anonymous wrote on Saturday, February 05, 2011:
Thanks, sounds like you found some sort of cache bug. Clear your cache and try again and let me know if that works.
-Chris
www.ehrlive.com
aperezcrespo wrote on Saturday, February 05, 2011:
Used ccleaner and used a different browser (ie8). Same error.
Alfonso
arnabnaha wrote on Saturday, February 05, 2011:
Hi clucena
can you please upgrade the patient portal codes in github? it will be better and easy to integrate into openemr from there…
Arnab Naha
anonymous wrote on Saturday, February 05, 2011:
arnabnaha,
We have it on github but as a private repository. We will not be releasing this publicly but as either as a for cost module/addition or a hosted solution. We haven’t made the business decision on that yet. The reason for this is because no one sponsored this work. Most vendors wait until someone sponsors a project and pays before they do it. This puts the full cost of the project on the sponsors shoulders. Very few organizations are willing to sponsor big money projects when it comes to open source.
The way we work it is that we will go ahead and develop a much wanted project and then split the cost amongst those who wish to implement it. That either comes in the form of paying for the module or hosting of the module. So instead of paying let’s say $10,000 for a project from 1 organization, multiple people will pay a fraction of that cost (let’s say $250 or a monthly hosting fee) and eventually we get fully compensated for our work and time.
You would spend $10,000 on creating something and expect not to be compensated, would you? Again, if anyone out there is willing to fork up the money to compensate us for the work in full in order for it to be release to the community… then we can do that. But we are following how other companies do this for other open source projects such as Joomla, Wordpress, etc.
-Chris
www.ehrlive.com
anonymous wrote on Saturday, February 05, 2011:
Alfonso,
Please check to see if you get the error now.
Thanks,
Chris
stephen-smith wrote on Sunday, February 06, 2011:
Just make sure you are following the license:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
That’s GPLv2. We might be under GPLv3+ now - we effectively are if we incorporated something under Apache License, Version 2.0, since we were GPLv2+ but Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2.
stephen-smith wrote on Sunday, February 06, 2011:
Also, some of the answers in the FAQ cover combining proprietary software with Free Software.
zhhealthcare wrote on Sunday, February 06, 2011:
Stephen
I am curious about your statement above. Is it meant to interpret that any additional work based on the original HAS to be distributed, even if it is only a SaaS? My understanding of free in opensource is derived from the following l ink http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
We might need to clarify this.
Regards
Sam
aperezcrespo wrote on Tuesday, February 08, 2011:
Hi,
Starting playing with it today. Looks nice but I wonder how much the patient should or needs to have access to.
For example:
The patient can print a blank referral form.
How much of the Messages does the patient need to see? (eg: Messages from biller to doctor or vise versa about coding and billing).
Will keep poking.
Thanks
aperezcrespo wrote on Tuesday, February 08, 2011:
Almost forgot….
Patient can delete messages…
Alfonso
aethelwulffe wrote on Tuesday, February 08, 2011:
Nice work so far guys! This will be a really nice feature. Thank you.
johnbwilliams wrote on Wednesday, February 09, 2011:
The Direct Project and Patient Engagement::
http://geekdoctor.blogspot.com/2011/02/direct-project-and-patient-engagement.html
sim2011 wrote on Wednesday, February 16, 2011:
Hi,
We r developing patient portal, depending on Physicians requirements.
Key points:
Its drupal based.
Clinic based.
Patient Databases are not linked to make sure all r secure.
Minimal access to patients record, approved by the physicians only.
Advance notification and approval by patients r taken for putting their records online. (HIPPA laws.)
In progress.
sunsetsystems wrote on Wednesday, February 16, 2011:
We r developing patient portal, depending on Physicians requirements.
Sounds good. Will this be Free Software, and do you wish it to be part of OpenEMR?
sim2011 wrote on Wednesday, March 02, 2011:
Hi Rod
We will test it with current office n if it works fine… will definietlt add in. I am new to this forum. found these messages after long time. my apologies though these were rite under my nose… lol.
We r cureently working for hospital set up with openemr so a delay on patient portals front. Thanks.
juggernautsei wrote on Wednesday, April 27, 2011:
Hi,
What is the current status on the Patient Portal? Does anyone have a working version?
Sherwin
cassilup wrote on Tuesday, May 03, 2011:
Hi everybody,
I have been communicating with Tony McCormick on developing a patient portal that would be available under open-source for the entire OpenEMR community.
I am currently working on a OpenEMR-based Patient Portal.
The plan is:
> The Clinic generates a 9-day access credentials set for the patient from the Patient Summary page.
- by ‘Generating’ I also mean creating a record in the database with the timestamp, pid and code
- “code” is a random number between 10.000 - 99.999
> The Patient receives a printed paper with instructions on logging on the system. (/email?)
> The Patient accesses the indicated (friendly) url and types in SSN & Code, logs in
> The Patient sees a stripped-down version of the summary page.
I am more than half the way there and will submit the code for review on Github when it will be ready. I expect this to happen sometime next week if nothing changes the plans.
Cassi
tmccormi wrote on Tuesday, May 03, 2011:
Thanks Cassi!
One thing I would do is not require SSN, but perhaps some other confirming ID (PID or DOB). SSN is not a required field and many patients and doctors don’t use it or want to give that number out. Plus it’s only used in the USA and this is an internationally used project.
-Tony
sunsetsystems wrote on Tuesday, May 03, 2011:
Not sure if this means exposing the current OpenEMR application to the public, but if it does then it dramatically raises the stakes for security. Something to keep in mind.
mike-h30 wrote on Tuesday, May 03, 2011:
Not sure if this means exposing the current OpenEMR application to the public, but if it does then it dramatically raises the stakes for security. Something to keep in mind.
I was also wondering how that would be set up.
Mike