Welcome to LinuxMedNews
 up a level
 post article
 search
 admin
 Contact
 main


  Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
LinuxMedNews Posted by I. Valdes on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @ 11:46 PM
from the Linuxmednews dept.
The goings on so far at the 2003 Fall AMIA conference is a tutorial on FOSS Sunday that I was not able to attend. Monday was the AAFP Open Source EMR panel discussion, Open Source posters and the Linux Medical News Award presentation. I'll be reporting on the winner soon. What follows are some quotes from the AAFP panel. Here are a few choice ones, Read More to see who said them: '...The project never really was open source...success in the dissemination of these systems has not succeeded...Open source is not the programs, but the data in the record itself...true open source may no longer be feasible...enormous danger in multiple users tampering with complex code and that was never in the plan...It didn't work for a number of reasons best left up to the other medical societies...But by that time, we couldn't quit...'15 programmers, outside of health care said: can we help?...What we have come up with, we'll see whether it works or not, a set of principles around which to organize...they are very simple, obvious...finally an opportunity for open source...The difference between those who fail and those who succeeed is largely perseverance.' Digg this article

David Kibbe, MD -- Center for Health information Technology, at the time of registration, there was a good possibility that they would be distributing a FOSS EMR, that may still happen, but an overview of what may happen from then on. Wednesday AAFP - 9 IT companies, coalition around a set of principles. 2005 all family physicians would be using EMR. The EMR is 'always 3 years away'. 85-90% do use the Internet for their practices in AAFP. Saying 'We need a breakthrough, the market is not responding.' Built survey around barriers, lack of standards, lack of sustainability, distrust of the companies. Brought idea and some software around MedPlexus of FOSS to directors of AAFP and they said 'that is reasonable, lets give it a try.' Endorsement of a new non-profit organization with involvement of other medical societies. 'It didn't work for a number of reasons best left up to the other medical societies.' 'But by that time, we couldn't quit.' Over 6000 contacted Kibbe and said this is a great idea, keep going. 'The strictly open source way wasn't going to work.' 'We couldn't go it alone, we had to attract the medical societies, programming communities outside of medicine.' '15 programmers, outside of health care said: can we help?' 'What is plan B? This may be the phoenix, the next step for creating a more open standard for interoperability and compatibility.' 'It was very important to their companies ...that doctors get connected.' 'What we have come up with, we'll see whether it works or not, a set of principles around which to organize...they are very simple, obvious. The first one is: affordability. One of the big problems is cost. The second is compatibility, especially from the point of view of interfaces. If I buy a health care record, I ought not to have to scrap everything I own...there should be a standardized way of getting labs and eprescribing. Interoperability: there should be a way to exchange records...In that regard, we got involved with a continuity of care record. It was interesting that these principles are not just 'sign up and go away' but continuing to work with us to see that they are put into action. The fourth is data stewardship...which is really about control...Within the HIPAA framework, patients should have control over what data is bought and sold...We are not saying that we should be the repository, but we are putting a stake in the ground saying we need to talk about this.' 'This will become an increasingly important issue as doctors office becomes more computerized, especially with the asp model.' 'We have replaced a strictly 'open source' solution to an 'open standards' solution...If we can accomplish this, we will have accomplished a lot.'

Was it a quality control issue? No.

A. E. Zuckerman 'The project never really was open source...success in the dissemination of these systems has not succeeded. Is open source the answer to the barriers?...Open source is not the programs, but the data in the record itself...true open source may no longer be feasible...enormous danger in multiple users tampering with complex code and that was never in the plan...open source data record standard is the key to interoperability...'

Mike Bainbridge - Integrated Care Records - 'finally an opportunity for open source'. Integrated care record for all 50 million records in england. All electronic booking, prescriptions and infrastructure. Divide the country up into 5 clusters of 10 million patients each. Will be getting vendors to supply everything for the IT infrastructure of each cluster. 13 million patients/year. 25 year lead-in, 'Information for Health' document September 1988, Vendor standards in 1994, 70 out of 30,000 are NOT computerized. 95% of all prescriptions are produced electronically from clinical information systems. We are almost in the position to transfer records electronically. Patient and clinically focused program. ICRS Integrated Care Record Service to share data from a national repository known as 'the spine', single point of information, all medical records will be kept on 'the spine'. Largest single IT procurement programmes in the world. 17 bidders including large American suppliers. They will be working to our specifications. LSP's will manage multiple partners/vendors, will use HL7 v3, SNOMED CT, Decision support/knowledge management framework and local standards. Release 2 December 2004, phase 3 December 2008. Trying to break down a lot of barriers. Data will be available for the patient to access over the Internet. Semantic Coherence between systems, between clusters, across the NHS, across the EU, global connectivity, collaboration and speed, global surveillance? Command and Control where necessary, project management 'top of the office' Tsar, Application Style Guide, Prescribing, list views, Picking list behaviour, Alerts, drug/drug interaction, care pathways, decision support, knowledge management. 'It is inappropriate for one set of behaviors to happen on one system and not on another.' Modernized Infrastructure Primary Care IT, 100% funding, ownership and liability by employing system, If successful, potential adoption in many countries, threat and opportunity, published standards and output based specification, Interoperability focus, patient focus means we can take no other approach.

