In een bericht met de datum 23-1-2007 16:37:29 West-Europa (standaardtijd), schrijft gfrer at luna.nl:
Interesting view Gerard, This is very similar to the peer review process within the similar HL7 v3 development. On top of that: since HL7 is an standards development organisation, there is also a voting process involved. The difference with CEN standards is that most HL7 v3 voters vote only if they have someting to contribute, similar as you describe for OpenEHR. On the other hand, I've seen many CEN members not really voting for a standard, but just following the leader of the pack and accepting standards without any expert from that country really looking into that. My point is: again: we are arguing the wrong case, namely that of the 'best' standard. None is the best, both work depending on the goal. I would again! like to look at it from a research perspective: depending the clinical problem you want to research, you need the appropriate method to get meaningful results. The big problem in medicine is the clinical trial. Often seen as the gold standard, but if your question is what is the best care for a dying patient, this method is ridiculous and you need to apply hermeneutics based approaches and start talking to patients. A couple of months ago I asked for reference sites / places I can go to to see the OpenEHR or CEN 13606 system in action. I did only get evasive answers. I will go to medinfo and challenge the OpenEHR community to have something visible that can be used in practice, not a demo. HL7 v3 care provision implementations, based on the content descriptions in HL7 v3 R-MIM archetype format include: diabetes care Eemland, the Netherlands: Portavita ASP stroke care Delft NL Portavita stroke ASP (parts are working, stroke requires hundreds of screens and instruments, some are operational, others are not yet) EHR system developed bij Academic Hospital Nijmegen NL: HL7 v3 Care Provision based. exchange of v3 referral messages: Hospital Almere NL Obec Eindhoven NL HL 7 v3 implementation for social support care (aged care, meels on wheels) Zoombim, Hilversum NL: HL7 v3 implementation for social support care IZIT Twente: access via HL7 v3 to the national registry up and running Healthphone Auckland (NZ) telehealth application, eg. used for diabetes: working application based on HL7 v3 RIM I can show it NOW! So I do like the R&D AND show it approach: real world running systems, although I admit: it is not full blown yet, not millions of messages a day or hundreds of patient records a day. > The question raised is: can we trust it. > Some are of the opinion that when it is not published in a peer reviewed > journal it can not be trusted. > > Application of the rule that only published academic articles contain truths > that can be trusted, is false. > It is the review process by a few selected people before publishing that > provides some trust. > > > With EU R&D projects it must be clear that these consortia consists many > times of nice collections of the best and the brightest that are in > continuous > interaction for three years. > With the standardisation process of CEN and ISO it is clear (in Europe) that > many times people that are active in R&D as well take part in an very > interactive process in the technical committees. > Results of which are discussed in the many member states is local committees. > OpenEHR is based on European and Australian R&D > > > CEN/tc251 EN13606 (and other standards) are based on sometimes 20 years of > European R&D (plus demonstrators) and standardisation. > OpenEHR is an open source community that produced implementable specs and > working software. > > > It is on the basis of these observations that I think that work by OpenEHR, > CEN/tc251 and ISO/tc215 is much more peer reviewed than any article in a > journal. > Therefor I have much more trust in the knowledge contained in documents from > OpenEHR, CEN and ISO than articles in good (academic) journals. > > > Gerard Freriks > former convenor of CEN/tc251 wg1 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070123/7f2da398/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
