Fax: Sangoma FAXstation
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
Yeah, but then it has to be manually entered into the different EHR. Use a standard data interchange format and automation gets easy.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
How many standards are tehre? Converting from one to another, if it is all medical data and XML, remains trivial. That makes it a bit more work, but still not much.
There's a different standard for every type of EHR. I wonder if they intentionally name their fields something different just to cause this issue.
If you output to HL7, and my system understands how to read HL7 input, my system shouldn't need any type of convertor. Yet the last two EHRs I've worked with both require special connectors for every connection we make to another vendors system (even though everyone claims they are transmitting in HL7).
I just don't understand why we have these issues.
How many of these are there? Is this like 5, 50 or 500?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
OK after reading Travis' posts, I think think most have any expectation that faxes will be automated.
That said, athena tries to pull it off, but ended up closing incorrect future procedures with past results /sigh. I led to us completely disabling their handling of our faxes. Apparently they might be able to accept the faxes and not process them.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
How many standards are tehre? Converting from one to another, if it is all medical data and XML, remains trivial. That makes it a bit more work, but still not much.
There's a different standard for every type of EHR. I wonder if they intentionally name their fields something different just to cause this issue.
If you output to HL7, and my system understands how to read HL7 input, my system shouldn't need any type of convertor. Yet the last two EHRs I've worked with both require special connectors for every connection we make to another vendors system (even though everyone claims they are transmitting in HL7).
I just don't understand why we have these issues.
How many of these are there? Is this like 5, 50 or 500?
How many different EHRs? probably more than 500. I haven't dug into it.. but I'm not sure DM has a standard naming as part of the spec.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
I'm no sure what you point is? I'm not using tech to read my faxes, I'm using a human.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
I'm no sure what you point is? I'm not using tech to read my faxes, I'm using a human.
That IS my point.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
I'm no sure what you point is? I'm not using tech to read my faxes, I'm using a human.
That IS my point.
oh, well, sadly, we still have to confirm everything in the current DM setup by a human as well.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
I'm no sure what you point is? I'm not using tech to read my faxes, I'm using a human.
That IS my point.
oh, well, sadly, we still have to confirm everything in the current DM setup by a human as well.
What causes that problem?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
I'm no sure what you point is? I'm not using tech to read my faxes, I'm using a human.
That IS my point.
oh, well, sadly, we still have to confirm everything in the current DM setup by a human as well.
What causes that problem?
The lack of standards. And I guess our lack of paying the EHR $1000's for every EHR we might get DMs from so they are understood correctly and handled automatically.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
I'm no sure what you point is? I'm not using tech to read my faxes, I'm using a human.
That IS my point.
oh, well, sadly, we still have to confirm everything in the current DM setup by a human as well.
What causes that problem?
The lack of standards. And I guess our lack of paying the EHR $1000's for every EHR we might get DMs from so they are understood correctly and handled automatically.
Lack of standards would not do that unless you have an issue that they are sending gibberish. If you are manually dealing with each one, you must be paying way more than $1,000 for each one today.
-
Having used this a lot in the past I think everyone is wrong.
It takes locslnfax modulation from a legacy fax machine, which pretends to be the receiving end. It then uploads and faxes out of a data center, because T.38 is a PoS.
Your doctors office sending a 100 page fax won’t work over T.38, but this works and there is zero training.
Even medical cloud apps now use a similar backend. The fax goes out over a PRI in a data center directly from the document solution.
This is also what eFax does.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
If DM was literally just transferring an image file (like a fax) then yeah.. there would be no issue, the receiver would just be on the hook for attaching the image to the correct patient, assuming OCR couldn't figure it out.
It's the XML that is easiest.
Well, the only thing I can figure is that there is no agreement currently in place for the name of fields or some other some stupid thing.
THat's a different issue, and one that affects fax, too.
Eh? Isn't a fax, a fax, a fax?
No, otherwise an XML is an XML is an XML.
The difference is, XML can have standards. Fax cannot. Fax is the opposite of this, every fax is unique regardless of formatting.
Well I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about? a fax is simply an image of the file/piece of paper in question. So where are you expecting there to be a standard?
There CAN'T be a standard, because it is just a picture. That's why EVERY fax is unique. You have 20,000 faxes a month, you have 20,000 different communications types.
You have 100 fields from 500 unique EMRs, you have 50,000 max combinations. It's high, but it's not 20,000 every single month. That's 240,000 a year, every year.
Fax image standard is a tiff file, literally.
But this solution does not transmit image, it rebroadcasts immodulation.
Is it dumb? Yes. But it has grown and was acquired by Sangoma because people are dumb and there is nothing you can do about it except take their money.
-
@bigbear there was a lot of random speculation about the service earlier. In the thread. The entire concept of it generating an email blows my mind. No where does it ever state anything like that happened @scottalanmiller
-
@jaredbusch said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@bigbear there was a lot of random speculation about the service earlier. In the thread. The entire concept of it generating an email blows my mind. No where does it ever state anything like that happened @scottalanmiller
It is poorly explained all around in their marketing. I saw it for years and forget how I ended up trying it. It was also horribly named before as
FachsBachs or something crazy.FaxxBochs.
