Dear Stephan. Ocean has taken care of much of these interoperability problems. We all know that working systems at present talk Edifact, HL7 or other formats.
From the experience we have in one hospital in the Netherlands is that it was relatively easy (days) to interface an EHR based on Ocean to HL7 Lab results and a GP Medication Summary Edifact message. Gerard ps: the three years needed to implement messages is very optimistic. Five to six is more in line with large scale implementations. Read also the opinion of the former boss op the NHS-England National project. He discusses their experiences with HL7 but more importantly the vendor lock-in of systems. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhealth/422/7042605.htm Q78 Jim Dowd: Given the scale of the undertaking, as you have described it, given the novelty of a lot of the approaches, how much of your system's software is dot zero releases in the operating systems that are out there? Mr Granger: None of the operating systems, because they are either industry standard proprietary systems or LINUX. In terms of the application software, almost all of the applications that are being delivered are systems that have been deployed extensively previously or are incremental upgrades of things which were deployed previously. In terms of the core Spine infrastructure, there was some mythology in the Health Informatics Community that the standards existed, HL7 was mature, and so forth. That was completely untrue. We have had to put an awful lot of effort into specifying the standards for messages, around demographics, around booking, around prescriptions, and then the software that BT have built with a number of sub-contractors is brand new software that has been custom-built for the NHS; so that is high-risk, new build software. There was no other way of doing it. I am very pleased a number of other jurisdictions are getting very interested in using that. What I do not want us to end up with in the NHS is a situation we have in a number of other areas of civil administration where we expend a significant amount of money building something which, when it comes up for re-tender, we have a unique supplier and we either have to pay to get other people to come in and bid in order to have a competition for the replacement, or we are held to ransom at the point of replacement. What we need to get to is a sufficiency of open standards, which we are leading a lot of jurisdictions on, so that when we come to re-tender these systems at the end of the contract there is a vibrant market of suppliers in a number of jurisdictions and we do not face that risk on an enduring basis because we are sharing software that is used in other places. I think, in particular, the Welsh Assembly will have some very interesting choices when we turn off the systems on which they are dependent, starting next year, as to whether they use the English solution or they go and build from scratch something that does the same thing. On 23, Jun, 2008, at 15:06 , Stefan Sauermann wrote: > Gerard, > This is fine, and I agree that the Archetypes/Templates solution is > to be preferred. > However there is one fundamental weakness in it: It is based on the > assumption that everybody runs an archetype / Templates enabled > system. This is definitely not the case now. > > One of the major weaknesses of the ?Messaging solution? is that it > takes 3 years to get going: true. > I guess we must accept the fact that an ?Archetypes/Templates > solution? might take even more than that. > > Greetings from Vienna, > Stefan Sauermann -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080623/91313d13/attachment.html>
