Fax: Sangoma FAXstation
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Believe me, I wish faxing would just go away...
Unfortunately, folks in the medical field love to fax...it's like they're stuck in a bad dream.One of the many reasons that I don't trust doctors. Intentionaly insecure, inefficient... doing things that would be considered incompetent and unprofessional in any other field.
You can't just saddle this on medicine.. Lawyers seem stuck here too. Perhaps not as bad as medicine.
Yeah, but you don't have HIPAA to protect a lawyer. You catch a lawyer doing this with your data, you've got them in court. A doctor has HIPAA to justify not following industrial minimal standards.
That said, I've never seen a lawyer do this and, unlike doctors, you can just drop a lawyer. Lawyers aren't a monopoly.
I'm not really sure how HIPAA protects doctors here either - Faxing I don't think is specifically listed as an acceptable delivery/receipt mechanism.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Believe me, I wish faxing would just go away...
Unfortunately, folks in the medical field love to fax...it's like they're stuck in a bad dream.One of the many reasons that I don't trust doctors. Intentionaly insecure, inefficient... doing things that would be considered incompetent and unprofessional in any other field.
You can't just saddle this on medicine.. Lawyers seem stuck here too. Perhaps not as bad as medicine.
Yeah, but you don't have HIPAA to protect a lawyer. You catch a lawyer doing this with your data, you've got them in court. A doctor has HIPAA to justify not following industrial minimal standards.
That said, I've never seen a lawyer do this and, unlike doctors, you can just drop a lawyer. Lawyers aren't a monopoly.
I'm not really sure how HIPAA protects doctors here either - Faxing I don't think is specifically listed as an acceptable delivery/receipt mechanism.
It's been established as a de facto excusable insecure methodology. For all intents and purposes, that's why HIPAA exists, to protect doctors from being held to what would otherwise be industry and professional standards.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Faxing I don't think is specifically listed as an acceptable delivery/receipt mechanism.
AFAIK nothing is listed explicetly. But until someone with a LOT of money starts suing doctors, they've worked to establish it as acceptable when no other industry would accept data being sent that way. This is because doctors don't risk their own data that way, they risk patient data.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Believe me, I wish faxing would just go away...
Unfortunately, folks in the medical field love to fax...it's like they're stuck in a bad dream.If only direct messaging would really work.
What do you mean? It works really well.
You're probably right from a pure tech solution (here is info on Direct Messaging - https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/direct-project).
But like HL7, DM rarely ever seems to just work. Those using it have to create convertors to get data into different systems.We get DMs now and then, and they don't integrate correctly into our system without intervention.
But there are SO many ways to handle this. If you want centralized, you have big players like Google. If you want peer to peer, that's all email is.
DM is based on email. There are "trusted" email hosts that EHR vendors have on a list. They then send emails to those trusted email addresses with XML data to send data between EHRs.
Right, so we have that and it is solid. Seems like we have a good, working solution today that is way beyond fax. Partially because it has a data interexchange format that fax cannot support.
The lack of data flowing without vendors charging hundreds or thousands is the issue here.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Believe me, I wish faxing would just go away...
Unfortunately, folks in the medical field love to fax...it's like they're stuck in a bad dream.If only direct messaging would really work.
What do you mean? It works really well.
You're probably right from a pure tech solution (here is info on Direct Messaging - https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/direct-project).
But like HL7, DM rarely ever seems to just work. Those using it have to create convertors to get data into different systems.We get DMs now and then, and they don't integrate correctly into our system without intervention.
But there are SO many ways to handle this. If you want centralized, you have big players like Google. If you want peer to peer, that's all email is.
DM is based on email. There are "trusted" email hosts that EHR vendors have on a list. They then send emails to those trusted email addresses with XML data to send data between EHRs.
Right, so we have that and it is solid. Seems like we have a good, working solution today that is way beyond fax. Partially because it has a data interexchange format that fax cannot support.
The lack of data flowing without vendors charging hundreds or thousands is the issue here.
Except nothing needs to be charged. The data is ready and there today. Zero need for anyone to charge anything. This is a solved problem, that doctors refuse is just doctors refusing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Believe me, I wish faxing would just go away...
Unfortunately, folks in the medical field love to fax...it's like they're stuck in a bad dream.If only direct messaging would really work.
What do you mean? It works really well.
You're probably right from a pure tech solution (here is info on Direct Messaging - https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/direct-project).
But like HL7, DM rarely ever seems to just work. Those using it have to create convertors to get data into different systems.We get DMs now and then, and they don't integrate correctly into our system without intervention.
