Thomas Beale <Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz> wrote: as answer: William > TB: The ultimate point is that there absolutely must be a single set of >models for clinical concepts.
WG: I agree! Secondly, that it must be possible to express these concepts clearly, and re-usably. WG: I agree! TB: Thirdly, that such expressions can be automatically translated for use in any particular deployment technology or circumstance. WG: I agree! TB: Having parallel libraries of such concept definitions (and this will probably be made worse with HL7v3 templates) is not going to be a useful step for healthcare. > >- thomas > WG: Here I disagree, currently concept definitions are findable on zillion places. Reducing this to the copyright holder of an instrument, three to five terminologies (LOINC, SNOMED etc.) and two or three standards organisations (HL7 v3 / OpenEHR-13606) and a few national project that deploy them is already a huge achievement in reducing the number of places where to find this. I see the zorginformatiemodel.nl website as an intermediary to get things going. Yes we definitely need a registry, which should not be the standards organisations themselves I believe. William Goossen - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
