The Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_informatics
is actually quite good, but seems a bit top heavy with extenal links. I wonder
if it might be possible to reorganize it a bit, splitting off some of the
regional links and SDOs to seperate pages. Perhaps thetre should be
--- Nandalal Gunaratne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CPRS source is in the public domain but needs Delphi
to run. The version runs only in Windows. It can be
made to run in Linux using Wine, but just barely.
A commercial organization has come forward to create
something based on Wine that
--- Nandalal Gunaratne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said:
As always, critiques, comments and questions are
welcome.
Are you serious?
If you are, let me request that a document on how to
use this, once installed, with a real example, with
screenshots where necessary be put up.
I
But what level of interoperability do you really have in healthcare
applications. Sure, there are standards like HL7, but they do not
really help much when it comes to achieving interoperability of
systems. That's not a criticism of HL7, rather an acknowledgment that
its goals are different. It
This is from today's ACM TechNews, see
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187202790
for the full article.
The Givers and Takers of Open Source
InformationWeek (05/15/06)No. 1089, P. 44; Babcock, Charles
The bulk of the work that goes into developing open-source
Forgive the cross-post, but the topic of archetypes has come up
Hardhats, and once again, I find the language used to describe the
concept vague and (at times) mysterious. If you'll forgive me for the
use of some mathematical jargon here, I'd like to revisit the concept
of abstracting measurements
Aren't we missing the larger issue? Proper certification of health
information systems is going to be expensive, and that is probably
unavoidable. Moeover, someone is going to have to bear the burden of
that cost. I'm not sure that this question should really be tied to the
certification model,
[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
--- Bhaskar, KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ubuntu is one of the fastest growing Linux distributions. I was
pointed
to the Ubuntu code of conduct for developers yesterday, and I felt
that
it was well worth a read for anyone involved in software development:
It is true that CHCS I is a variant of an earlier version of VistA (then known
as DHCP), but I believe CHCS II is rather different, intended as a successor to
CHCS I. The relationship is not that one is a later version of the other, but
that one was designed replace the other (though, in
I guess I have my soapbox issues, too. There are a lot of things done at
taxpayer expense. It is fashionable to speak disdainfully about what you do
not happen to like, but you have everything from roads to clean water thanks to
work done at taxpayer expense.
Bhaskar, KS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Nandalal Gunaratne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[NG]
One problem in people not learning from VistA is that it is so
difficult to install and run!
[GW]
The trouble is that VistA was developed over a period of approximately
30 years during which
--- Joseph Dal Molin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nandalal, you have in one sentence described how VistA was first
developed and evolved for the better part of its history, all be it the
number of collaborators was much larger.
[GW]
I think that's a fair statement.
So the real issue IMHO is not
--- Philippe AMELINE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joseph,
By simply implementing VistA as far and wide as possible, do you mean
that you want to provide the patients with Vista ?
---
Perhaps the best way to implement VistA as far and wide as possible,
in Joseph's words, is to make it as easy as
Fair enough. I suspect that the problem you describe here may be a bit
of a red herring, though. The problem is not so much IT people (and I
think that is a problematic term, at best) thinking they have the
expertise to design health information systems, but a lack of cohesion
in the field as a
15 matches
Mail list logo
