On Mar 25, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
and...at the risk of stating the obvious there should be some
mechanism for evaluating the certification authority and the
criteria...
Sadly, I don't know how many people are even thinking in those terms.
What we are discussing
] On Behalf Of Gregory Woodhouse
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 9:23 PM
To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
Cc: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Hardhats-members] Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards
proprietary software??
On Mar 25, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote
On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Thurman Pedigo wrote:
To err is human. To really screw up requires a computer.
Yes, I've even heard a few attributions for it. Unfortunately, it
repeated so often simply because it is, well, true.
I presume every one on this list has heard this trite little
[I hope you don't mind if I copy this to Hardhats. I think it is a
topic of interest to both communities.]
I have mixed feelings here. It seems completely reasonable to want to
have an accreditation/certification process for health information
systems (though the jurisdiction issue is certainly a
You are right we should not receive a by we do need to make concrete
suggestions as to how the same organization can accomplish open source
evaluations...
Here are the suggestions from emrupdate.com
emrupdate
Markedly
decrease your up-front fees and eliminate the percent royalties
provisions.
This is a really important issue for all of us since it could alter
the adoption level of VistA - so if you have comments on CCHIT, you
should submit them to the CCHIT. March 31st is the end of the public
comment period. Please go to the following URL to submit your
comments:
