Ian Haywood wrote: >>David Guest wrote: >> >> >>> It was >>>a very simple package. It recorded notes, wrote scripts and could import >>>and export text and binary data. It allowed others direct access to its >>>database. It's simple structure, >>> >>> >David, I don't know if you are one of the few who can dream at will, > > Yep, pretty much, sometimes recurrently. I particularly like the one where you become Professor of General Practice at Melbourne Uni and a coterie of doctors and programmers committed to the promise of open source in health forms and becomes a world centre for this activity.
>but if you are, can you dream a little more around this concept. >IOW, what are the *bare minimum* features of an EHR that will get it taken >seriously? > >For my own part, I have been using MDW2 for 4 months. I use notes, scripts, >letters, path/radiol requests, >path results (PIT only), and that's it. > > I think we agree on the basics, Ian. It's keyboard, ins and outs and a scripts database. >I use immunisations too in accordance with practice policy but IMHO it's worse >than useless (90% of our >vaccinations are catch-up) I once fired up the Travel module: must have taken >the programmer all of 5 minutes, >and s/he must have been drunk, > > I had a bit of time over the Xmas break, and did the Ruby on Rails tutorial (dead easy Windows tute at onlamp) and then started on the Ajax on Rails. The upshot of all this is that we will have to rethink about the way we handle web data and interactions and hence all medical communications. I now know what you, Tim and Horst were referring to earlier. Unfortunately only a few others do. >>It was at that point that I woke up >>so I never found out whether the company accepted those modules and >>devised a mutually acceptable system for licensing them. >> >> >This is difficult. In general the following are true of the IT world: >- people won't make free contributions to someone else's proprietary product. >Argus is a good demonstration here. >- you can't run a FOSS outfit where your product is based on a proprietary >core. This is why GNOME exists, for example. > >If the hypothetical company wants a serious community around it, it needs to >make the core free, and >run off support or other tricks (i.e. Trolltech: free linux version for >hackers, charge $$$ for Windows) >Although theoretically possible (even Horst pays for support, for example) >this model runs strongly counter to >the ideology of IT in this country. > > Yes you certainly need a free core or nobody will come. I would recommend GPLing the program and charging for add ons like MIMS and for the packaging and support. No commercial company can come near your code and its doubtful that more a handful of GPs have the time and expertise to put it together themselves. Ian notes a GPLed medical software program has been on the dream list for a while. Richard King came within a few hours of it but he, or more particularly his wife, were too battle scarred by the medical IT industry to return to the front. It's an opportunity for a startup but would require a reasonably rare combination of skills to make it happen. David -- For secure communication with the GMC see http://gmc.net.au gpg key Secure Mail (Current 10 February 2005) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x9CAE0C53 at keyserver.medicine.net.au _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
