Re: [Gnumed-devel] gnumed ideas 0.1 and post-0.1 (was Time for a major re-think in 2005)

[Karsten Hilbert]

> 1. can fully serve their clinical and administrative (billing etc) EMR needs
> 2. can serve a partial solution, able to be integrated with other EMRs for 
>    the other parts (billing, scheduling)
> 3. partial solution that integrates *incompletely* (or not at all) i.e.
>    requires some double-entry, or has other limitations (e.g. client 
>    configuration demands limits remote access), however gnumed's value is 
> worth it
> 4. demonstrable potential ("within reach") to achieve some or all of the 
>    above
> 5. {philosophical /proof of concept/ hobby} participation

> To better get us "up" the ladder, from #5 toward #1:
> 
> - Might it help to solicit third-party assessments of gnumed's potential? 
Likely, most assessors won't understand the issues at hand in
the first place. Their one major point is likely to be
"timeframe of deployability" - which is important but off the
mark.

> Obviously the "gnumed"
> people probably think that "gnumed" is good, but an outsider would ask
> "does anyone else"?
This would surely be interesting to know provided a
non-stupid assessment is done.

> - Might web-enabling be a helpful stepping stone?
No. Helpful yes. Stepping stone likely not.

> Right now, it is EASY
> for people to LOOK at OSCAR. That is not possible with gnumed.
Well. People don't have a clue of what they are looking at. If
you really want a latest-technology SUV you cannot go check out
the second-hand cars at your local dumpster. But you may
decide that all you really need is a second hand standard.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346