Look for similar articles under these categories: 

• CCR,
• EHR,
• EMR,
• Electronic Health Record,
• Electronic Medical Record,
• HealthCare IT

6 responses to "Comparison of CCR and CCD"

1. # Randall Oates, M.D. commented on November 5th, 2009:

   See – Back to Basics: Toward a Core Set of Relevant and Portable Personal Health Information – By DAVID C. KIBBE

   http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/11/back-to-basics-toward-a-core-set-of-relevant-and-portable-personal-health-information.html

2. # Abhi commented on November 5th, 2009:

   Dr. Jeff’s post is quite helpful.

   I don’t understand is why are so many different standards required to transmit patient data.

   If you take all possible things a patient record can have and fit it in one XML format (perhaps CCD?), then different organizations will need and use small subset of that XML. Make it a well-defined XML, where field definitions are exact, without any ambiguities. Software can parse this XML and perform the right operations.

   Why doesn’t medical community agree to one format and stick to it?
   These incompatibilities increase vendor’s cost to implement and maintain any software, which is then passed on to the physicians. Besides both physicians and the patients loose, because of document incompatibilities between vendors prevent any meaningful data interchange.

   I guess this will never change.
   End of rant ;-)

   Abhi

3. # Greg Starr MD commented on November 5th, 2009:

   I just took a look a some of the billion company sites entrusted with efficient universal secure purveyance of medical records so that they be available where and when a patient happened to get sick. So the US could improve its substandard care and maybe save a buck.

   I didn’t see one meaningful recommendation in all the sites I looked at. It looked like they had been working on an off shore international financial conglomerate that got raided by the IRS. You can imagine coffee cup heaped on the floor and phone ripped out of the wall.

   EMR’s are supposed to be a system for patients and all venues where health care is provided. Instead we get new certification attempts, organizations in services.

   This condition is a bold faced message to care givers and the American Public a chance at first-world-country-medical-standards for prices where every family in the US hasn’t gone broke.

   In best cases, bicycle couriers, taxis, milk runs and shoe leather will be fueling our billions of dollars worth of mobile-secure-accessible medical information.

   The new whispers for the day are, “seal the assets right now!”

4. # John commented on November 5th, 2009:

   Abhi,
   I don’t think CCD uses XML. CCR does though.

   I don’t completely understand why the medical community can’t get together around one standard either. I think the answer is likely politics though.

5. # Abhi commented on November 6th, 2009:

   John,
   Both CCD and CCR use XML. Their structures are slightly different. (I did not find examples for you on the HL7 website)

   Politics may be the issue. Though look at other industries, wireless networking for example. There is only one standard 802.11. Every few years IEEE releases new versions and all vendors support it.

   Do the wireless vendors really want to cooperate? Probably not, but they do and the consumers win in terms of compatible, low priced devices.

   The health care community is causing itself a lot of trouble, not helping the consumers – sure way of inviting Government intervention.

6. # John commented on November 6th, 2009:

   They certainly should work towards one standard, but haven’t because of politics I think. I’ve said before that I think that the stimulus money should have been spent on establishing the interoperability standard and the tools to be able to exchange the data.

   We’ll see how it plays out, but government intervention does seem likely if we’re going to see this happen on a broad scale.