Dear all, I did not get a respons on my viewpoints about the irrelevance of the HL7 v3 versus OpenEHR debate which is in my opinion, from a clinical and modelling point of view, irrelevant.
I need tools that help clinicians to express clinical needs, data, instruments, vocabulary and that supports their workflow and communication. Neither Open EHR nor HL7 currently can do this all. Both approaches need years of work ahead. Joint work, especially on archetypes / templates, would both increase the number of standardised clinical items that can easily exchanged and documted in and between systems, irrespectively of their technical solution. Technology is not the issue with current XML based, distributed technology where storage and communication are integrated to almost indistinghuisable components. Of course each tecnology needs further work to make it work in clinical practice. Of course there are differences in the technologies, and where OpenEHR is lacking obviously in the dynamic behaviour of data and workflow support (nicely modeled in HL7 moodcode), HL7 v3 will be lacking on simplicity for storing information as documents and the exact entry points for archetypes in the message (where the award earning OpenEHR division of systems and clinical models is strong), I see no solution in a blame and shame approach expressed in private messages. I am very sorry that for some commercial? or power play? reasons this debate has moved into an area where I do not want to play. Is there a problem with the system of democratic votes on issues in one of these organisations? I really wonder what is behind all this energy flow to uselessness. For me both the HL7 v3 messages and modeling and the OpenEHR archetype work are important. Especially since the major effort is in the appropriate definition and expression of the clinical materials, and the proper description of complex dynamics and communication in healthcare. Can we please focus on finding solutions instead of blaming one system being dead, which is just a false accusation. I challenge the OpenEHR community to work on improvement of the standardisation of archetypes and to work in cooperation with the HL7 community doing exactly the same. These are my last words on this issue of either - or. I need my time to develop archetypes and tools that allow easy conversion from HL7 R-MIM format to OpenEHR format, so that I do not have to worry. I don't care at all if some OpenEHR developers do not like HL7, I do not care if some HL7 developers do not like OpenEHR. I wont both the things work and do not take "no" or "cannot do" as an answer. There is only imperfection, well lets make it the perfect imperfection then. dr. William Goossen archetype builder see www.zorginformatiemodel.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20050916/63351d4f/attachment.html>
