<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Background: New US Policy for EHR</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.talkstandards.com/background-new-us-policy-for-ehr/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.talkstandards.com/background-new-us-policy-for-ehr/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:30:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith W Boone</title>
		<link>http://www.talkstandards.com/background-new-us-policy-for-ehr/comment-page-1/#comment-793</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith W Boone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkstandards.com/?p=3563#comment-793</guid>
		<description>I would have to say that reaction to the IFR has been more a sigh of relief that it was published than &quot;mostly positive.&quot;  It&#039;s not a total disaster, but it also isn&#039;t a complete success either.

There&#039;s still quite a bit of criticism and public commenting going on.  The IFR itself fails to account for many of the recommendations of the advisory committees that that were formed to advise on the topic.  The selection of two standards for patient summaries is one of the most criticized aspects of it.

As you point out, this is an ongoing process...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would have to say that reaction to the IFR has been more a sigh of relief that it was published than &#8220;mostly positive.&#8221;  It&#8217;s not a total disaster, but it also isn&#8217;t a complete success either.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s still quite a bit of criticism and public commenting going on.  The IFR itself fails to account for many of the recommendations of the advisory committees that that were formed to advise on the topic.  The selection of two standards for patient summaries is one of the most criticized aspects of it.</p>
<p>As you point out, this is an ongoing process&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

