<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
	<title>xml-solutions blog</title>
	<link>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog</link>
	<description>musings on XML and Healthcare integration</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>

		<item>
		<title>Data, data everywhere&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=14</link>
		<comments>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=14#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Odling-Smee</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Healthcare</category>
	<category>Integration</category>
	<category>English NHS National Programme for IT</category>
		<guid>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Compared with a paper record our EHRs are likely to be far richer: information from GP system will be there of course as will any hospital encounter, however there will also be information from out-of-hours services, dentists, telehealth based devices and potentially information entered by the patients themselves via their Personal Health Record (PHR). With all of this information filling up our health record how will any clinician be able to judge what is important and more importantly what can be trusted as accurate clinical information? If the information cannot be trusted will the value of the whole record be devalued to extent that this whole endeavour is wasted? As a precursor to potential troubles, <a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/tony_collins/2010/03/confidential-report-on-summary.html">a report into the initial upload on the the English Summary Care Record (SCR) highlighted variable data quality</a> which in turn may lead to clinicians distrusting the service entirely. Furthermore, if the data quality is suspect how can clinical researchers using this information for secondary purposes be sure that their conclusions are trustworthy and not merely the result of systematic errors introduced somewhere along the line? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=14</wfw:commentRSS>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is God centralised?</title>
		<link>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=9</link>
		<comments>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=9#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Waller</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Healthcare</category>
	<category>Integration</category>
	<category>English NHS National Programme for IT</category>
	<category>Delivery</category>
		<guid>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For me, asking whether a modern IT system should be centralised is like asking whether God is better centralised or distributed, the question is an over simplification which makes little sense. Furthermore it is a very dangerous over simplification.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=9</wfw:commentRSS>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mixing delivery profiles</title>
		<link>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=5</link>
		<comments>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=5#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Cullum</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Integration</category>
	<category>Delivery</category>
		<guid>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[	It seems that large IT programmes for whatever reason seem to invariably involve very large monolithic releases that slowly deliver layers of functionality in a number of phases. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach whilst delivering against an initial contract, but the nature of large programmes is that the behaviour during these long [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=5</wfw:commentRSS>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is local anyway?</title>
		<link>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=3</link>
		<comments>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=3#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Odling-Smee</dc:creator>
		
	<category>Healthcare</category>
	<category>Integration</category>
	<category>English NHS National Programme for IT</category>
		<guid>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?p=3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently in the UK specialist and main stream media there has been much debate about the architecture of the <a href="http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/">English NHS National Programme for IT</a>. Much of the <a href="http://www.smarthealthcare.com/stephen-obrien-conservatives-patient-records-comment-16sep09">negative press</a> has focused on the centralised databases - in particular the <a href="http://www.nhscarerecords.nhs.uk/summary">Summary Care Record</a> - that are hosted in a component of the national architecture known as the <a href="http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/spine">Spine</a>. If we are to believe the press these central databases are responsible for a whole host of sins - cost, implementation delays, lack of competition, security lapses, patient consent confusion, privacy issues and many more. Instead of the central model, so the arguments go, we need local solutions. Furthermore - we are told - local solutions will stimulate innovation, reduce cost and speed up implementation. What most commentators fail to define is what <em>local</em> actually means.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRSS>http://www.xml-solutions.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3</wfw:commentRSS>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

