Hello! We are using LOINC in Austria for coding lab results on a national scale. As far as I know nobody needs to pay anything to Regenstrief to do so.
I am not aware of any "must mention Regenstrief" requirements, but I may miss something. Greetings from Vienna, Stefan Stefan Sauermann Program Director Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988 M: +43 664 6192555 E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt I: www.healthy-interoperability.at Am 13.11.2014 10:07, schrieb Grahame Grieve: > my advice from LOINC/regenstrief is that it does apply > > Grahame > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > <mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: > > > Something that has become clear in CIMI, and will affect openEHR, > 13606 and most likely any archetype developer is that > acknowledgements of 3rd party copyrights and trademarks need to be > made. The most obvious common one is likely to be for SNOMED CT > codes in archetype bindings (Stan Huff at Intermountain is still > working on whether such acknowledgements are needed for LOINC > codes). However, it could be for anything, e.g. rights to use a > scale like Barthel or Waterlow. > > At the moment there is no dedicated place in the model for this > particular meta-data. It could just go in 'other_details' but I > suspect that we need to be more precise than that. Consider for > example, the openEHR Barthel scale archetype - it currently > carries this text in the 'Use' section: > > Note: > The Maryland State Medical Society holds the copyright for the > Barthel Index. It may be used freely for non-commercial > purposes with the following citation: > Mahoney FI, Barthel D. "Functional evaluation: the Barthel > Index." > Maryland State Med Journal 1965;14:56-61. Used with permission. > > Permission is required to modify the Barthel Index or to use > it for commercial purposes. > > This seems less than optimal, and is certainly not going to be > reliably tool-separable from the main 'Use' content, since the > word 'Note:' and the placement of this text are purely local choices. > > There is another issue here. The acknowledgement text actually > included in the archetype needs to be minimal, and as far as > legally possible not contain volatile elements that can change. > Therefore, I think the general approach needs to be as is > typically done with open source licences: not including the whole > text, but including a reliable URL to the licence text either from > the issuer (e.g. Creative Commons CC-BY page) or an agreement > between the publisher and the licensor (e.g. between IHTSDO and > CIMI for the use of SNOMED CT, and details of that use). > > I have updated the meta-data page on the wiki > <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data>to > indicate what I think is the requirement - see end of the main table. > > I am increasingly of the feeling that we need to act on this soon. > > - thomas > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > <mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org> > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > > > -- > ----- > http://www.healthintersections.com.au / > grahame at healthintersections.com.au > <mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au> / +61 411 867 065 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141113/caccd8ca/attachment.html>
