GNU Health
health.gnu.org
health.gnu.org
As of now, one has to scroll/read for a bit before learning what the project actually does.
Not to mention the design has an uncomfortably political slant. Why is the front graphic a bunch of "take the power back" fists raised in the air? They seem to be saying, "don't use our software unless you identify as Revolucionario anticapitalista"
https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/bash.html
Reading in the other comments how the screenshots indicate this is a repackaging of "Tryton", a fork of OpenERP, it leads me to wonder if these people are just co-opting the GNU name to advance tired meatspace politics (ala libreboot).
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...
even more reading: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
No, I don't think I am. GNU supports building businesses on free software. That's why the GPL does not say "free for noncommercial use only" like many other licenses. It's meant to be sustainable.
Using iconography that says "businesses are bad, uprisings in the street are good" is counter to the GNU mission.
Here is an actual take the power back health site aimed at individuals: http://miceats.blogspot.com/
At the very least it isn't locked to CentOS 6.7 specifically, but GNU Health & Bahmni will likely never displace Epic or the other major players due to HIPPA & PCI/DSS compliance requirements, the latter of which causes most merchant processing platforms (like First Data) to outright reject any libre or shared source commerce system looking to integrate with them for payment processing.
The app itself is fully offline-capable and pretty neat.
Tryton has taken a wildly different path than it's ancestor OpenERP. https://www.tryton.org/
OpenERP is now known as Odoo. https://www.odoo.com/
Could you elaborate ? I'm interested in knowing what are the differences, business wise (I think Odoo is now on the web and Tryton is not, but that's superficial for me)
1/ On technical side, both leaders had very different directions on lots of different details. The main one being: Odoo moved to the web, Tryton was attached to the GTK/rich client.
2/ On the business side (probably the biggest difference): Tryton had a purely community driven development approach (with an anti-commercial mindset of his initial community) and Odoo's goal is to build a great open source product but sustain that with a strong business model (for partners and Odoo Inc).
The Tryton founders were 2 ex-employees of Odoo back in 2008 before the fork. Odoo had 5 employees at that time. (66% of the devs left to work on a fork :)
To discover Odoo:
- Start with these intro videos: https://odoo.com/page/tour
- Test online on: https://odoo.com/start
To try Tryton: http://www.tryton.org/download.html
To try Odoo: https://odoo.com/start
Note that there are also medical apps on Odoo. GNU Health started as an Odoo Projects, some of their leaders moved to Tryton and others continued on Odoo. We deployed Odoo is several hospitals, and 3 of the top 5 medical NGOs worldwide run Odoo.
Disclaimer: I am the founder/CEO of Odoo.
(I'm one of the Tryton founder as you may have understood)
Disclaimer: I'm a Tryton developer.
We also got a lot of value out of the other modules that almost magically comes out of the box :).
Completely unrelated to the ERP of course, the company is now out of business, but the website still remains http://bergesolutions.com
And all our comparisons whitepapers are here: https://www.odoo.com/fr_FR/page/odoo-white-paper
It works, but at a cost
-missing template designers for patient casesheet,lab and imaging investigations! How can we expect a Dentist or an ENT doctor to use the casesheet and what if a hospital has its own templates! -missing workflow management for doctor orders,lab and imaging specialities
-missing Doctor module and provides some of its functions over unrelated screens
-missing the billing module and instead a simple and manual interface to ERP invoicing. This is crucial in any HIS in private and also public hospitals and why building upon an ERP framework if not utilising its accounting features!
-missing the inpatient (ward) module-the only thing i found is a (Hospitalised) check box!
-missing the contract management module(services,insurances,pricelists,..)
-missing the Equipment Interfacing for Lab and PACS interface for imaging(in fact lab and imaging modules are missing only investigation orders and results entry found)
-too many reports!!
-missing CSSD,Diet & Nutrition,Food & Baverages,Transfusion Medicine(Blood Bank),Quality Management,Procedure Orders modules.
Well done HIS
Having done CSSD software I can safely say that it should be a stand alone product that could interact with GNU Health, it's way too complicated to just be module.
Be afraid :(
Whether they take contributions or not is not really relevant to open-sourceness -- under an appropriate license anyone can use the source to run their own project with whatever contribution policy they like -- but it looks like the main distributor is indeed open to contributions:
Interning at a pen testing company, they're always happy with hospitals and the like. "There's always plenty to be found there" I recently heard someone say. Usually you have to be on the internal network and that's why the state of affairs is that bad, but it's not like you are always accompanied by an employee while in the building.
