It's quite difficult to determine the features and functionality of OpenEMR comparing to PatientOS. Does anyone know the difference between the two? As in, which one offers more functionality and what each one is suitable for?
Thanks!
EMRDecision: It's quite difficult to determine the features and functionality of OpenEMR comparing to PatientOS. Does anyone know the difference between the two? As in, which one offers more functionality and what each one is suitable for?
OpenEMR vs. Patient OS is too limited a differential. Your horizons need expanding. The details of your practice situation are more important than the differences between these two EMRs.
The Reader's Digest difference is that OpenEMR is a more mature product, but the momentum is waning. PatientOS probably has close to no users, but it's being built on a Next Generation Platform and has been making incredible strides. Open EMR is more small doc office feeling and PatientOS might very well run a small hospital one day.
As well, it is not difficult to determine the functionality of either of these EMRs, as they are freely available for unlimited testing over the internet. As well, decide more what you need vs. what these would offer you. If you spend time deciding what you want, you'll be less likely to make a mistake.
30-40% of people who buy an EMR, uninstall it because they don't like/can't use it.
I think Dr Murdoch nailed it on the head. Apart from comparing OpenEMR I would also review ClearHealth.
It comes down to what your requirements are, PatientOS has one Indianna clinic up and running initially on 0.42 (now on 0.70) because they only had immediate registration, scheduling, messaging requirements (they have had new needs each week or two though) - they also had hired a local linux guru who setup the servers, network, customized their forms, settings and scripts.
When PatientOS hits version 1.0 that is when I will start encouraging people to install and evaluate the product thoroughly - I have been working more 'round robin' on the functionality and so once Physician Documentation and Billing is complete I will cycle back and touch up all functions (and more documentation...) to complete version 1.0.
When I look back at what was possible in September '07 or December and compare with what can be done today I feel enthused (and ever optimistic).
thanks!
(and thanks to Cam, Jason and Andrew who keep me at it).
Greg
http://www.patientos.org
Free to demo. Free to download. Free to distribute. Free to sell services around.
That is pretty big news. If you can get two installations, that would make you a "real" project and not just a boutique operation. Congratulations.
-FT
The top projects in the US currently are ClearHealth, Tolven and OpenMRS. ClearHealth is the only project with edecent support for billing (although the older projects, FreeMED and OpenEMR both have some support). It is installed in hundreds of locations. Tolven comes with a PHR and an EHR and I am not sure how many locations they have exactly. OpenMRS has many live installations all over the world, and probably has the most careful design from an informatics perspective. (They are backed by Regenstrief and several MIT hackers) Both Tolven and OpenMRS are weak on billing, but that hardly matters if you already have a PM. OpenMRS is by far the leader for international projects.
OpenEMR has a small but vibrant community. They also have some confusion over a trademark fork. So openemr.net is not the traditional OpenEMR, which is written in php. PatientOS is a small Java based project that aspires to CCHIT standards. I doubt that PatientOS will ever catchup to Tolven or OpenMRS (both of which use Java like PatientOS), I have criticised PatientOS in the past for starting "Yet-Another-Fine-EMR-Project" which only serves to further fragment an already divided community. However, PatientOS has continued to make progress and apparently, with a live installation, that progress has not been merely academic. If they continue to gain live installations, I will reluctantly begin to include them in the various FOSS EMR comparison efforts that I influence. I have already removed their name from the article that I wrote criticising the start of a new project.
http://www.fredtrotter.com/2007/11/27/foss-sin-pointless-duplication-of-effort/
Largely because it became apparent that outsiders to the FOSS community (often commenters here) were beginning to view me as a bully on the issue. This is regrettable, but understandable since most of the readers here have such a wildly different set of priorities. It is possible that caultonpos will be able to push through and make PatientOS a success, his continued progress and new live installations are indicators that he might be able to pull it off. What sadens me is that while this might be good for PatientOS and caultonpos, it will delay the emergence of a FOSS EMR with "Linux-like" dominance over the space. Even if PatientOS emerges as the project with "Linux-like" dominance, the process will take years longer and doom us to an extension of the dark ages of proprietary systems.
Your question, which is an indicator of the "marketing footprint" of the various projects, sadly focuses on a "was important" project and a "might someday be important" project, rather than the dominant projects in the space. This is an indicator that the efforts to market by the dominant projects continue to be a failure. I hope I can change this.