John Zapp Past Chair, Primary Care Informatics WG, AMIA, Founding Chair, National Alliance for Primary Care Informatics. Majority of patient care in the US is delivered by primary care providers outside academic medical centers in small practices. Primary Care providers manage complex infromation and still use paper, pencil and recall memory. We don't have the right tools. SNOMED CT, HL7 v 3, IOM, NHII reflect an accelerated process which could be enabling OR threateing to primary care's IT solutions. Picking the "wrong system" is very risky. Vendors: lack of standards inhibit product development, lack of standards inhibits entry of open source, lack of interoperability inhibits user investment, cost of hardware and software is a barrier. Payers - no funding for technology purchase and implementation for small practices, educators: still teaching a memory-based approach to knowledge access for patient care. Need to teach EMR, decision support, outcomes studies and patient involvement in medical school, residencies and beyond (just in time information) Improving information support: PDA's, 'immediate adoption' but making progress. Global connectivity collaboration and speed - Julie Gerbering, National Alliance for Primary Care Informatics - one voice for Primary care infromatics: November 2000 Summit - non-profit organization status NAPCI, A Proposal for Electronic Medical Records in Primary Care JAMIA. Motivations for having a usable electronic medical record. Business meeting within 6 months. Need tools that work, not more regulations. 'We've beat over the head with more and more regulations.' Applaud AAFP Open Source initiative with the key attributes of being Affordable, Compatible, Interoperable, Data Stewardship. The Future: Imagine standards-based EMRs that provide data sharing and communication, decision support, switch to another EMR product, improve patient safety and care, allow outcomes studies, reduce repititious work and cost, 'Passion is the great slayer of adversity'. 'The difference between those who fail and those who succeeed is largely perseverance.'

<  |  >

 

  Related Links
  • Articles on LinuxMedNews
  • Also by I. Valdes
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
    ( Reply )

    Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
    by I. Valdes on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @ 12:36 AM
    My initial thoughts to Zuckerman's comments was that he is clueless about the definition of open source, saying that the data should be open source but the code should not be. If he can show me the source in data then I will eat my hat. My other reaction to his quote about 'complex code' was: 'now, now, doctors mustn't play with sharp, pointy objects like computers' and finally, that he's never met a early 1980's mainframe that he didn't like. -- IV
    [ Reply to this ]
    • Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
      by Jacob on Friday November 14, 2003 @ 07:38 AM
      I beg to differ. I blogged the session (www.docnotes.net) .. and I have known Alan for many years. He absolutely gets it. He's saying, in fact, that this project is NOT 'open source' in the traditional meaning -- but that it doesn't need to be -- and in fact may not be feasible if kept open source. I don't get your point about the mainframes. Alan is certainly not a dinosaur if that's what you mean.
      [ Reply to this ]
      • Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
        by Andrew P. Ho on Friday November 14, 2003 @ 04:13 PM

        Alan Zuckerman may understand what "open source" is. However, his opinion regarding the utility of "open source" methods for medical software is clearly not shared by many of us. There are many free/open source software projects that deliver practice-ready software solutions, produced via "open source" methods. For ignorant and perhaps self-serving reasons, Zuckerman and AAFP / Kibbe simply chose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore these facts.

        Zuckerman did voice a position that many and perhaps most physicians currently hold. Clearly, there was no wide-spread outrage from AAFP member physicians when AAFP's so-called "open source plans" were detailed. In time, more physicians will realize how AAFP and "experts" such as Zuckerman did them a disservice.

        For now, many of us continue to use and develop incrementally superior open source medical systems. What AAFP / Kibbe / Zuckerman say or do cannot diminish our work and achievements. They are free to express their opinions, even in the face of contrary evidence.


        [ Reply to this ]
      • Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
        by I. Valdes on Friday November 14, 2003 @ 07:16 PM
        If he does understand what open source is, then he isn't showing it and he certainly changed the definition to suit himself. It is a complete oxymoron to say that you only need access to your data, not to the code. How are you going to access your data without access to the programs that make the data do anything? Mainframe's were characterized by users having to ask or beg expensive high priests of computers to get it to do things for you. While out-sourcing data backup may be logical for many, it isn't for everyone, particularly newer generations of physicians. You shouldn't have to give up your right to do it yourself. He spoke with absolutes so I must conclude that he means everyone. If he didn't, he should have said so. This and Dr. Zuckermann's devaluating and sweeping generalizations about the ability of physicians to handle 'complex code' seem to me to be quite out in the weeds, generally not helpful and even insulting. It is the old 'doctors don't do things with computers' argument which does little good and much damage. -- IV
        [ Reply to this ]
        • Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
          by Gerard Farrell on Saturday November 15, 2003 @ 08:30 PM
          I have to agree with Valdes. Kibbe spoke off the cuff and seemed to be trying to make the best of a bad situation. Zuckerman had prepared slides and spoke dogmatically. At one point he seemed to say that physicians running applictions in their offices was "dangerous". When asked what he meant by that, he said to the effect that Drs. couldn't keep up with all the patches needed for security. It struck me as a more than a little condescending - not to mention the fact that it was a *closed source vendor* who had caused the security problems in the first place, the same sourt of closed source vendor he was advocating be trusted with the keys to the data files. It seemed Kibbe's job was to break the bad news and Zuckerman's job was to put the nails in the coffin. The force with which Zuckerman tried to bury the interest in an open source application was palpable, vehement, and, I agree, insulting to those of us who believe in open source application development.
          [ Reply to this ]
    Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
    by Joshua Newman on Thursday November 13, 2003 @ 01:14 AM
    I'm a 2nd year FP resident eagerly waiting for a tool that's good enough for when I "go live".