I'd rather security increases than lowering costs, but ideally both of course. Maybe not even for myself: lower costs means being able to treat more people.
It's not even "show you the ropes", it's "shooting fish in a barrel"
It seems like everything gets more expensive as of lately, not cheaper. So I wouldn't be surprised if they just pocketed the difference.
I seen on the news a few days ago that some hospitals are in network but the doctors there are out of network. Makes no sense. Seems like the medical industry is just one big money making the scheme. Doesn't even tell people the prices up front.
We are past the point where a GNU sponsored project to rally around is useful.
You have won. You changed the entire landscape of computing Mr Stallman. You did it.
Focus on the new GOvernment digital services, lobby for the idea that all government funded software must must must be open and free.
GDS-style departments are affecting a lot of change, and the biggest ones are default-to-free and that is where I would like the FSF and gnu to focus.
Lobbyists, not also-ran coders
(I have a very tiny bit of skin in this game http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto)
Edit: It would be interesting to see more open source collaboration. Maybe you do not see it that much because all the people that have the expertise do not work for the hospitals but get snatched up by the vendors? Maybe you do not see that many start ups enering this sector because while individual contracts are lucrative there are fewer customers around than for consumer apps/products?
Regulators are not sitting behind your engineers making sure every line of code is tested though. Documentation in this area would basically be QA documenting testing with pass/fail which is going to be similar in other enterprise projects with a QA department. You get functionality testing with, for example, prescription of controlled substances, but they are not reviewing the code for vulnerabilities or any sort of proof.
In more than one instance, I've seen updates from EMR vendors have needed hotfixes after they find some critical bug. This is pushed to production the next day so even if regulators were reviewing code, they couldn't review it that fast.
>Most hospitals and open source enthusiasts do not have the time, money and expertise to do these things.
The trouble for open source contributors is knowing what the demands of doctors/nurses are. Most EMRs have common functionality but workflows are incredibly varied between hospitals. This is not an industry where the software controls or teaches the workflow. Providers can and often ask for custom stuff built to handle their particular needs at the expense of the code base.
However, once you know these workflows, the code behind them is not that difficult technically for today's tools and methods.
The technical challenges facing certain EMRs today (that I have experience with) are really scaling issues. Most of the enterprise EMRs started a long time ago, so they are running into issues with bad design that needs patchwork fixes. Plus not blocking the UI thread for most operations.
My comments on software validation were perhaps not as clear as I would have liked them to be. Of course the regulators are not looking at every line of code. It would have to be the buyer that would have to look at that documentation, so that everything is in order when an FDA inspection occurs (if at all). And maybe it is wishful thinking that the developers should take validation into account while developing, because you can only do so much with an operational/functional qualification on site. Perhaps I am thinking that way because I am looking at it from the perspective of a research organization that develops some of its software in house (workflow!). Companies contracting with us certainly do want to see the validation documentation that was produced during development.
The main issue for more OSS is that for pure software-based solutions (i.e. not the software of a medical device), the biggest cost for an hospital is usually maintenance, not the license, since (obviously) the hospital will want someone responsible for any issue and ready to fix it right away. This is a cost that is more difficult to share with others.
This is at least my experience with Italian public healthcare, which may be much different from the US market.
At least there is a lot of work on open protocols and interoperability [1], which is good because it can be another good way to reduce costs (by reducing lock-in).
That actually seems like it would make OSS more competitive, not less. The ability to sell services and maintenance contracts really lowers the barrier to open-sourcing your software. When the main thing that customers are buying is your company's expertise with the software, the barrier for releasing your software open source is much lower, and you can reap the benefits that come along with that.
Many years of work have gone into it.
I'm working on a clean, modern UI/UX front end for mobile/web EHR, will probably open source it. For the backend it would be nice to reuse something pretty good if it already exists.
I say this because only Libertarians see socialism/communism everywhere (and IMHO most often rightfully so)
It's in their Twitter profile.
Funny that a Vegan should be so into bullfighting and hunting.
... runs through Google Translate ...
Oh, right.
Fox hunting supports are "vile subhumans" apparently. I thought he was a socialist, not a fascist? He should just go the whole hog and use "untermenschen".