But there are SO many ways to handle this. If you want centralized, you have big players like Google. If you want peer to peer, that's all email is.
DM is based on email. There are "trusted" email hosts that EHR vendors have on a list. They then send emails to those trusted email addresses with XML data to send data between EHRs.
Right, so we have that and it is solid. Seems like we have a good, working solution today that is way beyond fax. Partially because it has a data interexchange format that fax cannot support.
The lack of data flowing without vendors charging hundreds or thousands is the issue here.
Except nothing needs to be charged. The data is ready and there today. Zero need for anyone to charge anything. This is a solved problem, that doctors refuse is just doctors refusing.
I'm confused - if a clinic with Epic sends a DM to me today, my system doesn't know how to interrupt the data in a meaningful way. Instead my vendor has to write an inbound parser.
-
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Believe me, I wish faxing would just go away...
Unfortunately, folks in the medical field love to fax...it's like they're stuck in a bad dream.If only direct messaging would really work.
What do you mean? It works really well.
You're probably right from a pure tech solution (here is info on Direct Messaging - https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/direct-project).
But like HL7, DM rarely ever seems to just work. Those using it have to create convertors to get data into different systems.We get DMs now and then, and they don't integrate correctly into our system without intervention.
But there are SO many ways to handle this. If you want centralized, you have big players like Google. If you want peer to peer, that's all email is.
DM is based on email. There are "trusted" email hosts that EHR vendors have on a list. They then send emails to those trusted email addresses with XML data to send data between EHRs.
Right, so we have that and it is solid. Seems like we have a good, working solution today that is way beyond fax. Partially because it has a data interexchange format that fax cannot support.
The lack of data flowing without vendors charging hundreds or thousands is the issue here.
Except nothing needs to be charged. The data is ready and there today. Zero need for anyone to charge anything. This is a solved problem, that doctors refuse is just doctors refusing.
I'm confused - if a clinic with Epic sends a DM to me today, my system doesn't know how to interrupt the data in a meaningful way. Instead my vendor has to write an inbound parser.
Right, but anyone can write an XML parser. You could hire people to do that in no time even if you had to do it yourself. XML is trivial to parse, tools do that for you, and the amount of data that you need to grab from it can't have that many fields. Even if it were a few hundreds, you are talking about barely any effort at all to write your own parser.
We do this for the logistics industry. This is the stuff you give to interns.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
-
How many standards are tehre? Converting from one to another, if it is all medical data and XML, remains trivial. That makes it a bit more work, but still not much.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
How many standards are tehre? Converting from one to another, if it is all medical data and XML, remains trivial. That makes it a bit more work, but still not much.
There's a different standard for every type of EHR. I wonder if they intentionally name their fields something different just to cause this issue.
If you output to HL7, and my system understands how to read HL7 input, my system shouldn't need any type of convertor. Yet the last two EHRs I've worked with both require special connectors for every connection we make to another vendors system (even though everyone claims they are transmitting in HL7).
I just don't understand why we have these issues.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
Yeah, but then it has to be manually entered into the different EHR. Use a standard data interchange format and automation gets easy.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
How many standards are tehre? Converting from one to another, if it is all medical data and XML, remains trivial. That makes it a bit more work, but still not much.
There's a different standard for every type of EHR. I wonder if they intentionally name their fields something different just to cause this issue.
If you output to HL7, and my system understands how to read HL7 input, my system shouldn't need any type of convertor. Yet the last two EHRs I've worked with both require special connectors for every connection we make to another vendors system (even though everyone claims they are transmitting in HL7).
I just don't understand why we have these issues.
How many of these are there? Is this like 5, 50 or 500?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
OK after reading Travis' posts, I think think most have any expectation that faxes will be automated.
That said, athena tries to pull it off, but ended up closing incorrect future procedures with past results /sigh. I led to us completely disabling their handling of our faxes. Apparently they might be able to accept the faxes and not process them.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
How many standards are tehre? Converting from one to another, if it is all medical data and XML, remains trivial. That makes it a bit more work, but still not much.
There's a different standard for every type of EHR. I wonder if they intentionally name their fields something different just to cause this issue.
If you output to HL7, and my system understands how to read HL7 input, my system shouldn't need any type of convertor. Yet the last two EHRs I've worked with both require special connectors for every connection we make to another vendors system (even though everyone claims they are transmitting in HL7).
I just don't understand why we have these issues.
How many of these are there? Is this like 5, 50 or 500?
How many different EHRs? probably more than 500. I haven't dug into it.. but I'm not sure DM has a standard naming as part of the spec.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
