Open dialogue from Zach Newton to Ed Zabrek I felt all should hear
From: Edward Zabrek (stork@flash.net)
Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:34:43 -0500
This was a discussion that Zach and had over the goals of the EMR group. I felt it important enough to share with the group. It is also a good starting point for dialogue to run. Let the words begin!
Return-Path: <zbnewton@atl.mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 20:19:18 -0400
From: Zach Newton <zbnewton@atl.mindspring.com>
To: "Edward M. Zabrek, M.D., F.A.C.O.G." <stork@flash.net>
Subject: Re: My goals for the future of the EMR
Ed-
Thanks for your response. You have given some clarification by
specifying that "universal standards" referred to in your initial
message was directed toward infrastructure standards as opposed to
design standards. Your heavy involvement over a period of years does
convey an intensity that is clearly evident. That's great!
The 41 signees listed by Roberta for this section must share some
puzzlement over just what we are about. I did see that Marty Olson is
aboard,as well as Jeff Levy. It would be helpful for all commercial
developers who are participating to be so declared.
Now that EMR is going, I do look forward to the opening of the action.
Good luck with the quest.
Zach
Edward M. Zabrek, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. wrote:
>
> Zach,
> I echo your concerns! This is a huge undertaking to say the least. That
> is why it has been so difficult to get it off the ground to date. I do not
> have any burgeoning interest in any one particular company or format at
> this time. I therefore, have no personal interest in seeing one EMR
> succeed over another. My ultimate goal is a set of universal standards
> that all EMR developers would incorporate (similar to "standards" that a
> company such as RCA set down a standard for the employment of the VHS
> format (under different manufacturers names) or how Microsoft set the
> standards for Windows 95, NT and CE; or closer to home, standards that say
> ACOG would require to approve course for CEM credits. Without such
> universality, the dream of a national data bank will remain just that. I
> believe that this secondary goal (NDB) is equally critical to our future
> survival as a viable specialty in our world of litigation and (un)managed
> care.
> As I have repeatedly said, this is will be a difficult, though not
> impossible project; I am hoping that all of the great minds out there will
> help to quide, move and send this mission into reality before the year 2000.
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ed Zabrek
>
> At 05:17 PM 10/4/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >Ed-
> >
> >Thanks for the lead off message. Your words glitter with enthusiasm.
> >It does scare me a bit to hear anyone speak in terms of a universal
> >standard, particularly when the speaker has participated in the
> >development of the anointed grail.
> >
> >There does not exist an authority to establish a universal standard,
> >even in the U.S. You will recall the keynote address at the ACOG meeting
> >in LV in May, wherein the EMR was projected as a process. This does not
> >mean that a product can not be developed that will be broadly
> >implemented. But, the diversity that comes to us by open standards
> >results in more certain progress toward higher achievement.
> >
> >You know full well that the marketplace is crawling with offerings with
> >more on the way. It does remain frightening to consider that we here
> >could be working with a mindset as you declared. Whatever comes of this
> >area of obgyn.net, we all need to be mindful that this is public domain.
> >Nothing here can be considered proprietary. But, surely, proprietary
> >ideas and development can well flow from interaction.
> >
> >What do you propose to get this moving?
> >
> >Zach Newton
> >
