cool.
I believe there are a LOT of companies incorporating open source work
into RFPs and proposals to get a contract without even talking to the
original developers - this
Can anyone post the link again to the files section? Thanks!
Richard
Will Ross wrote:
oops. now i posted the document in the openhealth files section.
[wr]
- - - - - - - -
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:01 PM, David Forslund wrote:
As you probably noticed, images (and attachments) are
I'd prefer to assume that the CCHIT pricing model is simply biased
toward software companies that can produce a viable product. And by
that I mean a software product that stimulates revenue for a company at
some point - which in our case is not through the sale of software licenses.
Nothing
Rod Roark wrote:
This is equivalent to ignoring the practical issues that Fred raised.
I disagree. The practical issues Fred raised are real concerns, but the
software companies we're competing against throw a *lot* of money into
validation and certification - especially HIPAA compliance (in
Fred Trotter wrote:
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system.
Fred, you don't think that the CCHIT pricing is biased against software
released under other types of free, open source licenses?
Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to
Nice work flow diagram.
One of the more difficult things I've encountered in 10+ years of health
care software development is documenting the work flow.
The hallmark of a good clinic hospital seems to be the ability to adjust
the work flow to meet the need. There's the work flow the system
14 matches
Mail list logo