 |
 |
>There is no doubt that to implement READ 3.1 as a fully compositional system would involve >considerable commercial investment, with no guarantee that it would actually work (no one has >ever built anything like this before, at least not on anything remotely like this scale) There are a number of V3 implementations (>10) now in use. They are all in the acute sector. Decision support, prescribing, clinical record info are all part of those implementations. I know of a GP system development in the pipeline but can't yet share that info in such a public forum because, as you say, there is a market and it can be secretive. I will ask V3 Read code implementation sites/developers whether they are happy to be cited in public forums such as this. I realise that I really should back up my response to Jeremy's incorrect assertions with the evidence. Watch this space. >(If step-wise implementation in collaboration with real implementors does become the chosen route, I> strongly suspect that much of the existing technical details of READ 3.1 will need to be changed >in the light of experience - would this not have been a more realistic project methodology from the >beginning) Perhaps because of your work with GALEN you are assuming that Read V3 is an 'all or nothing ' implementation. A subset of say, 30 codes collected for a particular purpose is as valid a use as the full set with qualifiers by several users. The point is that coded data is being collected using the same scheme. V3 is cited as a candidate for a 'lingua franca' between other coded terminologies. This is again a perfectly valid implementation. So to answer: >What does it mean to 'implement' READ 3.1? The answer depends on what you want. Rob Hampton NHS CCC %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%