How can open source health systems truly garner momentum when the top health organizations in the country are adopting proprietary health systems? It was just announced today that Mayo Clinic will now be adopting Microsoft Vault for its patients. Microsoft is continually penetrating the market quickly and on an extremely large scale now. With Mayo Clinic adopting Microsoft, this sets the industry up for such an adoption example. Mayo Clinic is seen as one of the best health organizations in the country, so many look to this health provider as a leader in all that it does. If Mayo Clinic adopts Microsoft Vault, then many of the other health organizations in the industry will do so as well.
Therefore, are open source health systems out of the question for large health institutions like Mayo Clinic? Should efforts to push for open source health systems be concentrated only on not-for-profit or public health institutions? Perhaps if more a focus is formed like this, then open source health systems can find their initial niche to demonstrate their capabilities. With this niche of interoperability, open source health systems could begin to expand. However, as of now, open source health systems are scattered too thin across the variety of health organizations in the US. If they can focus efforts on specific types of organizations or goals, then perhaps we could truly see a substantial adoption rate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Though it is indeed beneficial for open source to have a go at establishing itself as a viable and interoperable means to improve HIT and to extend it into the rural communities that would otherwise not be able to afford to participate, but it would have to have some governance over it before implemented.
ReplyDeleteTP
There are standards that each health system must meet no matter whether it is a proprietary system or an open source system. That provides a strict sense of governance on how the system should operate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, governance over simply an open source system is perhaps not the correct choice of words. It is better said that support and security need to be ensured with the implementation of an open source system. That is much of my discussion on this blog is the need for developed open source communities, so the security and support can be guaranteed like with a proprietary system.