Talk:Regional Health Information Organization
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
My arguments regarding this page's neutrality are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Health Information Organization. –Sommers (Talk) 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion debate
i was talking today at a reunion with three of my children who are senior executives (accountants and actuaries) in health care. this article should not be deleted. RHIOs are now a serious effort and an extention of HIPPA which i founded. i plan to revisit this article to make sure it is accurate and professional.joe 09:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am involved with RHIOs and I feel this article could be made substantially smaller, or conversely, spread across the larger discussion of the NHIN.
I am personally glad the article was kept. I am a HIT student and use WIKIPEDIA for much of my homework. Even if the article is biased, it does not mean that RHIO does not exist. And for people like me having more than one resource on RHIO is very helpful. Thank you to the people here at Wikipedia for keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearcatsrus2000 (talk • contribs) 01:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
The piece on RHIOs at this point, conveys a motley of points of view, US Federal government processes and policies, peppered with limited facts. This page requires a substantial rewrite. The facts of this article need teased out to improve the neutrality and factual basis of the RHIO topic. Rborotka (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Removed the public-relations-speak
I spent some effort editing this article, removing prose that read like press releases where there was no evidence that the work proposed had been accomplished to date. I also streamlined the text by removing redundancies, which are perhaps inevitable when several organizations announce their identical good intentions with respect to patient care and provider benefit.
I also simplified the discussion of centralized vs. federated RHIO models, which are in fact identical to the issues of centralized data warehousing vs. distributed data federation. Several of the "pros-and-cons" meantioned earlier derive from centralized vs. distributed storage/ data-access control, and other points that were mentioned (e.g., differences in technical difficulty) were spurious. The choice of one model vs the other is driven more by political/trust considerations: distributed models exist mainly because individual institutions are reluctant to give up control of their data, which might happen if a copy of their data existed remotely with a different organization.