<?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: Better Healthcare with EMRs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/03/better-healthcare-with-emrs.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/03/better-healthcare-with-emrs.html</link>
	<description>Just another  weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:42:15 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Duncan Bath</title>
		<link>http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/03/better-healthcare-with-emrs.html#comment-332</link>
		<dc:creator>Duncan Bath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:23:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/03/better-healthcare-with-emrs.html#comment-332</guid>
		<description>Health Care involves &#039;jillions&#039; of pieces of paper (records).  Hardly a single one of them is worth keeping if it does not have a date on it.
Unfortunately (or otherwise) such dates are often expressed in obscure or ambiguous ways.  Eg.  would 01/04/09 refer to the first of January of 2009 or, might it be April Fool&#039;s Day?  Or might it have happened in 2001 (forget 1901)?
It seems to me that the IT fraternity (and IBM has connections with IT) seems to take no responsibility to the weeding out of ad hoc date forms in favor of the international standard  (ISO 8601)  date form.
Where does IBM stand on this issue?
Duncan
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Health Care involves &#8216;jillions&#8217; of pieces of paper (records).  Hardly a single one of them is worth keeping if it does not have a date on it.<br />
Unfortunately (or otherwise) such dates are often expressed in obscure or ambiguous ways.  Eg.  would 01/04/09 refer to the first of January of 2009 or, might it be April Fool&#8217;s Day?  Or might it have happened in 2001 (forget 1901)?<br />
It seems to me that the IT fraternity (and IBM has connections with IT) seems to take no responsibility to the weeding out of ad hoc date forms in favor of the international standard  (ISO 8601)  date form.<br />
Where does IBM stand on this issue?<br />
Duncan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
