The IBM specs are as http://www.gpcg.org.au/publications/docs/index.php?option=com_content&task=v iew&id=137&Itemid=37
Almost all the material on the gpcg.org website has been transferred to www.gpcg.org.au Richard is right about our (collective) inability to move forward ... this was in large part because of the huge time lag between good ideas and funding being approved. We got it right in 2005 ... Dr Ron Tomlins Adjunct Associate Professor Discipline of General Practice Western Clinical School, Westmead University of Sydney Future Medical Concepts Helping GPs provide better services Telephone 02 9484 0050 Fax 02 9484 0073 Mobile 0412 042 007 Snailmail PO Box 436 Cherrybrook NSW 2126 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Hosking Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 11:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: GP Requirements - was [GPCG_TALK] Re: The Dreaming Thanks David It is symptomatic of the poroblems with GPCG that I dont remember this as a former committee member. We didnt "remember" what we did as an organization very wel. In any case I cant access it at present - do you have it cached somewhere? I vaguely recall a very long document that I didnt find easy to extract anything concrete from. Richardl David More wrote: > Hi All, > > If you want some requirements for GP Practice to work from there are > these: > > gpcg.org/publications/docs/IBMFinal.pdf > > gpcg.org/publications/docs/IBMTech.pdf > > gpcg.org/publications/docs/IBMScope.pdf > > A bit old now - but still looked close the last time I browsed. > > This also might be useful > > gpcg.org/publications/docs/data_model/Final_Project_Report.pdf > > Sorry if I am teaching anyone to suck eggs! > > Cheers > > David > > ---- > Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:22:38 +0800, Richard Hosking wrote: >> I have been toying around the edges of Gnumed, but uneasy about >> committing a lot of effort, because progress appears to be stalled at >> present. Also I am still climbing the long learning curve to be able to >> contribute. It is probably the nearest to a viable FOSS app around, and >> could form the core of further development. >> Having studied the characteristics of "successful open source" on Google >> it seems that you need something tangible to gather a core of volunteer >> developers around. >> >> However the big problems with Gnumed appear to me to be lack of coherent >> up front requirements analysis, and the sheer technical feasibility of a >> full medical software suite. In my view a medical app would have to be >> able to deliver waiting room management/scheduling and a financial >> package with billing as well as the clinical side. Of all the FOSS >> projects studied on Google, requirements were implicit - though not >> actually canvassed, the developer had a clear idea what he wanted. >> I dont think this is the case with Gnumed and needs more work >> >> The other aspect of feasibility is the requirement for ongoing >> maintenance of data in prescribing, billing, vaccinations, travel etc. >> This would require a major effort and I dont think could be done on a >> voluntary basis - maybe this would be the basis for a commercial model, >> as well as technical support >> >> OTOH the cost of all the Windows based infrastructure should give a leg >> up to any commercial competitor based on Linux and FOSS. >> >> What do list members see as the requirements for a medical app in > Australia? >> >> Richard >> >> David Guest wrote: >> >>>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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gpcg_talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >> >> __________ NOD32 1.1340 (20051226) Information __________ >> >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >> http://www.eset.com > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Gpcg_talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
