[Gllug] Linux for dentists

[Mark Preston]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions.
Bernard Peek writes:-
 >3. Database incompatibilities between different suppliers.

 >This is relatively simple to deal with. If there is a single central
 >body that has a reliable web-server then an XML schema can be created
 >for interchange files.

 >This has several advantages. The first is that it makes data validation
 >easier, The second is that it makes it quite clear who is responsible
 >for validating data files (the sender). The third and less obvious one
 >is that if the receiver rejects a data file because it doesn't validate
 >then it's possible to blame the machine and not a person. That saves a
 >lot of arguments.

 >XML is a platform-neutral technology that enables UNIX and Windows
 >systems to work together.


This is reassuring for me Bernard.
At present all dental software supplier companies are busy effectively 
reinventing the wheel based on the DPB's recently released Web EDI 
Messaging Specification see:-
http://www.dpb.nhs.uk/webEDI/DPB_EDI_0513-Messaging-spec-10-10-02.pdf

Web EDI CA Tender Instructions Document
http://www.dpb.nhs.uk/webEDI/DPB_E_Pilot_0242-Core-app acq intro.pdf

Web EDI CA Tender Contract Document
http://www.dpb.nhs.uk/webEDI/CoreApProc_00214- ITT 02-10-02.pdf

Web EDI CA Specification
http://www.dpb.nhs.uk/webEDI/DPB_EDI_0705-Core-application-spec-10-10-02.pdf

I am a bit concerned about the XML schemas they have set as the 
standard. This reads
  <Schema xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xml-data" name="ic" 
xmlns:d="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes">...
  <Schema xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xml-data" name="contrl" 
xmlns:d="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes">...
  <Schema xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xml-data" name="fp17o" 
xmlns:d="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes">...
  <Schema xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xml-data" name="fp17b" 
xmlns:d="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes">...
and so it goes on.
I don't know much about schemas, but I would prefer to see something like
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"...>

Probably nothing to worry about, but when the name of the company 
handling the DPB end is called "Systems for Windows" I'm minded to be a 
little suspicious.
  The Dental Practice Board command a great deal of industry time 
because they do not issue the interpretation of the dental fee scale in 
open code. The dental feescale only exists as a written document. So 
every software supplier company has to individually write code to 
interpret this document and translate the fees - incluuding all the updates!
This is the sort of situation that cries out for a single, 
industry-standard module with an open license.


Sean Burlington wrote:-
 >Hi Mark,
 >a couple of queries
 >do you need to put the general case for an electronic solution ? - it
 >looks to me that the main strategy document already does this.
  I think the general consensus is that electronic patient records will 
be introduced over the next few years. You are right.


 >Is the audience the IT steering group ? (should the doc be less techy >?)
AFAIK the group is reasonably IT literate.

 >What are the data storage requirements? - if they need to keep the
 >system running for 100 years they may want to avoid paying a yearly 
 >license.
They have some sort of mainframe computer at the DPB which has 
successfully processed payments for many years. I believe the new 
Web-EDI system will not interact directly with the mainframe, but a 
web-server will handle the incoming XML from dental practices and then 
pass this information on to the mainframe.

 >What about a cross platform system ? so dentists using Microsoft (or
 >apple etc) systems  already could just install a new app, while others
 >could get a low cost Linux appliance.
Well, Sean, you would think so and this is possible.
  OSS projects generally prefer Linux or BSD because it has been 
observed in practice (Welsh PHLS, reported at NHS session OSHCA 2001, 
London)
http://www.oshca.org/docs/Open_Source-Henry_Ray.pdf
  that the efforts of disentangling proprietary licensing of components 
supplied as part of Windows programming languages is large and may form 
more of the work than writing the software. This has been called a 
problem of "defenestration".
With a GPL OS this is not an issue.

The tendency at present seems to be to give money to each individual 
dentist to subsidize their initial purchase. Then tell them to choose a 
system from a list of suppliers. I think that it would be better all 
round if the money given to each individual dentist was spent on paying 
a professional programmer or team of programmers to produce a core 
application which all dentists could use and each software supplier 
built their products around this core application. If a core application 
is decided upon I intend to make sure it is compatible with running on 
Linux if I possibly can.
Thanks once again.
Regards,
Mark Preston


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug