up a level
post article
search
admin
Contact
main
parent
|
Entire conclusion is a non-sequitor
by Darren on Friday January 12, 2007 @ 08:05 AM
|
While the shift to browser-based EMR/EHR applications is very much apparent, the argument that this trend endangers FOSS just does not follow.
There's no evidence to support the claim.
The one argument that Dr. Valdes puts forth so strongly is very flawed - practitioners do *not* necessarily lose control over the data. There is nothing preventing a practitioner from installing an internal webserver accessible only to the local practice. Dr. Valdes even makes this argument in the second to last sentence of this post.
To his list of FOSS EMR/EHR software, I would add OSCAR from McMaster University in Canada. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Entire conclusion is a non-sequitor
by Ignacio H. Valdes, MD, MS on Friday January 12, 2007 @ 08:59 AM
|
Could your argument be a red-herring :-)? You present no evidence to the contrary of my claim. I actually do present evidence that I have experienced personally with my example of getting data out of a proprietary, LAN-based EMR which is a real-world example.
The necessity of having to call an EMR vendor for any reason is onerous to me. The necessity of calling a browser-based proprietary EMR for technical information is now obligatory since not even binaries are shipped. This will invariably result in: 1) More opportunities for the EMR vendor to charge more money whether legitimate or not with poor response time or no response at all. 2) An opportunity for the EMR vendor to ask 'what do you need that for?', 'why are you asking?' and 3) The dreaded 'we want to make sure this won't void the service contract'. All the above are real world examples that I have personally experienced. Proprietary, browser-based EMR's by their nature will only increase this. -- IV
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
The Fine Print: The following
comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
