workflow diagram Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

Nice work flow diagram. One of the more difficult things I've encountered in 10+ years of health care software development is documenting the work flow. The hallmark of a good clinic hospital seems to be the ability to adjust the work flow to meet the need. There's the work flow the system ex

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

Tim.Churches wrote: > > I think that the key question is: what does certification involve? How > is it done? Is the $25000 certification fee required in order to employ > a team of High Priests who use magical incantations and crystal balls to > determine whether a particular software product shou

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

- Original Message - From: "Richard Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards. > Can anyone post the link again to the files section? Thanks! > > Richard > At the bottom of every email sent via this l

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

Fred Trotter wrote: > The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system. Fred, you don't think that the CCHIT pricing is biased against software released under other types of free, open source licenses? > Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to c

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

On Friday 24 March 2006 05:27 pm, Richard Schilling wrote: > Rod Roark wrote: ... > > Nobody is going to pay thousands of dollars for certification of > > free software -- not to mention that such software by its nature will > > be continually evolving and so quickly rendering any given > > certifi

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

Rod Roark wrote: > This is equivalent to ignoring the practical issues that Fred raised. I disagree. The practical issues Fred raised are real concerns, but the software companies we're competing against throw a *lot* of money into validation and certification - especially HIPAA compliance (in

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

On Friday 24 March 2006 04:48 pm, Richard Schilling wrote: ... > I maintain open souce software is a path toward stimulated economies and > innovation .. CCHIT doesn't owe anything to open source software > and shouldn't be required to lower their fees. It's up to us to > demonstrate that

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

I'd prefer to assume that the CCHIT pricing model is simply biased toward software companies that can produce a viable product. And by that I mean a software product that stimulates revenue for a company at some point - which in our case is not through the sale of software licenses. Nothing wr

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

Can anyone post the link again to the files section? Thanks! Richard Will Ross wrote: > oops. now i posted the document in the openhealth files section. > > [wr] > > - - - - - - - - > > On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:01 PM, David Forslund wrote: > > >>As you probably noticed, images (and attachmen

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

The evolving work-social phenomena are sure interesting. Toyota, and agriculture research adopting the approach is pretty cool. I believe there are a LOT of companies incorporating open source work into RFPs and proposals to get a contract without even talking to the original developers - this

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

Thomas Beale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Linus may have "an iron fist control " (though I doubt it), but there are many FOSS projects that don't! They seem to be doing equally well. NandA David Forslund wrote: > http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

Thomas Beale wrote: > Tim.Churches wrote: > > > > > > > > Why Wikipedia doesn't have one is a mystery to me. Why it is as good as > > > it is (however good you think it is) is also a mystery. > > > > It is wrong to think of wikipedia as an open source/open content > > project. In fact, it is

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

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 1. Markedly decrease your up-front fees and eliminate the percent royalties p

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

This is a US initiative... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based > > system. > > Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to > > consider > > group action in the issue. > > > > The first issue is pricing.

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

[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

[openhealth] Re: Open Source Good for Innovation?

>From: David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?] >I thought folks might like to see this article. Any comments? > > The kind of perspective that these authors have

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

>The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based > system. > Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to > consider > group action in the issue. > > The first issue is pricing. It will cost a $25,000 to $35,000 one-time > fee > to perform the test.

[openhealth] Re: Demonstrations & Standards.

This continues to be a good discussion. I highlighted some small snippets of previous replys because I think they get at two of the other significant factors involved in uptake of systems. Business models Clinical care models (My perspective is limited to the USA). Whatever else we might thin

[openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system. Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to consider group action in the issue. The first issue is pricing. It will cost a $25,000 to $35,000 one-time fee to perform the test. After certification, an

[openhealth] Digest format option

openhealth@yahoogroups.com wrote: >There are 25 messages in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > So, I might be the only one subscribed in digest format, for those of you who don't, I left the above information so that you can see that what I get is a single message with (in this case 25) al

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

David Forslund wrote: > I think there is an intermediate position here. In my experience these > standards, far from perfect, are > good enough to gain experience and see them work in practice. The > resulting models and infrastructure > are actually rather easy to change into new paradigms, I

Re: [openhealth] Mirth Project: FOSS HL7 interoperability.

2006/3/23, Ignacio Valdes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "The goal of the http://www.mirthproject.org/ Mirth Project is to > develop an open source cross-platform HL7 interface engine that > enables bi-directional sending of HL7 messages between systems and > applications over multiple transports. By

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

I think there is an intermediate position here. In my experience these standards, far from perfect, are good enough to gain experience and see them work in practice. The resulting models and infrastructure are actually rather easy to change into new paradigms, I believe. I can't wait until

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

There is an intermediate value to the workflows if they can be used in software. One can model the behavior of the system without having to have the entire system under workflow management. This can help assess the accuracy of the workflow diagrams to be sure that side effects are what you thi

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

Joseph Dal Molin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The real challenge is building the communities, not the software. This is particularly true in healthcare. But the community must be as global as possible Nanda Joseph Will Ross wrote: > Until we have compelling informatics solutions t

Community (was) Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

Yes agreedrelying community dynamics etc. alone is high risk...there also the need for low effort control through standards and certification etc. Tim's Wikipedia example is a good oneit also illustrates that part of the solution to managing complex communities is to have many smaller i

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

Tim.Churches wrote: > > > > > Why Wikipedia doesn't have one is a mystery to me. Why it is as good as > > it is (however good you think it is) is also a mystery. > > It is wrong to think of wikipedia as an open source/open content > project. In fact, it is about 1 million separate open source/open

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

Philippe AMELINE wrote: > > To come back to the initial thread of information exchanges, I hope that > you understand my position better: the concurrent engineering system > must be fed (for very well selected information) by legacy systems, but > also manage its own set of information. In the o

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

On Mar 23, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > Will Ross wrote: >> Joseph, >> >> I disagree on your community challenge. I think the "community" >> aspect of open source is not only over rated, it is in fact a >> negative, a risk factor to be considered. > > I guess its a matter of pers

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

These workflows are intentionally not computable. They are simple visual aids to sketch the overall operational processes where a user interacts with software, without descending into the complexities of computable steps. The diagrams are deliberately chunked into single page views with

Re: Open Source Interoperability (was) Re: [openhealth] Re: OS at MedInfo 2007

On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 08:40 -0800, Greg Woodhouse wrote: > This is a very interesting topic, and I'm starting to hear more and > more questions about interoperability across products (or product > suites) -- something which is, of course, far from trivial. This > dovetails nicely with a discussion

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

Hi David, Hospital records are back office systems scattered in the landscape. A "virtual patient record" is just trying to build a front office system out of this data. Odyssée is aimed at providing a "real" patient owned system that is dedicated to continuity of care. What I mean is that thi

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

Thomas Beale wrote: > David Forslund wrote: > > http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 > > > > is the link to the article I intended to post. > > David Forslund wrote: > > > I thought folks might like to see this article. Any comments? > > > > > > -Dave > > >

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

David Forslund wrote: > http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 > > is the link to the article I intended to post. > David Forslund wrote: > > I thought folks might like to see this article. Any comments? > > > > -Dave > > this brings back a big debate about among this

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations & Standards.

David Forslund wrote: > Will, > I agree with you, which is why I also argue for using standards for > the communication and > interfaces in a system. That way one can replace the system with others > that implement > those same standards. This allows even for a replacement of an open > sourc