tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post8267808519073035928..comments2024-03-23T05:28:35.472-04:00Comments on Healthcare Standards: I don't know is not the same as noneKeith W. Boonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-45774458007375079232013-04-02T12:48:48.505-04:002013-04-02T12:48:48.505-04:00Indeed, there is a well established tradition in m...Indeed, there is a well established tradition in many scientific fields of writing review articles that survey the state of the art, progress, and outstanding problems in a given area of research. An outstanding example of fairly recent origin is <a href="http://www.livingreviews.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.livingreviews.org</a>.<br /><br />By analogy, it would great if this was done more systematically in technology and healthcare IT in particular: Take an application domain, look at what is being done in that domain—especially commercially—and what standards are being applied or not. Of particular interest are the areas where one or more standards seem to be applicable but are poorly implemented or completely neglected.<br /><br />When two or more different standards are (or appear to be) "standardizing" the same thing, it might be because somebody thought the developers of the "other" standard got it wrong, and it was necessary to more or less start over. If there are some disagreements of principle underlying the existence of these competing "standards" then the arguments should be at least laid out in public for everyone to consider.<br /><br />Of course, the two standards may be addressing different problems, but it isn't clear what the two problems are and how they differ. Again, a comparative review of these questions ought to exist.Chris Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-13029121661591331832013-04-01T17:26:15.832-04:002013-04-01T17:26:15.832-04:00Yep. In research, there's supposed to be a pl...Yep. In research, there's supposed to be a place for analyzing what has been done in the past, but in standard development, there's never been a good place to put the results of that search (if it was ever performed).Keith W. Boonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-70020533522843778332013-04-01T17:24:48.146-04:002013-04-01T17:24:48.146-04:00I meant to delete the last paragraph. I was heade...I meant to delete the last paragraph. I was headed towards an answer of sorts, but the reality is I don't have an answer. And yes, I was trying to do two things at once.Keith W. Boonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-56256300053129249192013-04-01T17:00:52.941-04:002013-04-01T17:00:52.941-04:00Did this post get published before it was done? It...Did this post get published before it was done? It looks like you started a new paragraph, and then just....stopped.<br /><br />Also the sentence in item 9 doesn't quite parse. There appears to be a missing word; see "that _ for quality measurement".Chris Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-59833194583854028602013-04-01T13:33:56.821-04:002013-04-01T13:33:56.821-04:00Keith
RE the whole standards arena, I think that ...Keith<br /><br />RE the whole standards arena, I think that another major problem faced by anyone who needs to identify and select a standard to use is the lack of clear, concise, comparative information aimed at doing just that - especially when two or more different standards are (or appear to be) "standardizing" the same thing.<br /><br />TJL<br /><br />Thomas Lukasikhttps://twitter.com/Sparkensteinnoreply@blogger.com