Yes of course one could try to...but imagine this having to be done literally thousands of times across a health system. It's this sort of integration "tax" plus the difficulty of anticipating all your future integration needs that has made it difficult to establish integrated health ecosystems... and thereby creating barriers to accelerating evidence based continuous improvement.
Joseph Dal Molin President, E-cology Corp. Tel: +1.416.232.1206 Skype: dalmolin
On 12-02-12 07:48 AM, Wai Keong wrote: > Thanks Joseph. Can it be negotiated as part of the procurement proces > to 'include batteries'? > > On 12 February 2012 12:43, Joseph Dal Molin <dalm...@e-cology.ca > <mailto:dalm...@e-cology.ca>> wrote: > > It is common practice among both proprietary application and > integration engine software vendors to charge you for integration. > Integration engines charge on a per interface basis and EHRs > charge for getting access to the APIs you need to interface with > their system, which means they can claim to support standards but > it costs extra. I call this the "batteries not included" model. > > Joseph > > > > On 2012-02-12, at 7:12, Wai Keong <wongwa...@gmail.com > <mailto:wongwa...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > Carl and I have been invited to give our opinion of an > 'Alternative approach to standards' to the Connecting for Health > team this coming Tuesday. > > > > There is one issue which I recently found out about and I was > wondering if members of this group can advise/ shed light on. > > > > This is on the issues of 'interface' or 'feeds' cost. > > > > It has come to my attention that vendors would charge for the > ability to exporting a feed of the data contained within their > system to input into another system. For example, appointment data > from PACs to an EHR/ Clinical dashboard or blood results from a > lab system to a web-based system for viewing results. > > > > How does this work? Sure this is another barrier to > interoperability. > > > > Regards, > > > > Wai Keong > >