Talk:VistA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tone of article[edit]

This article in general reads like an advertisement for VistA ("highest user satisfaction"), etc. This is laughable as anyone who uses it knows the interface is from the 1980s and it is incredibly frustrating in comparison to more modern EHRs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D300:650:7964:FEEB:3E98:96C4 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VistA history[edit]

I have commented out the paragraph contributed by 70.108.148.50. Although it provides some information, the content isn't clear ("The first Hardhats were the developers of DHCP, called that because they felt like they were working on an "Underground Railroad"--huh?), contextual ("Some people have suggested that the VA could become the nucleus of a United States national health care system."--because of VistA?, why?), referenced, or neutral("become one of the premier health providers in the world despite being grossly underfunded by Congress"). Some claims are speculative ("The support Congressman Montgomery provided to the VA has been greatly missed.") and really don't provide the reader with any explanation--has funding been reduced? Is VistA being displaced by other software? The paragraph needs to be rewritten with Wikipedia guidelines in mind, and the goal of providing information, not an opinion or a memorial. Ryanjo 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are some significant errors of fact in the first four paragraphs of this section. (E.g., I suspect that the original NCHSR work mentioned was that of COSTAR, an outpatient EHR system done in MUMPS by its creator, Dr. Octo Barnett / MGH.) I'll have to do some research, and will update the article if warranted.

In an area where I have more expertise, the IHS RPMS system was not 'developed in parallel'. I was a member of the team that brought DHCP into IHS in 1984, and that effort was "open source" ahead of its times. I plan to update that section to more accurately reflect that portion of VistA history. Clayton Curtis (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plugs for other software[edit]

I have removed the link to GNUmed.

While I agree with the open source outlook of the GNUmed developers, it is not related to VistA in any way.

I would also object to every other EMR / EHR system posting their links to a page about VistA.

Mixing VistA with More Public VistA[edit]

I'm wondering if this page should be split between the VistA the VA uses and the ones being used outside. While there's lots of good information here, I'm left with the impression that the VA is using the same software as the public distributions. I believe this is not really the case. The VA develops VistA for their own use, makes available a copy of the source code under Freedom of Information Act, that others then use for their own purposes. The references to GT.M and distribution discussions should clarify that the source flows from the VA one-way, and others have added other things and distribute for their purposes.

Also, VistA Office/EHR is a government sanctioned distribution - not mentioned or linked.

Lyle 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have created an article for WorldVistA, which is the public version (originally called VistA Office/EHR). Perspectoff (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iEHR?[edit]

Should some mention of the DoD and VA joint electronic health record system (iEHR) be made? It has been ongoing for a little while now, and is a non-trivial effort which involves (threatens? includes? expands? evolves?) VistA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official name of software platform[edit]

The official name of the software platform is VistA. This article was originally named VistA. The appropriate title for the page should be Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) and this page should be moved to that correct page. Vista is apparently a reserved search term for Windows, and can only be used for Windows Vista.

Derivatives of VistA are WorldVista, OpenVistA, and others. All of them use the VistA acronym. Perspectoff (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this would be controversial. If the official name is VistA, then propose a proper page move to VistA. Doing a cut-and-paste move to Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) not only fragments the editing history, but makes a hash of the disambiguation format, and creates a page name that few would navigate to naturally. Look at NASA or HIPAA for appropriate examples. As I mentioned before, page titles should be either the full name or the abbreviation, not both. Dancter (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at those examples. there are no competitors for those acronyms. Microsoft and Windows users compete for the Vista term as being equivalent to Windows Vista. Searches through google for VistA get redirected to Windows Vista, and disambiguation links there get removed constantly. The full title Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture is not practical in searches, and is not commonly used. Therefore this is the exception to the rule, given the aggressive redirection to Windows Vista. This page should be moved to Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA).
I noticed that you have modified most of the wikilinks to point to VistA, but have not yet requested a page move at WP:RM. You probably should have waited until after the move was completed to do those changes. If you plan to proceed with a page move, please do so soon. The redirects are expending additional server resources, as well as resulting in a number of double redirects. Dancter (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for move to VistA pending. Perspectoff (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to VistA was denied (see below) and all links were reset by bot. I therefore reiterate the need for move to Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA). Perspectoff (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the discussion is still open and listed. Double redirects that exist will be fixed by bots, which is why I suggested that you hold off on any link changes until after a move is performed. I believe your other link changes are still intact. And no, I will not support a move back to Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA). Dancter (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to VistA; a disambig hatnote will be added to make it clear that this is not any other usage of the word "vista" -- Aervanath (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture → VistA — VistA is the official acronym for a 100 module software platform of the US government. Similar to NASA, the acronym is both officially and commonly recognized since 1994, both in the US and internationally. All references outside of Wikipedia use VistA. Derivatives of the software system are known by VistA congeners (such as WorldVistA). With the present classification, it takes 3 clicks through non-related pages to find VistA, and it does not appear in external search engines linking to Wikipedia at all. The target link is only a redirect.
  • Vista (disambiguation) gives 51 meanings for "vista" with various cases of its component letters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. The move request is to VistA, not vista. That name (i.e. VistA) is unique. Perspectoff (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:IOS VistA.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:IOS VistA.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:IOS VistA.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICPRS iPhone.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:ICPRS iPhone.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ICPRS iPhone.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HIMMS Stage 7[edit]

VA hospitals are not listed on HIMMS Stage 7 Hospital List (link on Footnote 12). Is this accurate? Also, there are at least 106 hospitals with googling news reports on hospitals awarded Stage 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.20.27 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current list can be found here: http://himssanalytics.org/case-study/validated-stage-6-7-providers-list VA hospitals are not listed among the 60 Hospital Organizations that are Stage 7. Also, there are well over 400 Stage 6 Hospital health systems, not the 42 as stated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:D29:10E2:705E:563A:D92C (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main VistA Website Gives a 404[edit]

https://connectedcare.va.gov/VistA.asp is 404ing. :(.

This is referenced in the article, but I want to keep it in there until a better link is provided. I have emailed ConnectedCare. I encourage you to do so as well: https://connectedcare.va.gov/

- Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exception e (talk • contribs) 23:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back from CC :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exception e (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on VistA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VistA&oldid=1208312513"