Of course it is bad news in this community if the same principles of 13606 / Open EHR are applied in HL7 v3 Patient Care and that it works.
I think the debate of either or standard is the scientific debate of last century. The work of this century is to standardise clinical content in small discrete archetypes to be used in any IT solution. Lot of work goes in sorting out the clinical stuff and an appropriate binding to vocabulary and determination of appropriate datatypes. See earlier points made by Cecil Lynch Then an agnostic modeling serves very well to facilitate implementation in several technical systems, either EHR or message. Breakthrugh work in this sence is the linkage of HL7 v2 messages and OpenEHR archetype identifiers in the message that specify the clinical content. This methodology can be used in HL7 v3 messages in a similar way (refer in the XML tags to the appropriate archetype / template). Tooling is underway. Transformation form standard A to B or B to A a piece of cake if all hard clinical consensusbuilding and specification has been done. Since we have so many ( I envision in the tenth of thousands, even up to hundreds of thousands discrete and small molecular archetypes, given experiences in about a dozen of projects involving clinicians, having dealt with about 10.000 discrite variables, organised in every possible grouping), the most dramatic problem to be solved is the repository of these things called GPICs, CMETs, archetypes, R-MIM, care information models, detailed clinical models, templates. It is nice to have a big book of all kinds of requirements for archetypes specification such as the Iso 13606-2 archetype language, but if nobody worries about the content itself it is waste of time and effort of 10 years of research in both CEN / OpenEHR and HL7 v.3 Finding a way to organise, maintain and update archetypes/templates/care information models is the real challenge. So I think this community should re-read the blog by David More carefully and see similar worries that I have given 3 years of submitting content to both standards organisations, all acknowledging that it is important and all asap ignoring it. So what we need is a repository of clinical templates, maintained well, that basically ignores the specific technical implementation in either OpenEHR or HL7 CDA or v3 messages. We can apply similar systems as the ISO OID registry to identify sources and content. William Goossen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070123/d57da50c/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
