I believe a possible answer is to fly above the "certification" process, which
is a shallow excuse for a meaningful evaluation process (e.g., see my eight
part series on the mission hostile user experience presented by many
"certified" systems), and move to robust tests of effectiveness and user
experience.
Regarding the latter, comparison of FOSS products to CCHIT "certified" products
would be most interesting.
Develop a truly meaningful and open "Certification Process" of your own, keep
it as free of Conflict of Interest as does, say, the ECRI Institute that
evaluates medical devices, and push its superiority - especially to governments
in other countries - over the bureaucratically-defined U.S. CCHIT
"certfication."
-- SS
--------------------------------
Scot M. Silverstein, MD
Consultant in Medical Informatics
Teaching faculty in Healthcare Informatics and IT (Sept. 2007-)
Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics (2005-7)
College of Information Science and Technology
Drexel University
3141 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875
Email: scot.silverst...@ischool.drexel.edu
Bio: www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/biography.htm
Common Examples of HIT difficulty:
www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/medinfo.htm
ARS KU3E, member www.arrl.org
-----openhea...@yahoogroups.com wrote: -----
To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
From: Mark Spohr <msp...@nnk.com>
Sent by: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04/14/2009 04:34AM
Subject: Re: [openhealth] foss / cchit meeting details
Thanks to Fred and Tim for their thoughtful comments.
I think we have a good understanding of the situation. It is good that
the CCHIT people are listening but FOSS needs a solution that will
work today. I think that Tim's suggestion has merit. We should have
the option to self certify software and let the market sort out
winners and losers. It is anti-competitive to have a monopoly
gatekeeper.
If CCHIT does not recognize self-certification then we should just do
it ourselves. They could try to block this by claiming copyright,
trademark or legislative authority but all of these lie on shaky legal
ground. Depending on how vigorously they defend their "rights", they
could make life difficult so it would be best to try to reach some
sort of accommodation. They are not likely to respond quickly to our
needs so it may be best to pursue a self-certification path along with
negotiations with CCHIT. If they do respond positively, then the
self-certification work could be used as the foundation of a CCHIT
self-certification label. If not, we could move forward indepently
with a FOSS certified label.
All the best
Mark
On 4/13/09, Tim Cook <
timothywayne.
c...@gmail.
com
> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:12 -0400, Scot Silverstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you mean, "do not want it to work for you."
>
> Perhaps. But I look at this issue from a different perspective.
>
> It seems that most members of this community are wanting to play by
> their rules.
>
> They have made the specifications public. The FOSS community,, being of
> the nature it is, should turn this aound and make a positive out of it.
>
> I have posted my comment; and there are some other EXCELLENT
> comments/points to be considered on Fred's page at:
>
>
http://www.fredtrot
ter.com/2009/
04/11/towards-
fair-ehr-
certification/
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
>
> --
> Timothy Cook, MSc
> Health Informatics Research & Development Services
> LinkedIn Profile:
http://www.linkedin
.com/in/timothyw
aynecook
> Skype ID == timothy.cook
> ************
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*****
> *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or *
> *from this link
http://timothywayne
.cook.googlepage
s.com/home*
> ************
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*****
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
---------
---------
------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Mark Spohr, MD
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
