Thomas Beale wrote: > Tim Churches wrote: >> Where can I read about that evidence and the results of that testing, >> Thomas? That was my point. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places? I >> > Tim, > > you are asking for papers about systems that have been fully engineered, > deployed, and run long enough to gather statistics on. Given that the > effort started (in earnest) about 5 years ago, these clearly won't be > available just yet, although I expect to see independent validations of > performance and volume in actual deployment this calendar year.
OK, that's fair enough, and I wasn't intending any criticism of the pace - these things do indeed take time. I was merely pointing out (or rather agreeing with David More's point) that a push for finalised ISO and other standards for openEHR implementations does seem a bit premature in the absence of such documented real-world experience of successful use. Or am I just being overly pernickety? > (actually, I would like to see similar papers about similar / competing > systems ...) Yes indeed. But two (or more) wrongs (or absences of evidence) don't make a right. My view is that the practice of health informatics needs, desperately, to become evidence-based, otherwise we will continue to see hundreds of millions or billions of dollars being poured into the deployment of health information systems based on what is in the sales brochure, or based on tender responses, which tend to be just more elaborate versions of the sales brochures. No government would ever dream of subsidising the cost of a new pharmaceutical unless there was good evidence that the drug offered real-world benefits over existing drugs of the same type. (Actually they would, but I am sure you get my point). Tim C _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
