Of course, I talk a lot with medical professionals, it is part of my profession, I am even married to one. They need of course a good messageformat and a good use of that format. Their main goal is to exchange information. Precisely record linkage, as you express it is nice, but also will remain nice to have.
There will never be one system controlling the world, datamapping will always be needed. Please translate the word "always" as " in my time", which will be more then ten years, insha'allah . And you are right that physicians want a professional view on their profession which they don't want to invent themselve. But still, inside that professional point of view, they have need to connect to systems that are different designed as their own, and thus mapping will be needed. This mapping, however, is not done by technicians, but by medical informaticians. The technicians follow the orders. It is not ideal, but it is reality. Bert Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 7 apr. 2013 om 02:36 heeft "jussara.macedo" <jussara.macedo at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > Sorry, Bert, IT guys want freedom to model and to code, not us. Clinical > practice can be different but shared clinical knowledge is pursued by us > since medicine exists, / always trying to be taken as a whole scientific > subject. Mapping never, in my experience, which is precisely record > linkage,can translate exactly the original statements , and it's expensive > and time consuming. Erik has pointed that out brilliantly in his doctor > thesis. > We just don't know anything on how IT people translate our requirements into > bits and bytes. OpenEHR and the controled clinical knowledge > management,based on collaboration and consensus driven for us clinicians > iseems to br the right way to proceed, it's clinicians on the wheel. But i > think it's a pain to IT developers. No matter they use adl, xml, ocl, > whatever, we do need a maximal data set and reuse the models with some > specializations. That's all we do in our daily work. We adapt the common > knowledge to our practice, using for that our personal knowledge and > professional experience. We do not create our personal view of medicine. > > Sent from my iPhone > S > On Apr 6, 2013, at 8:35 PM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: > >>> That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability. >> >> As far as I can see, also from my experience, nor OpenEHR, nor MLHIM will be >> the only datamodel system on the world. Cooperation with other systems will >> always need a message-format. The same goes for other systems. Mapping will >> always be (at least partly) done manually. >> >> The goal, what the customer wants, is not a solution, which dictates him to >> throw away his system, but he wants connectivity in which his system can >> participate. >> >> This fact makes this discussion purely academical. >> >> Bert >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >> >> Op 7 apr. 2013 om 01:13 heeft Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at >> oceaninformatics.com> het volgende geschreven: >> >>> That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