    I have been impressed (and installed for practice and evaluation) oscar, openemr, freemed, et. al. and find that although none of them addresses every need, a couple of them come impressively close. I especially like Freemed and feel that if I had to use something today i'd probably use it, (after learning a little PHP). I eagerly await the release of GNUmed as screenshots look good.

    I know it may be naive to ask, but can someone please explain why the AAFP or anyone won't give one of these teams a little cash and finish the job. These projects have been built by tiny groups of largely volunteer programmers and they've done a tremendous and beneficial job. Could we move one of these parent organizations to take the lead, pull the trigger, and pony up?

    We're so close! If information is stored in an accessable mysql or similar database, all the data can be converted in moments once some standard gets published. Until then I take care of diabetics, cardiopaths, and children who could all benefit from a system telling me who needs a flushot, who needs a podiatric appt, who needs to lose weight, etc.

    A modest investment and a worthy product would spark a critical mass, industry to support it, and hardware upgrades. Please help my colleagues not become beholden to some proprietary EMR. We should start now.

    p.s. Thanks for your website. It's of great benefit and support for the community.
    [ Reply to this ]
    • Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
      by Wilfried Gödert on Thursday November 13, 2003 @ 03:15 AM
      Hello Joshua,

      fell free to join the Care2x team. Your skills have not to be a programmer for joining and help. Help to discuss with the developers the medical needs. Care will be able in future to solve it... Its a very young projekt... but look through the resources what happened in 1 year.

      we can discuss some things per Mail in front. Care2x specialisation is to think not national. There is a global work in it. I discussed today with Elpidio some new layers. Care2x is not only a hospital information system. Its more. At the moment i start slowly to build up a little team with residents to give there a future structure. We need medicine Know How as the same other resources.

      Not we should start now. You can do it today:-)

      Regards Wilfried
      [ Reply to this ]
    Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
    by Gerard Farrell on Thursday November 13, 2003 @ 06:42 PM
    I was at that session at AMIA. It was very well atttended. I think there is a lot of energy around an Open Source EHR, just not a lot of focus. I think that's what people were hoping the AAFP initiative would bring. I think David Kibbee was trying to put a brave face on a bad situation. Zuckerman came to bury Open Source, not to praise it. The comment that kept ringing in my ears was "It's the document, stupid, not the application." Trouble is, without an application to read your precious document, you have squat. And who can think of an example of a vendor embracing and extending a format until it could snuff out it's competition? Take your time, I'll wait! I think you could feel the dissappointment in the room. My sense was that people couldn't believe what they were hearing. One of the last AMIA sessions was also about Open Source. AMIA is trying to figure out its role in open source. I think we (those of us who believe the Open Source EHR to be the most important thing for the next little while) need to goad AMIA (and whoever else it takes) to rally round and do some organizing. There are plenty of people interested in Open Source EHR's out there; we need a focus to bring some of that energy together.
    [ Reply to this ]
    Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
    by Peter Murray on Sunday November 16, 2003 @ 11:59 AM
    In respect of the tutorial on Sunday morning that Ignacio was not able to attend - it was presented by myself and Graham Wright, both from the UK, who are co-chairs of the IMIA Open Source Working Group (see http://www.chirad.info/imiaoswg).
    The materials for the tuorial are all online at http://www.chirad.info/chiradat/amia2003/t27index.htm - but it is a 2MB download of the presentation files.
    We felt the tutorial was very successful - we had about 14 attendees and, as usual, didn't get through all we wanted to.
    [ Reply to this ]
    Re: Live from the 2003 Fall AMIA Conference
    by Dr. J. Murdoch on Saturday November 29, 2003 @ 03:07 AM
    A. E. Zuckerman "true open source may no longer be feasible...enormous danger in multiple users tampering with complex code and that was never in the plan" This statement is fear mongering. Quite the opposite might be true. Open source initiatives have many ideas/strengths looking at the code at the same time. This creates more secure systems. To suggest Open Source projects are less secure is a very tenable position.
    [ Reply to this ]
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
    ( Reply )


     
    Google
     
    www.linuxmednews.com Web
    Advertisement: CCHIT certified EMR and Medical Practice Management Software from Medical Software Associates makes patient management easy. Free practice management and medical billing software demo available.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ©2000-2006 Ignacio Valdes, MD, MS.