Re: [Hardhats-members] Wild ride and OpenEMRs for Rural Health Clinics

[A. Forrey]

The presentation from the HRSA website is instructive to the VistA as well 
as the M and Hardhats community about the scope to the effort to offer the 
VistA architecture for non-VA uses. The effort MUST actively involve the 
healthcare specialty disciplines and clearly develop conceptual content 
targets that benefits practitioners. Much of the M and VistA community com 
from the implementing technology WHICH IS SECONDARY to getting attention 
of the beneficiaries. Once having their attention THEN describe how the 
M-based implementing techology provides various benefist. THINK ZACHMAN 
FRAMEWORK or you are thinking PIGEONHOLES! All of the advantages that we 
take as obvious are nullified if not placed in thsi context. The M 
community has had the basis for this "Enterprise Architecture Planning" 
context through out its history but hasnt used it to sell its advantages 
to the healthcare community on a nationwide and worldwide basis. The 
Boston meeting is the chance to change that posture and underline "DEATH 
to 'MUMPS is dead'!". The WV Education Committe is more essential than all 
the Technical Committees (as essential as they are overall)! the view 
expressed in the preceding comment underlines the prevalance of 
ignorance about ths subject and essentailaity of collaboration. The VSA is 
a partner but the WV emphasis on the process by which conceptual content 
gets in to VistA and how these principles have also been used by other 
users of the M data platform (e.g Partners, etc) also needs to be made 
since it gives recognition to other suppliers who use the M Platform within 
their systems architectures. It will the be appropriate to each of those 
suppliers to show how there implementation makes use of the benefits of 
the M component. The way that the VistA community and its supplier 
associates first develop the conceptual content as clear targets with 
respect to  the health professional discipline base and then use that
technology-independent set of Requirements to take advantage of the M 
technology will buttress their case for the attractiveness of the VistA
Product. The success of these arguments will influence how the community 
succeeds and grows over time. That is the core of the "Enterprise 
Architecture Planning" core of what needs doing and that is waht needs 
discussion in April in Boston where it all began 40 years ago.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Nancy Anthracite wrote:
Below is a long but interesting series of emails I received from Roger
Erickson and I am posting with his permission.  Start at the bottom, work
your way up and be prepared for quite a ride.  As you will see at the top,
Roger sent me these emails after finding my name with a google search!
Clearly, he is one of us whether he knew it before now or not!
The rows of asterisks separate the emails as I received them or sent them.
*************************************************
Re: OpenEMRs  & WorldVistA mtg
Date: Mon Mar 28 15:11:04 2005
From: Roger Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nancy Anthracite wrote:
OK with you if I post some extracts of your email on the mailing list of the  
VistA advocates, including WorldVistA members, read, and use your name?

Sure

It is great to see someone else as riled up about this as I am!  Are you a
physician?
Nope. I'm a PhD neurophysiology researcher, more interested in social
systems now than just in nervous systems.  However, making systems work
is my passion.  I'm more interested in "system health" than the health
of particular individuals.
--
   regards, roger
*********************************************
 I sat in on a conference call "educating" Federally Certified RHCs
(Rural Health Clinics) on EMRs.
see ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/NARHCEMR.pdf
The presentation, while very useful and illuminating, didn't mention
open source, and the presenter actively pooh-poohed both VISTA and
OpenEMRs when one listener did ask.  There were too many people
listening in, so I wasn't able to pose a question myself.  However, they
invited commentary afterwards, and I sent the following email.
Surprisingly, the organizers posted a reply, which I'll forward next.  I
think this is something that should be circulated.
Is anyone wondering whether the RHC Association should be unduly
influenced by "sponsoring" EMR vendors, and effectively barred from
hearing commentary from a variety of vendors, including the OpenEMR
community?  There's obviously a lack of awareness.
Contacts:
Deanna Durrett, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (see http://www.narhc.org )
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]