I find it interesting that we do not have a category for standards/specifications here. Maybe it is my fault for not suggesting one earlier?

The linked (below) blog post by Dr. David Kibbe I think exemplifies the NIH (not invented here) syndrome and how we so often want to rewrite (misrepresent) history in the US healthcare IT industry that we should (MUST) give pause.

Dr. Kibbe gives a wonderful comparison with the CCR and CCD in his blog post at http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/06/untangling-the.html

I agree with Dr. Kibbe in the context of delivering a useful format for artifacts of healthcare artifacts from legacy systems that the CCR is more rigid and computable than what has been delivered previously.

However, I believe that Dr. Kibbe’s entry in his comments section attempts to mislead his readers when it comes to open source and open content. I was especially distressed when Dr. Kibbe used “Open EHR” to infer that that his failed AAFP project from 2002 was somehow associated with the “openEHR” specifications. I believe that I correctly responded to this inference. Of course it is archived on the WWW in someplace and in fact, many places, if we choose to look up the references. A wonderful thing about this is that you can Google “AAFP EMR open source” so you do not have to take my word for it.

My point in this post is that you cannot believe everything you read on the WWW especially when certain people have an agenda of their own in an isolated environment (so they think).