On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:17:17 John S. Gage wrote:
>
>>this is more or less the opinion of most clinical people associated with GEHR
>>(even though we think SNOMED-CT is probably the best hope for terminology
>>anyway).
...
>To
>say that SNOMED is really not what we want but it is the best thing we can
>use is a startling admission of defeat.
>
>John
Hi John,
I absolutely agree with your view on the usefulness of proprietary terminology but I
understand Thomas' statement a little differently. In fact, I see his statement as
somewhat humorous. He is saying that proprietary or not, terminologies are largely
useless from a clinical point of view.
Let me explain.
Thomas is saying that even though SNOMED-CT may be the best among the many
terminologies, this fact is really quite irrelevant. In other words, SNOMED-CT may or
may not be the best hope of the "terminology" camp, but the entire approach of relying
on a "standard" terminology is mostly useless according to his survey of clinical
people assosociated with GEHR.
I hope I am reading him right :-),
Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
University of California, Los Angeles
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
